Addressing my past criticisms of President Bush...
 

Addressing my past criticisms of President Bush...

I'm starting this thread to address my past criticisms of our "fearless leader," President George W. Bush. In the wake of a newly resurgent economy in the US, which I happy and grateful for, I guess the question on the minds of some MoFos might be--"what does Django have to say about that?" At least considering that some of us have been resurrecting old threads of mine containing my strongly critical comments of the US administration.

So here I go addressing what I have said in the past:

As far as I am concerned, most, if not all, of what I said in the past still stands, and I stand by it. My concerns were primarily motivated by human rights concerns and questioning the integrity of the US administration's actions in the aftermath of 9/11/2001, esp. in its treatment of minorities.

Point is, regardless of the newly resurgent economy--and it's questionable how much of it Bush is responsible for and how much of it is governed purely by a rise in consumer confidence and spending and an increase in production following the depletion of overstocked inventories in the wake of Y2K--can we accept lies, corruption, bias, double standards, hypocrisy, favoritism, blatant deception and, especially, totalitarian practices in positions of political power? IF WE COULDN'T IN THE CASE OF CLINTON, WHY SHOULD WE IN THE CASE OF BUSH? What makes Bush so special that we have to sit back and do nothing while he continues his reign of terror? Clinton was relentlessly hounded by the Republican opposition for supposedly lying to the American public. I even remember this one time when Charleton Heston issued a public statement accusing Clinton of lying. Whether or not this was justified, I'm not in a position to say, as Clinton was a far cry from moral rectitude, in spite of his intelligence and resourcefulness. But if Clinton was brought down for lying to the public in the context of a powerful domestic economy, why should Bush be exonerated from his heinous crimes against humanity by an economy that has only recently begun to become resurgent in the final months of his first (and, hopefully, last) term?

Here are the facts, as I see them:

FACT: The Bush administration BLATANTLY LIED TO, MISLED AND MANIPULATED THE AMERICAN PUBLIC in its attempt to justify the war against Iraq--a war that has produced some heart-rending casualties and horrible scenarios, even though it did succeed in its primary objective--liberating Iraq from Saddam's dictatorial rule. The fact is that the basic motivation of the war--weapons of mass destruction and a supposed connection with Al Quaeda--was an outright deception from the start.

FACT: The Iraq war was driven primarily (if not solely) by a profit motive--the major beneficiaries include US oil barons, defense contractors and contractors for the rebuilding of Iraq, such as the Bechtel group, etc. All of which have indisputable ties with the Bush administration--Bush himself has major interests in the petroleum industry, defense/armaments contractors contribute heavily to the Republican fund as well as support the NRA, and the Bechtel group is largely constituted of Reagan administration retirees in its management.

FACT: The Patriot Act and the appointment of Tom Ridge indisputably undermine the civil liberties and privacy rights of American residents. Furthermore, they are severely threatening to human rights in America--esp. the rights of minorities.

FACT: The Bush administration is closely allied to and affiliated with Pakistan--a totalitarian military regime that even now sponsors, supports and harbors fugitive Al Quaeda terrorists--the real culprits of 9/11.

FACT: Several US citizens and residents have been apprehended and forcibly detained purely on the basis of suspicion, owing to their ethnicity, in the aftermath of 9/11/2001. Some may call it racial profiling--I call it discrimination, prejudice, bias and institutionalized racism.

FACT: While Bush has launched a deceptive and morally questionable war against Iraq, his longtime nemesis, he remains closely allied with the Saudis, while, in fact, Saudi Arabia's human rights record is one of the worst in the world, and, in addition, ALL of the 9/11 terrorists, in addition to Osama bin Laden, were of Saudi origin.

There is no resurgent economy. We're at rock bottom, what did you expect? It's a bounce.

Well, then, what I said applies all the more! All the more reason for Bush to be removed in the next election!

Add to that the $87 billion price tag attached to the aftermath of the Iraq war--an additional burden on the US taxpayer.

I'll get to Django's weekly diatribe a little later.

Forgive me for being so blunt, but what freaking dimension do you live in? Do you block out, mentally, any news which doesn't allow you to live under the delusion that we've elected the economic Antichrist?

I think sunfrog has a point. The economic recession, after carrying on forever, is currently experiencing an inevitable resurgence--just part of the natural cycle, in my opinion. As a matter of fact, the overstocked inventories, following Y2K, have been depleted, and production is on the rise again to restock those inventories. This is leading to a resurgence in the economy, more than anything else. Jobs are slowly becoming available. People are slowly becoming more and more upbeat. Thus consumption is also on the rise. I'm not sure how the administration, with its ongoing war in Iraq, is playing a role in any of this. Tax breaks don't mean very much if you don't have a job. The victory in Iraq may have boosted public morale for awhile, but the subsequent news of ongoing trouble in occupied Iraq is having just as much of a demoralizing effect. So... is Bush in any way responsible for the current economic resurgence? I don't really believe so.

It's only "part of the natural cycle" in the sense that when things go wrong, people tend to favor change or reform of some sort. A recessive economy will not inevitably bounce back if some change is policy is not made.

As for "carrying on forever" -- I'm virtually positive it was one of the shortest recessions in American history. That claim, like the overwhelming majority of criticisms leveled against Bush, is utterly lacking any historical perspective.


I'm afraid that's simply not true. The three highest indicators which led the way during the third quarter boom were Fixed Residential Investment, Fixed Investment, and Fixed Nonresidential Investment.

The idea that this boom is the inevitable result of a mass restocking following Y2K (which took place almost three years ago now, don't forget), doesn't have much basis, as far as I can see. It seems more like a logical-sounding theory than it does an economic reality. This is proven through the fact that the original annualized rate of 7.2% had inventories making a sizable retraction from the growth. That is, that remarkable rate of growth did not rely on inventory, but was in fact hurt by them.

Inventories are significantly responsible for the revision to 8.2%, however, but as the original number shows us, they are not the bedrock of this "bounce."


Setting aside the fact that the unemployment rate was never particularly high, tax cuts mean loads to you if you happen to employ other people. A struggling business will almost inevitably look for ways to cut back on its staff. A thriving one will almost inevitably look for ways to expand and growth, thus necessitating more employees.

People forget that jobs come from businesses and corporations. They tend to think of employees and employers as enemies, rather than partners (which they are; they quite clearly depend on one another).


Of course he is. The GDP has reacted noticably to his policies.

http://www.movieforums.com/gdp.gif

June 7th, 2001 is the day Bush's first tax cut was signed. His second was signed in late May of this year. IE: just a month before the booming third quarter began. If you maintain that Bush is not the one responsible, can you point me to another change between now and then which can claim the credit, instead? And please, no more vague assertions about morale. Long-term economics is not subject to arbitrary mood swings.

In addition, I find it horribly convenient that when the unemployment rate rises, or the GDP falls, your kneejerk reaction is to unlease your bile on Bush. But when we experience the largest annualized rate of growth in 20 years, you go searching for reasons to hand someone else the praise.

:laugh: Why do I find that arrow hillarious as hell?

I won't pretend to be qualified or knowledgeable enough to assess the data and assertions you have presented here. I'll leave that to the economists to work out. I'll simply state the facts I base my claims on:

1) The recession has been carrying for a couple of years at least. It may not be as long as the Great Depression, but it was long enough to do a great deal of damage.

2) I'm not sure you understand my point regarding inventories. I'm not sure I understand your point either. What I said was that inventories were vastly overstocked following Y2K in anticipation of a panic situation. As a result, production was on the decline for awhile. I believe this factor contributed to job layoffs, which, in turn, negatively affected consumption, and so on and so forth. Now that inventories have been depleted, it seems that production is on the rise again.

3) I'm not sure if tax breaks necessary compel businesses to expand and grow and employ more people. I think that growth comes about as a response to demand. If the demand is down--the economy is recessive--I don't see growth happening. Tax breaks may make a little more money available to a business, but hardly enough to justify widespread re-employment of a workforce. On the other hand, if the economy is expansionary, if production is on the rise necessitating a larger workforce in anticipation of high levels of demand, businesses will start employing even if it means running up a short-term budget deficit. So I don't think your point is valid.

4) I can't comment on your chart, because I'm not aware of the sources. All I can say is that I know for a fact that the stock market went down in a major way in the latter part of 2001, especially following 9/11, and has only begun to recover in the last 6 months or so.

:) - i think it's a bit to far to the left personally ;)

Hmm, so the tax cuts included corporate tax. I didn't know that - i assumed it was just income tax etc.

Yods, surely "arbitary mood swings" do affect economics - what about confidence in the stock market? There's a lot of speculation and chinese-whispers rumour-mongering that goes on. Articles i've read speculate/claim that drops and rises have occured which reflect expectations concering the war etc for example. (not everything in economics is logical - what about that international merger Chrysler went thru that caused them to get kicked off that measurement-system for the top 500 US business etc [whatever it's called], coz they were now "half"-german, and so investment/confidence in the company dropped etc. Altho that's not really emotional in cause the reaction looks like it was - or at the very least, fairly uninformed)

As for bush-baby - it seems his policies have affected the turn-arounds, but I see bad precedents in the reduction of social-welfare that surely must accompany such tax-cuts (and the increased burden on middle-earners seems a bit ****ed up)

Any idea if this stat i've read is true: 40% of US wealth is owned by the wealthiest 1% - sounds ridiculous but it's from a credible source and was compared with a 18% in-the-top-1%'s-hands assessment of the UK

ps. EDIT: would your "old man" say what GW has been doing recently is "jawboning"/talking-down the dollar? i.e. all the kerfuffle with China? ;)

p.p.s. i'll do you the favour of not talking about how he's shot himself in the foot with the steel-tariffs ;) - wise and economically sound leader that he is..... ;)

That remains arguable, at best, and still does not account for the other grave concerns that I and many others have with Bush and his administration. My point was that even if he is (partially) responsible for this belated economic turnaround, which, as I said, remains arguable, it still does not justify the fact that he has deliberately lied to and misled the American public, as well as the other serious issues I've listed above.

Oh Djangs, stay on the point. I hate the evil little monkey boy as much as you do - but considering that economic incompetance is one thing that could swing voters come election time (and god are things looking entrenched otherwise from what i can glean), don't you think it would be a good idea to investigate that as a stand-alone issue? His foolishness over steel-tariffs etc are a chink in his knuckle-dragging armour, and something that should be followed up. His apparent games with the dollars' strength are another.

I'm not saying you shouldn't push for an investigation into the war. You should. But for all intents and purposes the economy is another matter. (as much as the ole petrodollar-system will rear its head over time ;))

Sure, the economy is a crucial factor, but my main reason for starting this thread was to investigate the other issues I mentioned. Also, I don't hate Bush... I just seriously question his competence and capability as President of the only superpower in the world. Add to that the fact that he has a below-average IQ (the lowest IQ in the history of the American Presidency, apparently) and the fact that his entire presidency seems to hinge on waging an unjust, unjustified war against Iraq... sure economic competence is a crucial factor, but only because the economy has recently begun to swing around... and I don't really believe Bush is responsible. My real concern is that Bush is simply lacking in ability, conscience and moral fibre, intelligence and integrity, and simply does not deserve to be President of the United States. He is seriously compromising the credibility of the US Presidency--far more than Clinton ever did with his bedroom antics. I don't consider myself qualified enough to investigate the role he has played in the economic turnaround (which I am indeed grateful for), but I suspect, based on whatever limited knowledge I have on the subject, that it is not very significant. My personal concerns are the ones I have listed above.

