[Geezer]

I heard that Bush's polling numbers have gotten so low that they've moved up the capture of bin Laden to September.

[Liberator]

I'm not saying Bush is perfect, he's flawed like the rest of us.  It's just that most of his opponents/detractors are more flawed.

Also notable, ask any economist worth his calculator, it takes years(5+) or decades for meaningful economic change to take place.

[an0n]

Yeah, only because they go "You've got 12 years to comply with this new law".

[Stryke 9]

So if, say, Exxon starts losing money (due to new taxes, change in the business environment, all its competitors suddenly deciding there's a better market or production environment somewhere else, whatever), it takes the company 5 years to start firing everybody it can reasonably get away with? Or it just takes five years for those people to no longer have money after they're fired, and cease to contribute meaningfully to the economy until they're rehired?


My entire ass. Changes take place precisely when they do. If there is a delay, one will see a gradual change over five years as whatever change it is slowly takes effect, not some ****ing magical extended holdoff where everything stays the same until suddenly everybody simultaneously realizes the economy was supposed to go down the ****ter five years ago. What we've seen here is a rapid worsening of status starting roughly from the time Bush started dicking with things, exacerbating an existing bad situation.

[an0n]

I am impressed with your use of the word 'exacerbating'. Kudos.

*gives Stryke a cookie*

[Stryke 9]

Well, occasionally "fuck" just won't do it.


Occasionally.

[Rictor]

See. Not all those who oppose Bush are hippy treehuggers. Ocassionally, you get a raging madman among the ranks. How do you like dem apples.

And Liberator, not to completely discredit your 5 year rule, but is it not very convenient that the time it allegedly takes for economic change to occur just slightly exceeds the length of 1 Presidential term? That way, whatever goes wrong up to and including the re-election bid by an encumbent can easily be blamed on the previous President. Am I wrong?

[Stryke 9]

I only became a "raging madman" thanks to how ****ed politics are nowadays, thank you very much. You Democrat pussies are too busy sucking neofascist cock, somebody's got to be pissed off at how badly things are going and now much nobody cares.

Hell, matter of fact I can only recall one occasion in the past four years when you lot actually put up a coherent opposition to something Bush wanted in Congress. So, really, what gives you the right to sneer at anybody's politics. At least the far-right wackos get things done...

[CP5670]

It sure makes your posts funnier to read, though.

[Stryke 9]

Well, the point was more that they're more fun to write this way, but whatever.

[an0n]

Death to the pie!

[Rictor]

And I never said I disagreed. I am a supporter of the Left's ends, but of the Right's means.

They have an agenda, and will sooner die than give in. The current Dems in America, though I'm not really old enough to remember any other kind (which might be saying more about them than about me), will take everything laying down. So long as the big bad men don't yell at them. Or call them horrbile, incomprehensible names. Such as Liberal.

I doubt they could mount a serious opposition if they tried, which they don't. The recent Democratic candidacy business is a nice example. How they go about winning, is they support the most right-leaning candidate. They stake their victory not on providing a better alternative to Republican policy, but rather on being a more moderate kind of Repulicans. Sharpton was never really considered a serious candidate, and Kucinich was sidelined from day 1, instantly disqualifying him. Now, Dean has dropped out, and who you're left with is the two most right-wing of the possible candidates. Wonderful how that works, eh? That is, if they even win. Which, given the fact that they are making 0 effort to prevent Bush & Co. from stealing it again via electronic voting machines proven time and again to be rigged, is not too good.

But hey, what am I gonna do about it. This is going on cause the American people are allowing it. Four more years? Forty more?  Ain't nothing gonna happen 'till people wise up and develop a backbone. Half of those people  (in all likelyhood, more) currently gving Bush the finger were giving Clinton standing ovations while he instituted more or less the same policies as Bush. Somehow, people get the idea that unjustified, illegal, immoral war is somehting that Dubya thought up one day. Cause it easy to say "Yeah, Bush as a President sucks, look how he's perverted our peace-loving, just ways". Its a whole lot harder to admit that pretty much every President in recent times has done that, regardless of political leaning. With your consent. Except they had more brains and either a)got better PR or b)got the CIA to do it in secret.

Viva Canada, where the PM actually, get this, promised to resign if he was found guilty of being in any way involved in a recent scandal involving large amounts of stolen government money. What we need is good old fasioned invasion from up North.

/rant

[Stryke 9]

Aight then.

Though I think the popular catchphrase these days is anti-American, not Liberal.

After all, why turn a legitimate political outlook into a perjorative when you can get these great McCarthyist overtones and come out sounding like some horribly maligned innocent minority?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Liberator
It's like when they attacked Reagan for the whole Ketchup debacle.  

THE PLAYBOOK is really getting old.

Yeah. Shame they attacked Reagan with the truth: ketchup isn't a vegetable. And reclassifying a service job as a manufacturing job is NOT job creation.

Lets deal in facts instead of insinuating that disagreeing is the same as spinning it or lying.

[an0n]

I find it odd that'd you differentiate between spin and lying.

[Stryke 9]

Well, the whole point of spin is that it's not technically lying. It's exaggeration, selective use of the truth, etc. So that politicians and the like can lie and then say it was an innocent misunderstanding when they get called on it.

[an0n]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

[Stryke 9]

...Is a lie. Yes. His attempt to turn it into spin by insisting that sex technically had to include multiple sets of genitals at one time failed, because it was stupid. It would have been spin if he said he had not had sex with her at more specific times, or that they had not had sex together, or if he'd held up a picture of her and said "Now come on, do you really think I'd schtup that thing?".

[Knight Templar]

... but it made us all laugh, for years to come.

[Stryke 9]

Yeah, so long as we're careful to avoid thinking about the things he supposedly didn't do to her. Ow, my inner eye.