Thursday, July 01, 2004

Nothing to say about this, really

Go ahead and flame me.

Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Distracting News Break

Brian, did you actually see the plane hit the Pentagon? 'Cause, if not, there might be another explanation.

Let's see which thread Brian addresses first...

Bring It On

Oh, hell, jump in wherever you want — I'm laughing my a$$ off at your last post.

Yes, your restatement of my premise was correctly stated. Here's why: Governments are slow to change economies (unless they do something stupid, like say, give money to people for absolutely no reason, and yes, I can cite historical precendent). Governments, on the other hand, have the ability to immediately change the security of the country. Especially the Executive Branch. The next administration will inherit the military of the last and the economy of the last. What they do with the economy won't prove out immediately, but what they do with the military (and Justice department, etc.) can be immediately seen.

Bush 41 gave Clinton a decent military and an economy that had a brief uptick before a recession. Clinton's ability to fight military conflicts in in multiple theaters in the beginning of his administration are a testament to Bush 41 keeping the military strong. Bush then inherited Clinton's economy and military. The rest is history.

Way to go deploying the troops in all the wrong places, times, and ways, President Rainman.
Do you mean Vidal Sasson?

Ground Rules

Before I jump into your shit, I need to know one thing - Clinton's economy is what we were living in on 2001 before Bush tanked it, but it was not Clinton's policy toward terrorists that lead to the events of 9/11, rather it was Bush's policy failures. Is that correctly stated?

Please advise.
NEVER cite Gore Vidal for anything besides hair care. Take this lesson from a Historian and move on to DeNovo, Ambrose and the rest who aren't fixated on a historical figure's alleged sexual orientation.

What would a Clinton know about a sound economy? Let me think back...

Damn you, Brian, for putting me in the unenviable position of defending the two things I hate most about goverment: Sen. Clinton and taxes. But, this is the charge I must take up and, since I am unemployed, it's not like there's anything else pressing.

Due Process. Is the tax system not due process? Is Congress not the place to establish a tax code? Where does your whining about a lack of due process originate? Or did Terry sign in as you and post about the much hated taxes that the govmint and them there revenooers steal right from our paychecks? (No offense, Terry)

1%. 1% of the population pays 22% of our taxes. That's what I learned on a West Wing repeat on Bravo recently (thank you, Mom and Dad, for letting me enjoy your cable). But we all know that the economy is dependent on the people who are least likely to save: the 70% of our population that makes less than $200,000. The middle class bears the brunt of the taxes (despite the draconian tax rates of the wealthy — again, wah!). The middle class needs their money. Wes Clark had a great idea in saying that if you make something like $55,000, you should get all of your money back. Working Americans need that money.

I'm not going to say that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. To say so would suggest that life before the Civil War was uncivilized. OK, it was barbarically cruel to all too many, but to some, it was civilized. The institution of the graduated income tax does not appear to have increased our civility. In fact, based on our current Vice President's potty mouth in our most hallowed halls, it would seem that our civilization is rapidly crumbling.

OK, so let's talk about national elections. Please check my facts and math, as those aren't really my strong suits. Since 1936, Dems have sat in the White House 40 of the last 68 years (59%, by my admittedly pitiful calculations). So, two of the last five or six of the last ten really doesn't mean all that much to me. Although 60% is a failing grade in school, it's a blockbuster approval rating in a poll, a landslide in an election.

I wouldn't mind the fact that Wyoming gets more money for homeland security than New York. I wouldn't mind that my tax money is going to promote abstinence as the only effective form of birth control. I wouldn't mind that my taxes pay for religious nuts to subpoena medical records from universities to determine if anyone violated a stupid law. I wouldn't mind that my tax money goes to hire actors to tell me how good the crappy Medicare "reforms" are. I wouldn't mind that my taxes are paying a company that was awarded no-bid, risk-free contracts and then overbilled anyway while providing the Vice President with substantial payouts. I wouldn't mind any of this if it didn't come at the expense of a solid economy during wartime and everyone was paying their share. Rich people should pay more in taxes. It's as simple as that.

If you asked everyone in America if we could raise taxes on people who earn $1,000,000 or more, very few people would object. Class warfare? Puh-leez. That's soooo 2000.
So, I'm guessing your read the Gore Vidal book about FDR? You should hear what he wrote about Jack Kennedy's dad.

Tuesday, June 29, 2004


"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." [More . . ]

Fine, then do it under the 5th Amendment's Taking clause, and use some damn due process while you're at it.

This is precisely why the Dems consistently lose national elections (two of the last five? Six of the last ten?). This crap goes over with local voters when you're talking about raising local taxes to fix potholes and build schools, but when you go onto the national stage and start taking money from Indiana to pay for Mass Transit systems in California or Women's Clinics in Mississippi, it goes over like a turd in the punch bowl.
I'll try to do a lengthy rebuttal of the "Four Minutes" post below later tonight or tomorrow. That will be followed with my post - "FDR - MIA September 1939 - December 1941"

Sunday, June 27, 2004

Anyone up for a game of horse?

GWBush did not PLAY football at college; he was a cheerleader. GWBush wears cowboy boots, designed for putting one's feet in stirrups, but George W. Bush does NOT ride horses - doesn't even get up on a horse. He's afraid of horses.[More]

I've heard this referenced a couple of times. I've never seen any pictures of him near a horse.

Supporters have pardoned his verbal dyslexia and aphasia ("Abu Garaf", anyone?) as not only being unimportant but also being a trait his dad has. Supporters have played down his quote about turning to a father of strength and other signs of his poor relation with pappy as being due to strains when his sister died in childhood. Supporters have played down his arrogant economic policies as finally taking hold, despite the growing gap between rich and poor.

How do supporters handle his horse thing?

Not that horsemanship is a qualification for the Presidency. Not that his lack of horsemanship points out just how phony his rural and Texan image is. Not that his activities on his horseless "ranch" are carefully crafted photo opportunities.

But honestly, how do you guys support someone who's freaked out by everything from Shetland ponies to Clydesdales?
Maybe the horses just excercise too much horse-sense around him and it makes him look bad. Perhaps he's worried that they will call him a "Yahoo".

Pointless Ad Hominem Response

"Excuse me, sir. What the hell are you still doing here four minutes and forty seconds after being told that 'America is under attack'? Does the Secret Service hate you or something?"

Thank you Memory Hole for hosting the complete footage.