Exactly where did you find this information?

Whether it is or not, that whole bit sounds so totally ripped from somewhere else.

Heheheh, i wish i had your self-control and magnamity sir Djouster :p . I just hate him....for:

-causing my country to make itself a target for terrorists (without having satisfactory plans for tackling said international terrorism, but instead increasing it and providing it with a new base. Him and his Reagan-ite cronies handled Iraq like an eye-catching juggling ball while turning it into a ticking-time-bomb free-for-all)
-prompting the worst misdeception by a british government of its own populace and parliament for decades.
-Over-seeing extentions of the socially-destructive, poverty-divide-increasing "over-capitalism" that other countries will no doubt mimick if the gimicks seem to pay off on a bare-faced profit-for-the-upper-echelons level (while numerous dollar-only product pricings mean everyone has to keep the US economy smiling, or there's will start sliding too)
-Denying that global warming is almost certainly affected by human behaviour, when even his own state departments say it's so, and pushing future-hydrogen energy "solutions" which will produce yet more gas-attacks on the world's delicate stores (not to mention "polluting" said reports with vague wording of the science where there is as little doubt as has ever been seen on an international scientific scene of such complexity, to the extent that the departments gave up on publishing them.)

Oh and there's more, but i just popped my head round the door for a while, before writing an encore to the text that i'm fighting with ;)

Here's a near mystical muse on the fiscal state of play from the FT a few weeks back. S'all greek to me tho :)

http://www.golgot.freeservers.com/Do...-doomsters.htm EDIT: working now, for those that care to masticate like a cow on it ;).

I read it on the internet, at a pretty reliable source. I will, in due course, dig up that source and present it before you.

Not ripped off at all.

:yup:

You don’t by chance remember if your source was the Lovenstein Institute in Scranton, Pennsylvania do you? And if it wasn't, I would be very interested to know exactly what your source was.

To be perfectly frank, I think perhaps you are pretending to be "qualified" enough to assess the data. If you didn't believe you were, would you really be stating -- several times, no less -- that he doesn't deserve the credit?

This simply isn't true. It is my understanding that the word recession is an economic term with a precise meaning, and does not merely refer to any period in which growth is less rapid than the period before. Under the actual definition, the recession was quite short. Slow growth, in other words, does not constitute a recession.

More importantly, though, is the fact that it didn't do a "great deal of damage" by any reasonable standard, unless you are intent on ignoring our economic history. As I alluded to in my last post, the exaggerative claims about the economy are stunningly short-sighted. You'd think we've always lived under 4% unemployment and 5% annualized growth with the way people were crying foul. I guess you can thank Reagan and Clinton for spoiling us all.


Ah, I see. My mistake; I thought you were using this to explain the surge in growth. The clarification is appreciated.


I couldn't disagree much more. This is an echo of your previously stated demand-side view of economics, which I'm afraid doesn't hold any more water now than it did when we discussed it months ago. The demand is there. People always want things, but don't always have the money to act on their desire. Most get their money through employment; employment provided by businesses. Ergo, a climate friendly to business is a climate friendly to hiring.

If there's one single economic principle that everyone here should be able to agree on, it's that tax cuts stimulate economic growth. This has been more or less empirically demonstrated. The only potentially valid gripe against them is that a certain base level of taxation is needed to provide various social services, or that certain tax cuts may unfairly target certain income brackets. But there shouldn't really be any debate as to whether or not they do, in fact, increase overall growth. They most certainly do, as the chart provided in my last post helps to illustrate.


The source is Economy.com -- it's a simple chart generated from raw economic data. I can send you the numbers themselves, quarter-by-quarter, if you like. I welcome you to verify it.

As for the stock market: it took a bit of a downturn around the middle of 2001, but almost totally rebounded (over 10,000) around the end of the year. The big drop came in the middle of 2002, when it sunk to roughly 7,600. You're right, however, when you say that the recovery has taken place primarily over the last 6 months, as each of the last two quarters has seen a job of roughly 800-900 points.

That's neither here nor there, though, unless you can show that the drop in mid-2002 is somehow Bush's doing, or that the growth in the last quarter is not. So what of it? Is the GDP surge that immediately followed his first tax cut a coincidence?


While you're almost certainly telling the truth when you say you read it on the Internet, I don't believe you are when you say you read it from a "pretty reliable source," because it's already been debunked. I wouldn't feel too bad if I were you, however...like your claim about the Veterans, you're not alone in being duped by this one.

Caitlyn gets points for identifying the fictional institute from memory. :)

Actually, now that I look at it a bit more closely, it's supposed to be a tad farther to the left, I believe, as June takes place in the 2nd quarter.


You're correct; which is why I included the "long-term" qualifier. People can be duped for a bit, sure, but if, say, an economy is friendly to new business, the entrepreneurs therein will inevitably perceive this, even if not right away. What I'm really getting at is that economics is not all smoke and mirrors. It's about the incentive structure, and when you step back and analyze the long-term picture, people and businesses tend to react in the ways you would expect them to to their economic situation.


From what I understand, every single income bracket has been given a cut. I also believe the wealthy have been given a larger cut, proportionately, but given that they've been taxed disproportionately for some time, this isn't inherently unjust. I believe the wealthy still pay far, far more than their "share," so to speak.


I'm not sure. Sounds high to me, but I really couldn't say. I suppose I can try to find out, if you wish. I would be a bit curious, myself, as to what the number is.


He's written a bit about it lately, I believe. He regards it as being the only real threat to what looks to be a period of growth capable of rivaling Reagan's boom in the 80s and Clinton's in the 90s.


Depends on whatcha mean. He shot himself in the foot by introducing them in the first place, but at least he's realized his error. I never said the man was perfect; his "strategery" could use some fine-tuning. :)

I got the same e-mail several months ago… :D

So much for accuracy :p ;)

Yeah, i guess the problem i sometimes have with economics, from my background of ignorance, is that there does seem to be a lot of disagreement about the complex inter-relation of policies etc i.e. what works, what doesn't, what causes what etc. (see the link posted after my traditional anti-bush-rant ;) - it's all a bit like global-warming to some extents - everyone agrees on the results/current-situation, but there's problems quantifying the process) So i guess, on that level, i still see guess-work and human-error and unquantifiable-complexity as playing a large part in what is sometimes seen as a clear-cut set of equations.

This article argues otherwise on the tax thing - to the extent that it sees the middle-ranks as now taking up most of the slack. It's also the one with the the wealth stat [annoyingly he doesn't source it, but i checked on some of the sites he does mention, and only found one 40/1 percentage stat, but it said something that seemed different - i.e. that the top 1 percent had the same wealth as the bottom 40 or something - i'm assuming he's a better jorno than to mean that]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...077836,00.html

Hmm, does look a bit daft doesn't it.

Has he back tracked on it then? He hadn't by the time of his visit over here. This article claims he's damaged local industries etc, that's what i was mainly talking about - tho of course the EU has gone ballistic about it and was threatening huge trade fines last i heard.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3256197.stm

So does the president have a low IQ? I don't want to read through Yoda's post.

According to the The Lovenstein Institute, he does… and the following page on their web site goes on to deal with Bush’s brain implant and how well he did through the procedure… And of course it all must be true because the IQ story appeared in Guardian Unlimited in July of 2001... :p

I did some research and The Guardian also published this later.

The Lovenstein Institute and all its works eventually were revealed, in an article published in the Wall Street Journal, to be bogus beyond belief and based solely on what had originally been a prank email. But that was not before reports of the story had appeared in Russia's Pravda, Germany's Bild and several other papers in Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States, most of which were later forced to run abject grovels

Thanks Caitlyn! :)

Well, Caitlyn, since you debunk the fictional findings of the fictional Lowenstein Institute of Scranton Pa., let me ask you this: do you really think the President has a high enough IQ for the position he holds? I.e. leader of the western world, the free world and the only superpower in the world today? Doesn't it scare you that George W. Bush holds this kind of power? Do you really think he is qualified to wield the responsibility that he does?

Anyway, to be fair, here is a news article discussing Bush's intelligence. It seems his IQ isn't as low as previously imagined (91, which is just above moronic).

FYI (not to boast, but to establish my own credibility), I scored 1360 in the SATs (650 Verbal, 710 Math) and I have an IQ of 130+, based on various IQ tests I have taken.

Noooooo. Not my beloved Guardian. I'm in denial :( ;)

I didn't say I was obligated to reply to every question, did I?

Well... no one's forcing you... but the phrase "being in denial" comes to mind...

She was imitating you, bub.

Well, she used my words, but it's a totally different context.

How so? It seemed the same to me.

Well, first of all, I answered the question posed to me.
Secondly, in my case, it was about a thread on the forum that I started and that was unfairly deleted on some trumped-up grounds. In Caitlyn's case, it is a matter of her political stance in support of Bush--i.e. her extreme right-wing politics. A much more substantive issue. Considering the fact that she has repeatedly attacked me for my politics, I'd say that replying to this very civil and simple question is the least she could do. But again, the last thing on my mind is to put pressure on her--she is under no obligation to reply! I respect that!

In fact, I don't blame her! If she had anything substantive to say in support of her political stance, she would undoubtedly have said it! The fact that she chooses to remain silent when I question her politics says a whole lot to me! :D In her position, having to defend a President like George W. Bush, I would probably say nothing too! I really don't blame her! I question Bush and his policies.

See Django? This is why I question your sense of humor. You cannot laugh at anything ironic.

Oh please. She was making fun of you. If every post which fails to answers the questions addressed to it implies an inability to do so, it would say far, far, far more about you than it would about her.

I'm sorry? Was that supposed to be ironic? Sorry... didn't catch on! Now that I know... :laugh: Happy now?

Well... she chose a very convenient opportunity to "make fun of me"! The way I read it, she is avoiding comment here because she has nothing substantive to say to defend her political leanings.

Somewhat. First, tell me what was ironic....

Frankly, I have no idea! :rolleyes:

You're completely ignoring my point: you've done the same many times over. You've "conveniently" ignored questions, made fun, and thrown insults or sarcasm at people whose questions you glossed over in favor of softball ones. Therefore, my point stands: if failing to answer pointed questions is indicative of an inability to do so, it reflects far more poorly on you than Caitlyn.

I disagree... if I ignored questions posed to me, I did so because I believed they were either irrelevant or petty or pointless--I did so mainly to avoid getting mired in an unending, pointless argument. Caitlyn is ignoring a very crucial, sensitive issue that, essentially, confronts her politics. And she is conveniently ignoring this question.

Well done Django. I take it this is all a clever ploy to show how someone with high SAT scores can still be a complete pillock. Well done.

Incidently, by posting that article are you arguing that Kennedy also wasn't fit to be president then? (christ, look what you've driven me too :rolleyes: )

Well, like I said, I was trying to be fair.

Of course, apart from the (apparent) IQ, the Kennedy and Bush are diametric opposites.

Anyway, I completely oppose Bush on his policies, on his belligerence, on his prejudice, on his corruption, etc. Kennedy doesn't share any of these traits.

FYI, the article also cites Kennedy as being "a quick study, whose wit was an indication of a subtle mind"--hardly a statement that can be made of Bush, who is singularly lacking in wit and who can hardly be said to be a quick study.

Also, there are diverse accounts of Kennedy's IQ. Some sources place him at near genius level. I know of first-hand sources that describe Kennedy as having incredibly fast reading comprehension.

I think the consensus regarding Bush is that doesn't remotely approach that level. The question about Bush is: is he a complete moron, or is he somewhat intelligent. I'd say, he's somewhat intelligent, even though there is considerable evidence to suggest he is an outright moron.

Concerning my own scholastic aptitude, incidentally--I am basically a technical guy by profession. I don't claim to have expert knowledge in everything.

Your qualifier doesn't change my point; you yourself have without a doubt ignored questions on "crucial, sensitive issues." And there's no doubt whatsoever that you've "conveniently ignored" questions which "confront your politics."

Methinks it's not the question, but the person asking it, who she thinks is either "irrelevant or petty or pointless." Every time she bothers to sit down and respond to your questions, she shows herself to be well-informed and reasonable. I'm quite sure that this is no exception.

Interesting you should say that, Yoda. I would say that much the same principle applies to why I avoid some of your and Caitlyn's questions... to quote you... "it's not [so much] the question, but the person asking it"...

Like I said, my main motivation is to avoid getting into pointless, never-ending arguments with people whom I personally deem to be lacking in objectivity (just my opinion, for what it's worth).

Deja vu?
 

Can't you guys just write "ditto" or something?

:laugh:

Ditto!

Now continue like that. It'll save time. And, erm, light-projection-capacity possibly. Hey, it just occured to me. It must cost the screen very little energy to display "black" right? Next to none even? So hell, actually, go ahead. Have this conversation again til y'all grey and wizened (or extra green or whatever). IT'll save my screen from wear-n-tear ;)

Alright, to practice what i preach...

Django, some questions for you....

Do you ever consider that you're not going to convince any bush-likers of his failings through name-calling alone (fun as it is ;)), and that providing unsubstantiated or contradictory material to justify your claims only makes things worse?

Do you ever consider your own actions childish?

Have you had a nice day?

Who's name-calling? Is my material unsubstantiated or contradictory? How so? Seems pretty coherent to me. Vis-a-vis the Bush IQ deal, I posted a pretty fair, relevant news article... actually a right wing, pro-Bush news article... but the only one I could find offhand concerning Bush's IQ.

Sometimes, yes... but on the whole, I consider myself pretty mature.

So far, so good...

You did? What happened to it then? Or is it done in invisible print so only you can see it?

You really have a problem with admitting you made a mistake don’t you? Oh… and your thread was not deleted… it was locked… there is a difference… anyone who wants to check it out can still see it…

In the first place, you have no idea what my political stance is… but have continually jumped to conclusions just because I don’t buy into some of the crap you keep spouting off…

In the second place, what I have attacked, as you put it, are some of the accusations you have made and asked for legitimate sources which you have never supplied… and after your first asinine post in this thread regarding Bush’s IQ, I have to assume that you can not distinguish the difference between a legitimate source and scribbling on a bathroom wall….

In the third place, there was nothing simple or civil about your question… it was very evident the only reason you asked it in the first place was because you were ticked off your little IQ game was exposed for just what it was… pure bull.

In conclusion I find your choice of words rather ironic… why on earth do you think I would feel the need to defend my political leanings… especially to you? Also considering the fact, that I see a much broader picture then I personally feel you can comprehend… why would I bother? Your lack of objectivity is well documented in this forum…

Right on Pidzilla!!

Hehehe. Yeah, spot on Caity.

But what's up Yods? Afraid you're getting out-numbered? ;)

Nope. Just making reference to a bit of MoFo lore. ;)

Whether it was real or not the president is still a moron.
http://www.alipirouz.com/photos/bush.jpg
Must be nightvision. Dumb too Gol

Moronic actions - i'd agree. Dumb - i really doubt it. But at least it'd be nice to have a coherent argument against - rather than a bull headbutting the (wrong) fence.

(and stop making me think of making love in cranberry sauce)

EDIT: oh, well now you've changed the picture...i take it you've heard the turkey in the recent surprise-visit was an inedible mock-up. Wish we could pin it on the spin doctors, tho it seems it was happenstance - but still, a nice analogy for his incumbency - he's a full on fake (and man does he stick in my craw. Show him the door. Stuff him, he's Bin Laden kin)

You're becoming horribly predictable. Show up, make outrageous claims, get called on them, spit out rhetoric, rinse and repeat. For both your sake and ours, lay off posting until you have something of substance to say.

Or he could've been handed binoculars with the cap on, and, like any person, put them to his eyes for a moment before realizing the cap was on. Attached is the next photo in that series, a moment later.

I'm shocked at quickly you've fallen back on chain-letter-esque barbs. I thought you had a larger stockpile of made-up facts than that.

You're insane. I can't talk to you. You're like one of those brainwashed people in a cult. Every word you say about politics is an arguement against homeschool. You need to stop defending the president. He sucks, get over it. No amount of squabling is going to change that.

And anyway I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Cait who seemed to be defending the president's IQ. My picture is to remind everyone that the president IS stupid. That email was believed by so many people because it IS believable.

:rolleyes: No, they're not. They are visible for you or anyone else to see. You may not be satisfied with my replies, but they are out there.

:rolleyes: No, I don't have a problem admitting my mistakes... but I do have a problem "confessing" to crimes that I haven't committed or grovelling to your imaginary accusations. Sorry, but I don't do that, Ms. Police woman. Take your S&M act elsewhere--I'm not interested, thanks. Deleted... locked... same difference! :rolleyes:

Your political stance is pretty obvious--you are a hardcore right-wing extremist, bordering on neo-Nazi fanacticism. At least, that's how you come across to me! :rolleyes:

Well, my point about Bush's IQ was taken from a credible source. Keep in mind that the Guardian, Pravda and Bild all published this story as truth. They were mistaken, and I wasn't aware of their retractions. As such, I admit to having been mistaken in that matter, and I cited another article concerning the President's intellectual level to be fair, taken from a right wing source, to please the right-wingers, like you. In any case, come what may, the President's intelligence is far from impressive and far from adequate to the position he holds. Still less adequate is his character and moral fiber, which I have repeatedly demonstrated to be seriously flawed and lacking. Bush may not literally be a moron, but he remains a grave threat to the stability of the nation and the world--at least in my opinion.

No, I wasn't ticked off. And I wasn't playing games either. I was simply stating evidence to support my claims. I was mistaken with this one piece of evidence, I admit it. I.e. the President's IQ is not 91 (which is almost retarded), rather, it is the somewhat more respectable level of 115-119. Still far from genius level. Moderately intelligent at best.

So... you cry wolf when I don't feel compelled to defend my politics to you, and then you do exactly what you accuse me of doing? Why would you bother... good question. I might pose the same question to you... why should I bother paying any attention to your meaningless allegations against me? And, for the record, I guarantee you that I have far greater objectivity than either you or Yoda, whom I perceive to be deeply biased.

Django, one of the most ironic things about this thread is that you haven't addressed your past criticisms of Bush, or your present ones. I'd agree that Yoda seems too attached to Bush, but you seem too attached to your perspective (which i'm embarrased to be in line with...because at least Yoda presents consistant arguments where you just insist on your rightness). The point is there are lots of valid criticisms of Bush. Can't you manage to scrabble at least one together?

The article you've posted does nothing but undermine the nature of your argument - so to keep on claiming you've justified yourself is nonsensical. Ojectivity doesn't mean demonstrating that the only facts you have contradict your argument, but then insisting you're right anyway. :rolleyes:

As for your critcisms of Caitlyn, they're totally out of line, over-blown as usual, uncalled for, over-defensive, far from objective, insulting and idiotic. Even after all your previous semi-eloquent but ineffectual and self-decieving flailing, i've still not approved of a lot of the stick that's come your way from core forum memembers. But to be honest, i'm gonna start joining in soon (if i haven't already ;) :p). For god's sake man, get a grip.

Heh...accusations of close-mindedness from the guy who said "you're wrong about everything." Face it: you're too emotionally invested in hating Bush to ever take an objective stance. This is evidenced in your many failed attempts to present arguments on the matter.


Irony: misspelling two words in the same paragraph in which you put down another's education.

If you want the gloves to come off, then so be it: you have nothing. Note the complete lack of anything other than opinion in your post; and most of your others on the topic. That's not a coincidence. Every time you've tried to engage in an actual argument, you've been more or less thoroughly embarrassed, as I'd be glad to demonstrate. Educate thyself, or peddle your mindless, spiteful rants elsewhere.


That email was believed by so many people because so many people, like you, are simply determined to believe it. But it, like your complaints, holds no water.

http://www.movieforums.com/misc/blacknight_kick.jpg
"I'm invincible!"

Yeah, the point is as well, that the IQ thing is fairly irrelevant. You categorically don't get into positions of power and influence if you're a fool. But that doesn't mean you can't act foolishly. It's worrying that Bush allegedly has things read to him rather than read them, or more concretely - that he frequently seems unable to use the English language. (Just as it's worrying that Blair has so much moral certainty that he often doesn't get involved in the complexities of situations - much to general advisors, vocal, chagrin). The point about Bush tho is that he is obviously a good person-to-person communicator, which is vital in politics, and indeed must possess many other skills. Many many dyslexic people and others that struggle with apparently straight-forward social constructs also have esoteric and concrete compensatory skills. Bush is obviously one of these.

Now personally, i think he has been involved in various outright foolish things, most noteably...

-a politically manipulative and ill-thought out invasion of Iraq (which, when run on bullish we-will-control-all-aspects and lowest-losses-our-side philosophies has promoted US-centric and shoot-anything-that-moves policies which will never win the Iraqi people over, and hence is and was destined to promote terrorism - the exact thing he claimed he was tackling.)

-steel duties, that he's finally repealed thank god, and which actualy damaged other US industries it seems. If you can't even get protectionism right then you really aren't playing the game right ;) :rolleyes:

-tax cuts that may potentially undermine social structure in the long-term.

-Other aspects of short-termist thinking, like over-protection of poorly-performing manufacturing sectors, which would potentially undermine an economy not boosted by numerous forms of support from the international community (whether it be re-investment of dollars by oil-producers, countries worried about oil-prices and other trade aspects dependant on the dollar, and indeed their own currencies being dependant on the strength of the dollar-reserves imposed on them by the petrodollar system etc etc etc).

-the apparant recent policy of devaluing the dollar, outraging the international community yet further, and endangering world trade relations (plus going against the transatlantic agreement on such things which also helps out the US economy).

-And here we get to the final biggie - PISSING THE WORLD COMMUNITY OFF in general. One thing you can say about Clinton was that he was sensative and sensible in his negotiations with "the world". Bush has gone at everything like a bull at a gate. He shouldn't be surprised when large swathes of the world tell him to piss off. And you guys shouldn't be surprised if political isolationism leads to a nasty down-turn in domestic comfort, or the morality of international action. Thank god him and the hawks have finally seen sense over iraq and tried to rebuild some of the bridges they burnt. They've possibly done too much damage to repair - but at least it's a start. However - the only way the wounds are ever really going to be healed is if you get rid of the jumped up little monkey.

There, i feel i've justified insulting the little **** to some extent. ;) :rolleyes: :)

To Golgot:

I think my remarks to Caitlyn were justified, based on the sort of nonsense I have had to put up with from her. However, the way you constantly ingratiate yourself with Yoda and Caitlyn is nauseating, to say the least, considering their hard-line position that is completely opposed to yours, apparently.

To Yoda and Caitlyn:

Okay, so you guys have pretty effectively side-tracked the issues that this thread was designed to address--as usual. When will you guys ever focus on what's important instead of making a big deal out of irrelevancies? That has been your strategy all along...

Anyway, taking a cue from Golgot, who has, at least, raised significant issues in this thread...

I'm really not concerned so much about the President's IQ--whether he is retarded or semi-intelligent is besides the point. His actions as chief administrator of the world's only super-power is the issue at hand. Also, my point about the economy remains that Bush's economic policies--his tax cuts--it remains arguable, in my opinion what role they played in resuscitating the flagging economy. I see the economic resurgence as being governed primarily by a rise in production aimed at restocking depleted inventories.

In any case, the real criticisms I have levelled against the Bush administration remain totally ignored:

• The fact that the Iraq war was based on a total deception from the start.
• The fact that the Patriot Act and the appointment of Tom Ridge compromise the privacy rights and civil liberties of American residents.
• The fact that human rights, esp. of minorities, continue to be gravely threatened by the policies of the current administration.
• The fact that the Bush administration remains closely allied with the regimes of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who have far greater ties with Al Quaeda than Iraq ever had.
• The fact that corporate interests affiliated with the Republicans, e.g. the arms industry, the petroleum industry, the Bechtel Group, etc. are undeniably profiting shamelessly from putting the lives of American citizens needlessly at risk.
• The $87 billion price tag attached to the aftermath of the Iraq war, that American taxpayers have to contend with.

These are the issues I raised--the issues that remain unaddressed and unanswered.

Heh...accusations of close-mindedness from the guy who said "you're wrong about everything."(Ok, you're wrong about politics and Star Wars Episode I & II) Face it: you're too emotionally invested in hating Bush to ever take an objective stance. This is evidenced in your many failed attempts to present arguments on the matter. (Edit: This is evidence of my many failed attempts to talk sense into you)

Irony: misspelling two words in the same paragraph in which you put down another's education.
I'm not putting down your education. I'm saying that either your political science teacher is biased, or they agree with me and you're rebelling by taking the opposite side. Something weird is going on at your house that's for sure. It's not possible for you to be so smart and still like president Bush II

Note the complete lack of anything other than opinion in your post
It was an opinion yes. And a picture. So?

Every time you've tried to engage in an actual argument, you've been more or less thoroughly embarrassed,
Doh! That link you posted had this to say about Bill Clinton "In these particular cases, a close-up examination of the photograph of President Clinton reveals blurriness around the putative lens caps indicative of digital manipulation" Doh!

To Golgot
You categorically don't get into positions of power and influence if you're a fool.
This is wrong. It happens all the time all over the world. Haven't you ever had a job where you were smarter than the boss? Btw, Bushlite went from governor to president. He earned nothing.

Our "strategy" is to expose nonsense. If you hate it when we correct you, stop giving us so damned many opportunities to do so.


Your point does not remain. Rather, my last post on the matter remains unanswered.

The issue is not reasonably "arguable." Production has risen dramatically every now and then several times between then and now, never before spurring growth of this magnitude. The President's tax cuts fit the economic timeline perfectly; see the chart I provided.


Bull. They've been discussed and debated in numerous other threads. The fact that we haven't yet responded to this particular iteration is meaningless.

Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. A wide variety of politicans, both Republican and Democrat, both quasi and highly recent, have made very similar statements concerning the weapons possessed by Iraq. This all points to, at worst, poor intelligence data, unless you believe both parties were behind this "deception."


You're being vague, but this smells suspiciously like another case of a Bush-hater believing they have more rights than they actually do. An FBI agent perusing the list of library books you've checked out is a far cry from wiping your nose with the Constitution.


If you're referring to detainment, it has both justification and historical precedent via Lincoln's suspesion of the writ of habeas corpus.


Sabah Khodada feels otherwise.

Regardless, I am still looking into this, so I've no rebuttal. At least, not yet. I've not yet determined if we have any justification for allying with either.


Glad to see you've finally managed to name one of the corrupt corporations you've been railing against. The only problem is that the Bechtel Group donated heavily to Democrats, too. The ratio was 59/41, I believe, which is pretty typical. A lot of the larger (and smarter) corporations hedge their bets...moreso, I'd imagine, on elections they know will be close (and it was obvious the 2000 race would qualify).


This is a rather insignificant gripe; the war has been relatively cheap, historically. Any military action of even the smallest size, however, sounds like it's costing a hell of a lot of money, as it's quite easy to momentarily forget that it's not as if a solitary person is paying this.


You've been arguing about the war with myself, Caitlyn, Steve, and others for months. You haven't been ignored. These are just the latest incarnations of complaints we've been over with you countless times already, save for perhaps that last one.

Obviously it is. Why should this be so hard to believe? You've given me virtually no reason not to. You've tried several times to demonstrate that his economic policies are leading us into ruin, only to be rebuked in highly definitive fashion.


So, it's a perfect example of your so-called "attempts to talk sense into me." That post, like most of yours, fails to persaude me because it consists of nothing but you mocking and insulting Bush.


Yes, I know, I read it. I guess you just glossed over the part where it clearly demonstrates the irrelevancy of the photo, and provides one a moment later with the lens cap off?


How do you figure that? He wasn't born Governor. Hell, Clinton went from Governor to President as well. Or are you implying, for some odd reason, that a politican should be given points for serving in some sort of cabinet position before becoming a Governor or Senator?

Anyway, no, it doesn't happen all the time. We're not talking about an overbearing division manager, or an irritable dean of admissions. It just doesn't happen this high up.

Django, there was absolutely no justification for calling Caitlyn a neo-nazi or any of the other things you called her. I'm afraid i'm just going to come out an say you're a ****ing idiot.

First of all, all Cait did was jokingly use your "avoidance" tactics (which you don't recognise that you constantly use) against you, having had a bit of a prolonged go at getting you to be consistant. You then assume, just coz she's questioning your justifications for your beliefs that she thinks the exact opposite of you. Which is exactly the type of either-or-ing that i get annoyed at Yoda having used. But the point is - the reason i "ingratiate" myself with both the ever fair Caitlyn, and the totally well-meaning and constructive-leaning Yoda, is that they are reasonable people who are prepared to listen, justify their beliefs and actions, and change where necessary. You fail almost constantly on all of these counts. The reason your points haven't been addressed again here is coz they have been tackled before to some extent - but more importantly coz you're so unlikely to listen to any points made, to justify why you think them in the first place, or to change if you find you're wrong.

That's why Django, it doesn't matter that i agree with many of your beliefs, and disagree with many of Yodas. You, for all your well-meaningness in some areas, are a block of stone who only seems to roam inside his own head. Get out more. :p :rolleyes: ;) :)

Oh, please! :rolleyes: I won't waste my time here...

I don't resent it when you correct me. My problem with you and Caitlyn, though, is that you spend all your time nitpicking over minor irrelevancies while conveniently sidestepping the real issues. That is precisely what you have done above--totally neglected the points I raised and harped on and on over a single comment I made on the Presidential IQ. By all means, correct me when I make mistakes--I welcome constructive criticism. However, your strategy is anything but that--it is a mean-spirited attempt to run people down by inflating the most petty trivialities way out of proportion.

The evidence you have provided to connect the economic resurgence with Bush administration tax cuts is circumstantial, to say the least. There are any number of other factors that could have affected it, not the least of which being, like I said, the the restocking of inventories. Concerning the stock market...first of all, there is no way it could have rebounded to above 10,000 following 9/11. Just never happened. It has been below 10,000 for ages... You'll have to provide documentary evidence of that rebound. In any case, the stock market going up due to tax breaks--it just doesn't happen. Concerning the point you made regarding demand...you said that demand is always there and tax breaks provides consumers with the cash to act on their demands. Well, first of all, this is only partially true. True, there is always a demand, at some level, for commodities. But, more often than not, demand is dictated by income. The demand for the necessities of life always exists, but again, it is dictated by purchasing power. And people who have more purchasing power frequently spend most of their money on luxuries and conveniences, rather than necessities. Demand is, more often than not, created by purchasing power. It is true, tax breaks give people a degree of purchasing power--but it amounts to no more than a few hundred dollars worth, typically. Not very significant, especially if you are threatened by job layoffs or if you are unemployed and homeless. My point is that tax breaks may provide a small degree of relief, but they are hardly conducive to the kind of economic resurgence we are witnessing of late (thankfully). I suspect some other force is at work here, and I have already expressed my opinion concerning what it is.

Circumstantial, arguable.

I'd like to see exactly where they have been discussed.

This is an absurd line of reasoning. We are talking about a preemptive military strike against a sovereign nation. If such a drastic action as that is to be justified based on incompetent intelligence, all the more reason for the administration to quit. As it happens, this was not really the case. At the time, the UN time and again sought to intervene and carry out more and more rigorous arms inspections, doing what it could to belay or prevent military action, but the Bush administration persisted, based on their "incompetent intelligence", which, it seems, they did not bother to substantiate, given all the opportunity they had. They continued to hold to their faulty reasoning and flawed data, because, as I have said before, their real motive was to enrich the corporate interests sponsoring them. I don't attribute the administration's actions to either malice or incompetence--I attribute it to the profit motive, plain and simple. The point to be made is how low some people would sink to make a quick buck.

First of all, I don't hate Bush. Secondly, how is this vague? Isn't it obvious what the Patriot Act implies--how it compromises the civil liberties and privacy rights of American residents? Do I really need to spell this out?
In any case, here is an article from this source:

Racially based detention without trial...this is justified?

I won't comment on the credibility of this evidence...

The fact remains that Pakistan has been sponsoring Al Quaeda terrorist activity for decades and ALL the 9/11 terrorists, including bin Laden, were/are of Saudi origin... yet the Bush administration continues to maintain good diplomatic ties with both these nations while arguing for a tenuous, at best, connection between Iraq and 9/11 to justify full-scale invasion.

I believe that the board of the Bechtel group is full of Reagan administration retirees, regardless of their campaign contributions--a pretty strong case for favoritism there. Enron is another corporation that has been contributing heavily to Republicans, apparently...
Anyway, here are some interesting links to look at:
More than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity. Those companies donated more money to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush—a little over $500,000—than to any other politician over the last dozen years, the Center found.
When George W. Bush was inaugurated on the Capitol steps in January 2001, the coal industry, which had contributed more than $250,000 to his presidential campaign, was battling a series of regulatory efforts that, taken together, threatened to make the dirtiest fossil fuel—and those who mined and burned it—economically unviable. Less than three years later, coal is once again king. Bush, an oil man whose biggest campaign contributor was natural gas giant Enron Corp., has done more to advance the interests of coal than for any other sector of the energy industry.
For data pertaining to contributions from defense contractors over the years, check out these links:
Misc Defense: Long-Term Contribution Trends
Defense Aerospace: Long-Term Contribution Trends
Defense Electronics: Long-Term Contribution Trends
I think it's pretty obvious from this data that Defense contractors undeniably favor Republican funds... for a reason, I imagine.

Since when is $87 billion insignificant? Considering that the burden is to be borne by the US taxpayer--largely by middle-income groups, incidentally, as Bush's tax cuts undeniably favor the high income tax bracket...

True, we have discussed some of these issues before, though hardly satisfactorily.

It could just be that you're wrong about him...

"Stupid" people don't become president. It's as simple as that. You might not agree with him, but he's not stupid. Unpolished? Maybe. Simple? Not in the derogatory... but a simple man is often a good man. I'm not pro 'everything Bush does' but I can discern genuine stupidity and I don't see it with this man (or any other President).

He is simpler than Clinton. We are not being subjected to crafty rhetoric from the oval office to the tune of "it depends what 'is' is" any longer.

Bush would actually have to be an Einstein level genius to pull off all of the coups that the left credits him with. How do you account for that?

Ah, FINALLY, some new-ish points/justifications to restart the old arguments Django. Well done. :p

EDIT: (btw - i do agree with you on the race-related-persecution stuff plus the Saudi points [and to be honest, the Guantanamo bay stuff looks dodgier and dogier the longer it goes on too.] - but i've pointed that out before. I don't know enough about the Patriot act's specifics to comment tho. But as for the economy stuff, aside from the valid points about demand, you do seem to be just repeating your points without backing them up in any way. Get some sourcing.)

Thanks, Golgot... means a lot coming from you...

I've amended that to deal with the genuine points you did make. But i take it from your petulant responses that you've now grouped me in with the "evil neo-nazis that are persecuting you for your damning eloquence to avoid your points" group, so i doubt you'll listen, as usual :rolleyes:

EDIT: Incidently, the lobbying points are better than they have been in the past too ;) - but there's an interesting link provided by Steve dealing statistically with the first lobbying-to-contracts issue that undermines that first link of yours on the subject. However, there are plenty of other angles in that enlighten the issue. The use of domestic-favouritism examples is good too for general lobbying criticism, but us anti-blatant-lobbying-ists need to identify the broader set of issues with the regard to the contracts thing i.e. why so few groups competing for the contracts? Why no attempt to involve iraqi-based-experience (to my knowledge)? And, why were the iraqis not allowed to make these decisions, considering only the oil-operation-expansions were really a perogative that needed to be set in motion, and that there's already enough payback to the US in the form of petrodollar reimbursement.

If you at least provide coherent information, and don't just repeat and repeat unsubstantiated claims in the face of criticism, i'm sure we can have a lot of fun with Yoda and his political-kin on the general domestic lobbying thing overall ;)

lol! What makes you say that? I was being sincere, not sarcastic... your points are well taken. However, regarding the economy-related stuff, could you please be a little more specific? What sourcing are you looking for?

My opinion--Bush is a relatively simple-minded front man being controlled and manipulated by crafty, manipulative people who are on the sidelines and who remain unseen. Bush is the fall guy, the puppet (my opinion). The puppeteers are the really dangerous people. But all this smacks of conspiratorial nonsense, so I don't want to harp on about it.

Oh, ****. That's me misreading your irony/seriousness presentation for a change ;). It was your outright accusation of: "the way you constantly ingratiate yourself with Yoda and Caitlyn is nauseating" that had me thinking you were getting all uppity. :p - you do have a convenient memory ;)

You can't just state this: "In any case, the stock market going up due to tax breaks--it just doesn't happen" as a stand alone statement. You need some back up. And the re-stocking argument you seem to have repeated, while i seem to remember Yoda raised some issues that you should probably tackle before just asserting it again without further back-up at least.

I'll wait and see if Yoda can source his stock-market claims before I investigate the whole thing further tho (or just watch you two battle it out ;)) - coz again, it's not my country, and economics isn't my bag, as much as i try and follow it. At the moment neither of you seem to have given convincing proof of either of your arguments to this layman.

(interesting dismay this side of the pond on Bush's continuing, blatant, if lied-about-by-him, policy of devaluing the dollar. Idiotic short-termism as far as international relationships go it seems to me - all to try and win an election/increase-foolish-protectionism-of-ailing-manufacturing-industries. And who'll end up with the effects of any backlash? - whoever gets in next time round :rolleyes: )

Incidently, forgot to say i am totally in line with your contempt for the "Hanlons's Razor" get out clause Yoda is trying to use (and for the Sabah Khodada evidence too. As another aside: the probable source for the British "45 minutes" claim has now emerged. It was a guy who was again low-ranking, but not a "asylum-seeker" i don't think, as i understand Sabah to be. Just a guy who was told to wear a gas mask when using RPGs. He didn't know what was in them. And how was this communicated to the UK public and parliament? That the western world was in danger of imminent strike ;) - a clear and present danger no less. Yeah - to passing rabbits :rolleyes: ).

It's no justification for an invasion based on "intelligence" saying "we were incompetent" when a pre-emptive strike requires a great degree of competancy - and a peace-establishing/keeping operation requires even more.

You're gonna have to do a lot better than that Yods. :yup:

Well, I admit I was mad at you then, but I don't hold grudges.

Point taken... I was just citing my layman's knowledge of economic theory. As it stands, I really don't have the leisure time to do the extensive research this sort of debate requires--that has been my downfall too many times in the past, I admit. In any case, the main thrust of my argument was not so much about the economy as it was about the other issues I raised. My point concerning the economy is that the Bush administration's role in resuscitating it is circumstantial and arguable at best. But I don't want to get into those details--feel free to do so yourself. I want to focus more on the other issues I raised.

Totally agree.

Incidentally, Golgot, what is your opinion regarding the points I raised concerning the Patriot Act & Tom Ridge, the clear connection between Republican contributions and financial favors and the Bush administration's close ties with apparent Al Quaeda sponsoring/supporting nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Not forgetting that Saudi national Osama bin Laden is, most likely, currently holed up in Pakistan, or at the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

I'm sorry, but it's not that we pick on trivialities; it's that you label your mistakes as trivial. You never describe them as trivial until after we've exposed their inaccuracy.

There are two potential responses to being corrected: apologizing and/or admitting fault, and trying to improve, or pretending it doesn't matter. The former is what honest, mature people do. The latter is downright childish.


What restocking of inventories? If such a restocking is actually a reality, what would it consist of? Canned goods and power generators? This is an $11 trillion economy, Uday. It doesn't boom or bust based on how many canned yams people have in their basement.

We don't have to speculate about what led the way in the third quarter; it's been broken down for us already. Things like Fixed Residential investment and home purchases led the way; things you cannot stockpile.

Add this to the fact that you did not hesitate for a moment to blame Bush for the downturn, and you've really got nothing to stand on, economically. You're trying to have it both ways, and you're doing it sans sources.


http://www.djindexes.com/images/avgi...h2000-2009.gif

Let me guess: another "trivial" correction, right?


Golgot's right: an assertion isn't going to cut it as an argument.


There's something you don't seem to be getting: money isn't real. Money is not what makes us wealthy. Take $1 billion to a desert island and see how "rich" you are. It's "stuff" that what makes us wealthy.

Thus, the country as a whole gets wealthier when our technology improves. When we invent the DVD player, the VHS becomes cheaper, and thus obtainable to more people. If you couldn't afford a VHS player when it was brand new, you didn't have to make more money to get one. You could've just waited a bit, until technology improved and they came down in price. This is because your cash is only as valuable as what you can buy with it. It is the products available, and not the amount of cash, that really determines our standard of living. Cash is the lubricant to the engine that is innovation. It's not about distributing cash to various people, it's about giving people as much incentive as you reasonably can to innovate and experiment.


If this is the best you can do, then I'm wasting my time.


If you oppose the war on Iraq, make your voice heard...
- Django: 26 posts

Who Profits from War?
- Django: 53 posts

Killed by the truth?? WMD expert deeply involved in british furor FOUND DEAD!!
- Django: 11 posts


You're completely missing the point: the error was not limited to the administration. It extends to the previous administration, too. It extends to both parties both this decade and last. There are many quotes to demonstrate this. Therefore, there's no way to pin this on the Bush administration alone. You'll have to include Madeline Albright, Ted Kennedy, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, both Clintons, Tom Daschle, and others on both sides of the fence, some of which are now vying for Bush's job with anti-war complaints as their campaign centerpiece.


I'm quite clear on what the Patriot Act allows; what I'm not clear on is what you mean each time you refer to "civil liberties" and "rights." You've made quite a habit of fuzzily referring to both, but tend to shy away from naming any of them. What essential, basic rights do you believe we've lost, if any?


From what I understand, referring to it as "racially based detention" is a gross mischaracterization. Based on what I've read on the matter, government agencies simply look for people who fill profiles, of which race is but one factor of many. It's wrong to detain solely on race, but it's damned stupid to be required to ignore it, as well.

This sort of detention without trial is, as I said, backed by historical precedent; from America's most admired and respected President, to boot. It's by no means ideal, but under the right circumstances (like, say, times of war), it can be justified.


Why? Are you familiar with it?


Try as you might, you'll never be able to pin the invasion of Iraq down to a single justification. Many reasons were given, and while some were given more weight than others, any attempt to relegate the action to one motivation is speculative and generally unsubstantiated.


This strikes me as a major stretch. It seems the only "tie" here is that the company employs people who were part of a different Republican administration which left office over a dozen years ago. If that constitutes a conflict of interest, prepare to chastise every modern Administration. Sorry, but that's too many degress of seperation for my taste. I can buy the idea that a politican might oblige people who have done something as significant as finance his or her campaign, but engaging in a massive military action, ultimately resulting in lowered poll ratings and heaps of criticism, just to please a few board members who were part of an administration within his party two decades back? :skeptical:


Sure, for a reason; just not necessarily an immoral one. Allow me to paint a picture for you: you are a Presidential candidate. You are a believer in supply-side economics, and therefore, if elected, plan to reduce taxes and remove whatever burden you can from American businesses. Naturally, being a candidate, you make your plans known. Many businesses, of course, want this, and so they contribute to your campaign.

Now, if elected, what, if anything, is shameful about enacting those policies? Obviously, there's nothing shameful about it, though at first glance it may appear as if your policies exist solely to repay those who helped you into office. In reality, candidates generally lay out their plans beforehand, and Bush seems to have more or less stuck by his since the very beginning.

Every policy will benefit someone, and any industry with any foresight will likely contribute to a campaign which champions such a policy. The wrongdoing only comes in when it can be shown that the money is what created the policy, and not the other way around.


Since when? Since our yearly GDP grew to over 100 times that.

That said, your logic is very flawed. The burden is not falling primarily on the middle-income group. The wealthy pay much, much more of their share, proportionately, than the middle or lower income brackets. The latest tax cuts have done nothing more than bring a little more parity to things, though taxes on all income brackets were cut. The rich remain inordinately taxed, and still foot a great deal of the tax bill. The fact that the rich are paying a less exorbitant percentage than before has in no way shifted the burden onto the middle-income brackets.

On a related note, I find it interesting that $87 billion roughly divided by the number of American citizens yields an average of about $300 per person. Or, in other words, several hundred dollars, a figure you referred to earlier in your post as "not very significant."


This smacks of hypocriscy. When it comes to my laundry list of complaints with you, the fact that we've talked about it is plenty reason enough for you to move on. When it's something you'd like to talk about, though, it's "hardly satisfactorily," and anyone who doesn't reply is purposely ignoring you. :rolleyes:

So good of you to notice. :)


He's got his flaws, no doubt, but give him credit for scrapping the steel tariffs. If enacting those for a year and a half is his biggest black mark, economically, then we're sitting pretty.


I think you're misunderstanding me. You and I argue about the United States as a whole; Django's complaining about the current administration. My point is merely that this is a mistake you cannot limit to Bush and company; if there are no weapons, then you'll have to lump LOADS of American politicians of both administrations and both parties into the blame bin, because apparently they were all duped.

Hardly. Take for example this matter about the Presidential IQ--an aside I made after I posted my initial post detailing my argument. Well, since I made that comment, the thrust of your and Caitlyn's arguments have been to attack that single remark that I made in passing in an attempt to discredit me thereby. That has been your strategy all along--to personally discredit your opponents by attacking minor, irrelevant comments made as asides, while neglecting the substance of their arguments. Sorry, but your protestations ring hollow.

On the contrary, your arrogance at having supposedly proven me wrong by discrediting the side comments I make strikes me as utterly childish, utterly immature. You are obviously more interested in childish games of one-upmanship in the most petty manner imaginable than in sincerely discussing the issues.

Is this you airing your ignorance, Chris? With all your vented knowledge of economics, you don't have any idea of inventories and inventorying? Doesn't it occur to you that in an $11 trillion economy (as you noted), inventorying is on a correspondingly larger scale than in a bargain basement store? Hence the backlash in production that overstocked inventories had after Y2K, which initially led to the economic recession, as I am given to understand.

Well, my point has to do with the rise in production. Which, I believe, might have to do with the necessity of restocking depleted inventories. But, I admit, I am not expert... I'll leave the economics discussion to the experts. As I said before, it was not my intention to discuss economics in this thread.

I don't believe I have ever blamed Bush for the economic downturn--I faulted him for failing to respond adequately to the downturn--I faulted him for distracting the public's attention from domestic economic woes to an senseless invasion of a foreign country. And, to remain consistent, I do not believe his economic policies have, in any substantial way, contributed to the recent economic upturn... at least not until someone explains to me exactly how they do. Again, I'm not so much interested in the economy as in addressing the other issues I raised.

Okay, I grant you that point. However, here is a better chart... which shows that after that steep spike in early 2002, the market experienced a sharp drop towards the end of 2002, which took it near the 7,500 mark--its lowest point in the five year period of December 1998 - December 2003--which obviously contradicts the point you made.

Not so much an arbitrary assertion as a statement based on a layman's common sense. Again, my intention is not to go into a technically involved discussion of economic theory--it's to address the other issues I have raised in here, which, again, you are conveniently ignoring, primarily, I would suggest, because you don't have an adequate defense.

I fail to see the relevance of your economics lecture to this discussion.

I think I made a valid comment. In any case, like I said, it's not the subject of discussion this thread was designed to address.

Yeah, well, I've raised some of these issues before, and I'm still waiting for a relevant response from your camp--i.e. one that doesn't sidetrack to some minor peripheral issue.

I'm sorry... that's the lamest pile of dung I've ever heard! The previous administration had nothing to do with making the case for a war against Iraq. The previous administration had nothing to do with providing the flawed intelligence reports which the current administration failed to adequately corroborate. If they had, then the current administration has to be faulted for using outdated intelligence sources.

Read the article I posted... rights to privacy, to not having our mail opened by the government, to not being detained arbitrarily because of our ethnicity, to not having our phone records siezed, to not having our computer disks investigated... that kind of thing.

Well, the FACT is that people are EVEN NOW being detained SOLELY on the basis of race--without trial or any other consideration.

This sort of detention without trial may have been relevant in the 19th century, an age very different from our own in a number of ways. However, I'm not sure that the precedent is applicable to the 21st century.

Yes, I'm aware of it. Hardly sounds credible to me... one person's arbitrary testimony... a testimony that could easily have been paid for by vested interests... but, again, that's just speculation. I am in no position to rule one way or the other.

How is this comment relevant to the point I made?

Oh, please! :rolleyes: It stinks, and you know it! To deny that, you have to be singularly uninformed of the realities of this world.

True, that is a valid hypothetical scenario... in an ideal world... but hardly realistic in the real world! The reality is that campaign contributors expect favors in return. This is the reality upon which modern politics is based--corporate lobbyists expect favors in exchange for the funds they generate. My point is that the whole setup stinks to high heaven--an unjustified pre-emptive invasion of Iraq that puts the lives of American soldiers and citizens unnecessarily at risk while only increasing the risk of future terrorism against the US by further antagonizing the middle East--from which a number of American corporate interests profit immensely, most, if not all, of which are heavy Republican contributors. It just looks to me like a plan for short-term profit--favors dealt out in exchange for campaign contributions--at the expense of long-term strategic planning.

Well, it's not significant in the context of stimulating economic growth or enhancing purchasing power, but it is significant when it comes to needlessly burdening us with taxes to fund corporate profiteering. Your point about how the rich are already paying more than their fair share of taxes completely defeats the whole point of (income) taxation, which is designed to correlate to income, so that higher income brackets are supposed to contribute more, because they can bear the burden, whereas lower income brackets cannot. The difference is that a given percentage of someone's income means very different things if one is earning $100 a year or $100 million a year. 25% of $100 is $25, leaving one with a measly $75. On the other hand, 25% of $100 million is $25 million, which leaves one with a substantial $75 million. As such, it is logical that higher income brackets should be taxed more and lower income brackets, taxed less.

Well, the difference between you and me is that all I say is "the arguments are hardly satisfactory". And I move on. On the other hand, you persist in an endless campaign based on personal attacks and verbal derision, harping on and on over the most mindless trivialities imaginable.

Furthermore, as a working professional, I can only spare a limited amount of time addressing your concerns, a fact that you seem to fail to appreciate. You don't seem to have any other obligations in life than this message board--that's all very well. I can spare only a limited part of my spare time to the message board, so I don't have the leisure to go into extended discussions with you in depth over every little issue.

As such, I have to ration my time--addressing those issues that strike me as being significant while ignoring the rest.

Concerning the constant Yoda-Django dance.

Djangs: there is a major issue involved here: there's no point making random assertions without back up. If you don't want to be challenged on them, don't make them. (you know this site likes to delve into pretty thorough discussion of the issues. You can't garnish your better arguments with unsupported ones. It weakens your good cases. And occasionally you seem to refer to these unproven statements as evidence of having addressed an issue - which you haven't really. Those are the things that make rigorous people like Yoda and Cait, with their varying political and social stances, insist on more details.)

Yods: Your zealous desire to expose Django's weaker assertions to be unfounded ;) - and this i understand :) - has left you fairly unchallenged on the points where you also seem to be relying on a fairly basic summing-up policy concerning political issues. So, without further ado, let's get to your political points i disagree with (and hell, maybe the odd economic one too ;))

They're far from the sole economic black mark on his name. He's continuing to devalue the dollar. This is insanity from what i can see. The motivation seems to be to give ailing businesses some breathing space they don't deserve. Hardly the rigorous competitiveness we've come to expect from america. It's another form of protectionism. AND, another foolish wedge driven between the US and the rest of the world. He can only push the US's ability to force compliance in world nations so far. And he's already pushed far too much in one term on various issues (world security, food exports, steel, green issues, Cancun trade talks generally [tho admittadly the EU was equally guilty there - tho i do feel i can back up one element of our farming protectionism])...

All of this adds up to a picture of economic short-termism to me, when we consider that you are now running a federal deficit of 374 bn. How long can that go on? What's going to resolve it? Is he going to put the taxes back up? Or just cut services out completely? (and remember this might involve blatantly useful areas like transport maintanence, to less obviously "economically useful" ones like welfare.).

His protectionism can't make the industries suddenly provide good products again in this way - so we can't expect a flood of sstainable jobs from that area - and your 558 bn national deficit isn't going to go away until there is improvement in this area it seems to me. In the EU we're resisting his attempts to force GM products on us etc in an attempt to rescue a beleagered (and supposedly superior :rolleyes: ) industry. (and why do they need so much help? The support started before world-rejection of GM. The damn things produce lower yields, sometimes use more pesticides etc than normal, very rarely less, and have even involved desperate farmers being sued by desperate biotechs). It's just another example of inappropriate protectionism by Bush.

How long can he further abuse trade by using the US's ability to basically coerce international action into supporting you? This situation has long existed (we need your protection of trade routes, internationally. Your military bases provide local income. Your hold over multiple trade issues through dollar denomination REQUIRES reinvestment in the US. In so many ways we need to keep you happy. And that means cow-towing to aadmin demands). Bush is pushing it all too far. Clinton etc recognised you still have to negotiate.


No no - i agree with Django on his points about this stuff - and i AM arguing with you mainly about this administration. Especially when it comes to the war.

As Django points out: Clinton's reductions of the intelligence service means it was lessened. Yes. So: All the more reason for the Bush admin NOT to wage a war based on "intelligence". That simple. The blame lies with this admin. The current politicians that supported war, outside the admin, had to trust Bush-n-cos assessment of the intelligence etc. And seeing as the UN and UK had nothing to suggest international striking capability either - we had to trust that you did have. You blatantly didn't. It doesn't take this long to check the information.

And note the deception. My god the deception. According to a recent doc by the most respected political-investigators on UK tv, looking into the inspection teams in Iraq now, they reminded us that:

-the main guy in charge is not emotionally detached - he immediately claimed the bio-trucks found WERE evidence of WMDs previously - and, thanks to Kelly and his like, we discovered they were not, despite Bush etc trying to claim otherwise. They have been thoroughly tested and there's no evidence of any malpractice - despite one section being missing that would make it beyond all doubt. The point is - they certainly weren't evidence for the argument. And if this high-level guy is acting inappropriately - well, the bush-admin has had a lot of time to at least make sure it's best operatives are working in the area. This is the best they can do?

-The bush admin has pushed the argument that the cylinders found could be used for nuclear development etc DESPITE reports from their own departments saying this is not true (over-ridden). And DESPITE experts in the field saying they of entirely wrong material and COULD NOT be used for such a purpose. Iraq has very trained people - i don't think they'd make the fundamental error of using the wrong metal, do you?

On other points about the war:

Django wasn't trying to pin the war on one point by talking about the Saudis. Ironically, it's you who's trying to do that by claiming he is (and the Bush admin is guilty of centering everything under international-terrorism, somehow managing to include iraq under that blanket term, when their are numerous other more viable targets....like...Saudi arabia etc). Django was just pointing out the irony.

And a question. Have ANY of the gunatanamo bay guys been charged yet? How can they sit there for nearly two years without being charged with anything??? This type of stuff (in conjunction with understandable things like border controls concerning "Arabic" entry to the US/UK etc) is only fermenting further Arab/"Western" hostility. You may try and justify Guantanamo under war-terminology - but the fact is the admin is trying to have it both ways. The prisioners don't have thr rights of POWs coz they are "non-combatants" we are told, yet they are also called prisoners of "war" (tho most of these guys weren't on the "front line" it seems to me. In fact, do we know if most of them have crossed any lines at all? If so, WHY HAVEN'T THEY BEEN CHARGED THEN? - i believe the majority still haven't been. And the courts are kangaroo courts anyway, so it should be easy :rolleyes: - lawyers have already quit over their structuring.)

Seems to me the application of the intelligence sucks. That simple.

Round and round she goes. Are you ever going to rest this particular argument?

You have time to argue, but you don't have time to check your facts. Golgot tried to help you out...
Good advice, eh?


If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Don't whine about how hot it is.

Reading charts is apparently not one of your strong points… the drop did not happen toward the end of 2002... It was in the middle of March 2003... Just about the time of the war… And someone can correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t that rather normal when something of that nature is going on? Oh, and
HERE is the same chart you posted customized to show the results between December 2002 and March 2003...

Are you just making this up? We mentioned it to you once each. Then, following your reply, Cait mentioned it once more while attempting to demonstrate that you are someone who lacks discernment and objectivity.

This is my 17th post in this thread, and only twice before have I mentioned it; one of those times was at the end of a post primarily aimed at sunfrog. So how, pray tell, have you convinced yourself that we've made it the "thrust" of our arguments?


Look at the posts again: you were corrected, and asked spiteful questions in response. An entire page later, Caitlyn replied, addressing the issue briefly, in addition to several others. After that you started in with your accusations of sidetracking. So where's the one-upmanship? All I see is you being too proud to admit your error in judgement, choosing instead to defiantly brush it off as meaningless (a recurring theme when you falter).


I'm well aware of the role inventory plays in the economy, but apparently you are not. You're not much for reading comprehension either, it seems, so I suppose I'll have to repeat myself:

• If the restocking of inventories is responsible for the rebound, then why did they go down in the third quarter?
  
  
• If overstocked inventories were the cause of the recession, then why wasn't the time just after Y2K the worst, given that the need to replenish these inventories would be at its lowest then?
  
  
• If the restocking of inventories is owed the credit for last quarter's remarkable numbers, then why was it home sales and various forms of fixed investment which led the way?

• If the restocking is only really hitting us now, that means the items (which are highly limited as-is; there's no stockpiling of houses or investment or software) would have to have lasted in upwards of three years. This is where my "canned goods and generators" comment stems from. Just what, precisely, do you think it was we were stockpiling that was sufficient enough to send the world's largest economy surging forward at the fastest pace in two decades?

I defy you to produce one shred of evidence that this restocking business is, in fact, what happened. Because it sounds to me as if you pulled this little theory out of your a**.


I think you're confused. Production, when measured as an economic indicator, refers to the amount we produce in relation to the number of hours worked.

And if it wasn't your intention to discuss economics, why did you hop right into a discussion about it?


Well, I am interested in the economy. I think it's vastly important, and given your healthy heap of complaints, both past and present, clearly you do, too. I don't think you realize that if you can accuse me of somehow ignoring what you want to talk about (despite the fact that I keep responding to it), I can do exactly the same in reverse over the fact that you are seemingly trying to duck out of this particular conversation.


Which points would those be? I said that GDP growth began climbing as soon as Bush's first tax cut was signed, which is true (I also asked you if this was a coincidence; I'm still waiting for an answer). I don't recall saying that the tax cuts could be directly and immediately linked to stock market performance. I did, however, question your assertion that they have no effect on it.


If I've been ignoring it, what were you replying to when you wrote this post? I replied to your list of oft-repeated criticisms...I'm just leveling a few of my own towards what you've said, too.

Anyway, I've had quite enough of your circular justifications. You cannot make a statement, have it questioned, label it "common sense," and assume that settles the matter. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't start talking about it. Admitting that you're not particularly knowledgable about economics won't get me off your back if you do so while simultaneously sticking by your uninformed conclusions.


It's relevant in that it explains just why your attempt to play down the economic impact of Bush's tax cuts is fundamentally flawed.


Um, is my memory off, or did your original post (before you edited it), basically agree with what I said about wasting my time?

Regardless, you cannot start a thread about a specific issue, engage in side-arguments along the way, and then effectively dismiss them on the grounds that they were not the original topic of conversation.


This is simply untrue. Your complaints have been engaged head-on in those threads, and now in this one, as well. Engaging the so-called "minor" issues on the side doesn't change the fact that you're getting plenty of answers. Myself, Cait, Steve, and others can hardly be held accountable if you find damn near every argument you disagree with as not being a "relevant response." You fall back on the same old song when the issue of Patton comes up, too. Being able to claim dissenting views as irrelevant or inadequate is nothing more than your escape-hatch of choice.

This is one of the reasons I harp on your economic claims: because they, unlike your more subjective assertions, can be factually disproven. Maybe that's why you've begun an attempt to distance yourself from those kinds of tussles.


A quote from the President:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

President Bill Clinton, that is. He said this on December 16th, 1998. The full transcript is available online. More quotes available upon request.

As I said before, while it's reasonable to fault this administration for relying on faulty intelligence, you've no choice but to fault many, many others as well. So unless you believe that the previous administration and numerous Congressman within both parties are part of this grand lie, you'll have to stop characterizing it as a deception, and start referring to it as an error in judgement...and one that hoards of people on both sides of the fence made. Therefore, as I mentioned earlier, there's really no way to pin the blame solely on the current administration.


These things have all been long-standing practice, assuming they are not done arbitrarily. The article you linked to is primarily a discussion about the bill, and how some Congressmen felt about it, basically. I don't see how it does anything to substantiate your complaints.

There's an article it links to, however, concerning John Solomon, which is somewhat more relevant. The government claims they were searching for Solomon's sources when they obtained his phone records. Seeing as how these things can be justified, and are standard procedure when cause exists, what reasons do you have for believing it was unjustified in this, or some other, situation?


If this is true, I'd say it would be cause for concern. What are your sources?


What has changed between then and now to fundamentally alter the idea that legions of trials are not practical amidst war?


If you're going to start discrediting testimony based on pure speculation, you've left the path of objective discussion. If you're willing to do that, I can't see why you wouldn't be willing to disbelieve anything else I can source to back my assertions. Denying any such testimony makes it virtually impossible to prove anything to you.

Still, to be fair, you say it's speculation, and you're in no position to credit or discredit. I can live with that...but my gripe is with you admitting that you're in no position to judge it, only to see you judge it anyway, both in the above paragraph, and indirectly everytime you claim there is no link. It's not unlike the "well, gee, I dunno much about economics...but here's a bunch of wild assertions on the matter, anyway."


It's relevant because your statement implied that the United States' war against terror was the sole justification for military action.


Again, no argument. "Hardly satisfactory."

They're not part of the same administration. They're not even part of his father's administration. What's more, if such an arrangement is in place, it seems to me Bush would be getting a rather raw deal. Throw in the fact that your standards of what does and does not constitue a genuine link seems to rise exponentially when we're discussing something that wouldn't be damning to Bush, and I'm not buying your conclusion. You're just not demonstrating motive here, and even if you did, motive alone isn't enough for an indictment.


You're really not addressing a single damn thing I said. Your entire paragraph boils down to disagreement, and nothing more. As I stated, it will almost invariably appear as if any given President has "payed off" his contributors. So, if you wish to make this particular accusation of President Bush, give me one reason why you suspect his policies came after the contributions, and not the other way around. Babbling on about what you believe to be "reality" and launching into a speculative speech does nothing to prove your point.


Yes, I know. It's called progressive taxation. But clearly, there ought to be a limit. As of 2000, the top 5% of Americans paid 54% of the nation's income tax. The top 1%? A third of all income taxes. That's 1 in 100 paying enough for 1 in 3. Sounds more oppressive than progressive to me, especially considering that the wealthy are ultimately the ones providing employment for so very many U.S. citizens. Pretty ironic that you harp on job creation, yet simultaneously favor the inordinate taxation of those who provide a large number of those jobs. If you can't see the connection between taxation and hiring, God help you, because I sure can't.

And for the record, I don't qualify for either of the above examples, but it would be nice to know that if I ever do, I won't be brutally punished for getting there.


I don't think correcting your complaints about veterans benefits, the cost of the war, the unemployment rate, the stock market, or anything else of the sort qualifies as "trivial." And given the amount of time you've spent complaining about Bush's economic policies, clearly you don't, either. You're going to be held accountable for what you say, especially if it comes in the form of an opinionated accusation. Get used to it.


I produce a local television show, am the assistant producer of another, and run several websites, some of which I own, and some of which I don't. I also do various forms of economic and historical research as part of my job. So please, don't lecture me about time. I've got plenty of other obligations, but I manage by generally only making the claims I can support. If you lack time, then stop getting involved in these debates. I've been saying this for months.

Hi, folks... I'll come back to the rest of the points raised later, but to Caitlyn... you need to look at that chart again! I've circled the dip I was referring to. True, there was a second dip in Dow at the time you refer to, but that was after Dow hit it's lowest point in the 5 year span, of just above 7,5000.

This is the chart you posted earlier:

The dip you are referring to happened the middle of October 2002... just about the same time North Korea admitted to having nukes...

:rolleyes: Excuses, excuses...

So you're saying that because North Korea admitted to having nukes, that resulted in Wall Street hitting its lowest point in the last 5 years? Give me a break! :rolleyes:

Sorry... an error on my part. I've modified the link so it takes you to the correct chart this time.

What are the shows about Yods? (I'm assuming they're local-network things yeah? Mind you, if you were with Fox it might explain a lot :) ;))

And you run other websites too? Do they each come with their own Django? ;)

Neither is on public access, if that's what you mean, but nothing nationwide, either. One's statewide. The other is more local. Both are political.

No, I've learned from my mistakes; none of them have forums. :D

What are they - discussion shows? Good to have a job connected to your interests anyway - or are these side-lines?? I thought you were a programmer. You certainly keep yourself busy anyway. Talking of which - i should be trying to bewitch editors with my dancing tongue - or at least looking at all the more normal jobs under the sun ;)

Point taken, Golgot. I will do my best substantiate my arguments in the future. Essentially, I was making a layman-level statement about economics based on experience and what I read a long time ago. I will research this topic more fully some day, when time permits. In any case, as I said initially, it was not my intention to discuss economics in this thread... that's why I'm trying to avoid getting sidetracked. It seems to me that sidetracking is Yoda's biggest ploy, and I'm doing my best not to fall into his trap. If that means occasionally making random assertions on side topics, so be it. The main thrust of my argument is pretty extensively substantiated, as I see it.

It's not an argument--it's a statement of the fact that I don't have time to go into every minor detail outside of the thrust of my argument. I only have enough time to address the main issues under discussion--no time for taking arbitrary diversions over trivialities. I'm trying to stick to the main points.

Nobody's whining, and I don't mind the heat. All I'm saying is I don't want to waste time addressing side topics. I want to stick to the issues under discussion. No time to ponder irrelevancies, forget about researching them (i.e. irrelevancies to the topic at hand).

Oh, please, that's total bull. All you guys have been discussing are the asides, totally ignoring the substance of my arguments--until I actually challenged you to that effect. The reason is obvious--you have nothing substantial to say about the main issues I raised. That's why you are engaged in this campaign of distracting peoples' attention to the side topics--the economy, the President's IQ, etc. Let's compare how many lines you devote to irrelevant topics, personal attacks and arrogant put-downs vs. how many lines you devote to actually addressing the main topic shall we? I think that ratio speaks for itself--not just in this thread but in all the past threads as well.

:laugh: Are you kiddin' me? "Spiteful questions"? That is pure bull. And the "accusations of sidetracking" are dead-on, I'm afraid. That has been your primary strategy all along--sidetracking and avoiding the issues. I have already admitted to my errors. Why should I deny them? I have admitted to them every time--but you seem to want me to keep on apologizing for every minor slip-up on my part. I have apologized once--that's enough, isn't it? Why should I apologize again and again and again? To gratify your puffed-up ego? Not likely?

Can you elaborate on this assertion?

Well, in economics, nothing happens overnight--you feel the full effects of a given event only much later. Essentially, owing to overstocked inventories and the climate of fear and uncertainty following Y2K, companies began cutting back on production and laying off people in large numbers. This is what initially created a recessionary climate in the economy--that and the dot com bust. In any case, over time, layoffs continued as production remained down and demand was correspondingly low, owing to the general recessionary environment in the economy--i.e. it turned into a bit of a vicious cycle--overstocked inventories led to job layoffs and a drop in production, which, in turn, resulted in reduced demand, which further reduced production and caused further job layoffs, etc. It turned into something of a downward spiral, that is, until the inventories were depleted and needed to be restocked. I know you want documentary evidence, and I will provide it as soon as I get the opportunity. For now, at least, you have my hypothesis.

I think we're talking about two different things--I'm talking about a resurgence in production. I don't see how home sales or fixed investment figure into production issues.

I will, in due course. I have other obligations at present which take priority. But I won't neglect you. Have faith, my friend! :yup:

Well, regardless of the technical terminology (I don't pretend to be an economist, so I'm using layman's terms), what I was referring to is, very simply, the production of goods, without getting into quantification issues. As such, when we say "production is up", that means goods are being produced for consumption at a high rate and the economy is inflationary (I assume). On the other hand, when we say "production is down", that means jobs are being cut and that the economy is in recession.

Well, sunfrog made a comment, so I contributed my two cents' worth. It was not my intention to lengthen that to a full scale disccusion on the economy--rather, to focus on the issues I raised initially. Speaking of which, let's take a look at your post above, shall we. Only a tiny fraction of that post in any way addresses any of the points I raised initially. The vast majority of that post is dedicated to: a) discussing the economy and b) infantile put-downs and personal attacks. Talk about side-tracking! :rolleyes:

Hey, if you're interested in the economy, discuss it in your own thread! Don't pollute this thread that I created to discuss issues other than the economy! That's common courtesy for you, which you seem to be seriously lacking in, my friend! (I say this to you without malice)

Well, the timing you mention is interesting--the GDP recovered as soon as Bush signed the tax cut legislation, according to you--and when does this legislation actually get implemented? As soon as it is signed? Or over a period of several years subsequently? Thus, by your own admission, the tax cuts were not responsible for the rise in the GDP. In any case, if you take a close look at that chart, it shows you that the stock market hit rock bottom towards the end of 2002, which contradicts the point you made about how the market rallied after 9/11--what really happened was that it plunged initially, then rallied to above 10,000 points, then plunged more steeply than ever, hitting rock bottom--and it's still in the process of recovering--still hasn't reached 10,000 yet. I don't deny that tax breaks have some effect on the stock market. What I'm saying that they can't account for the sort of massive resurgence we're seeing today.

Well, I've been replying to your side-tracking, obviously! :rolleyes:

Like I said, it was never my intention to go into the economy at depth--consequently my cursory remarks on that subject off the top of my head. For the Nth time, what I've been trying to do is focus on the issues I raised at the start without wasting my breath on superficial, side issues. I hope that you can finally understand my point here.

How so?

For cryin' out loud! Can't you say anything relevant at all?

My point is that if you post a 100 word reply to any of the issues I raise, 95 words, on average, are dedicated to personal attacks and peripheral issues, while only 5 words on average actually address the theme under discussion. Who has the patience to wade through all that muck in order to get at the substance of what you're saying? All I'm asking for is concise replies without needless diversions and pointless crap. Let's just stick to the issues and be to the point. This takes some discipline which, apparently, you just don't have.

Well, interestingly, I did not make any definite statements on the economy--only speculative ones, which, admittedly, were not researched. AGAIN, for the NNNth time, I did not start this thread to discuss the economy! Why is that so difficult to understand?

The point to be made is that Clinton said this in 1998, when it might well have been accurate or factual based on the then current intelligence. The FACT, however--the PROVEN FACT--is that it was not applicable to 2003. In which case, either the administration was engaged in a deliberate deception (which seems to be the case, based on Golgot's points), or it was singularly incompetent in its intelligence work, using either flawed or outdated intelligence to justify a full-scale military invasion of Iraq. In either case, it deserves to be sacked.

Standard procedure--when the cause exists. The Patriot Act legislates that the government can do this whenever it deems it is necessary, based purely on suspicion or even arbitrary whim (as I am given to understand--correct me if I'm wrong). This is not standard procedure.

News articles I have read in the past. I will dig up the sources and show them to you when I find the time.

Oh, come on! The 19th century had very different ideas about human rights and civil rights and liberties. For instance, the Civil Rights movement did not take place until the mid-twentieth century, not until much after WWII.

THAT'S a massive contradiction, if I ever heard one! You call my credibility into question when I make testimonial statements, demanding sources, and then cry foul when I do the same to one of the subjective testimonies you present supposedly as hard evidence! Pretty shaky ground, there.

Hey, all I said was that I am not in a position to comment on its credibility and provided possible grounds to doubt its credibility. Essentially, I admitted that it was speculation on my part by saying that I wasn't in a position to comment. There's nothing wrong with that. It's like saying, "This testimony doesn't convince me because it could easily have been bought--but, on the other hand, this is pure speculation on my part, and I can't rule for certain one way or the other." That's rephrasing what I said.

No--my point is that if the invasion of Iraq was not connected with 9/11, then what business did the administration have invading Iraq in the first place? Iraq posed no imminent threat to the security of the United States. If I remember correctly, the basic argument was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and a chemical arsenal that it could potentially pass off to terrorists to use against the US and that Saddam needed to be deposed for that reason. However, this was all a total eyewash, as we have come to learn of late. So, the question then is, what was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq? My speculation on the matter, based on the evidence I have produced above, is that it was totally about profit--exploiting the prevailing anti-Arab sentiment in the US in the aftermath of 9/11 for the profit of the few in positions of wealth and power, at the expense of all the people who put their lives at risk and lost their lives--and continue to do so--in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. This is pretty darn serious, yet the evidence does seem to point to this inevitable conclusion.

The facts speak for themselves. I don't need to go into this in greater depth.

If you don't get it at this point, then there's no point explaining it to you.

Well, perhaps you're right--perhaps it is excessive. But, considering the economic disparities in the US, perhaps it is partially justified. I'll leave that to the economists to debate.

By all means hold me accountable for my words. My point is that you harp on and on about the trivial errors that creep into my arguments while totally discarding the substance of my arguments. That is precisely what you have done in this thread, for example. I raised some valid concerns in my first post, to which you have posted some verbose reponses--I would guess that around 90% of what you have said in response constitutes either personal attacks or a discussion of peripheral topics, while only 10% actually addresses the substance of what I have said. Again, this is typical of your debating strategy--to inflate the peripheral issues way out of proportion, harping on and on over minor inconsistencies that might creep into my arguments, while totally ignoring the important issues I attempt to address. In the process, by posting lengthy treatises on irrelevancies in all my threads, what you do is totally extinguish the possibility of real discussion of real issues.

Big deal! :rolleyes: How much of this actually involves working for a living on your part, I'd like to know? Also, you are on this forum as a full-time administrator--you're getting paid to run this forum, presumably, or it's your business, or whatever. I'm only here part-time--I have too many other obligations, interests and concerns to devote my time exclusively to replying to your finicky arguments over irrelevant topics. What I'm saying is, very simply this:

• DISCUSS THE ISSUES ON THE TABLE WITHOUT GETTING SIDETRACKED
• BE CONCISE AND TO THE POINT
• AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS AND PUT-DOWNS

Otherwise, don't waste my time! Frankly, I have better things to worry about.

Oh Django. As much as i agree with you on various issues pertaining to the war on terror + iraq, (and even on the general idea that Bush's economic policies may have negative effects) there are some problems that you are introducing that make discussion of these issues very difficult.

They are:

Inconsistancy, convenient memory and the "side-tracking" theory:

Here's the second line from the beginning of this thread:

So really, talking about the economy is not side-tracking from the themes of this thread at all.

Another problem is that, although you introduced some very pertinent points that need discussing concerning terror and iraq, they were to some extent repititions of old points without further clarification. As such they come across as having ignored previous discussions where everything dissolved into a haze of recriminations and nothing was resolved. To get on with these discussions we need an end to things like this:

For heaven's sake man. We ARE discussing the issues you proposed. A lot of the extra-wordage comes from you avoiding responding to points you make, and indeed personally attacking people. Need i remind you of the unwarranted "NEO-NAZI" statement??

In short, i, as much as you, would like to get some more clear and constructive conversation going about the role of intelligence, administrative-policy, and deception in the "war" issues. And indeed Yoda is obliging us by answering these points (in ways that I'm quite happy to contest :)). However, a lot of this, and valid arguments about domestic economics that links to the topic of administrative competence and honesty, are being swallowed up in the traditional rhetoric that has evolved between you two. And i'm afraid Djangs, you are far more to blame for everything degenerating into insult and obfuscation than Yoda. I may not agree with many of his beliefs, but he is at least consistant in the ways that you are not (mentioned above). When he takes what i think are "logical" get-out-clauses, i tell him so. But at least he doesn't blow-hard to obscure failings as you seem to.

If you don't want a topic discussed - don't mention it. And please try and avoid the obvious hypocricy of the statements at the end of your last post.

Hopefully, we can clear away these clouds of condescension and dissention if you'll just accept that you are clouding the issues more than others. Your points ARE being addressed. If people are addressing other points you've raised, in detail, well, you've no call to get stressed.

Now, can we clear the grand stand of all the pomp - so i can throw some fire-crackers into this conversational romp?

But wow - just to complicate matters - here's a whole new form of privatisation/contractual-dubiousness we should be addressing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...103566,00.html

30bn of the 87bn going to private "armies"/security forces - some of whom have been involved in "slave-trading" in the Balkans it seems, and none of whom are under military/wider law if they do some "off-hours" killing/raping/slave-trading etc. They're under local law in lawless countries. Marvellous. :rolleyes:

I don't see how these requirements should create problems, considering that they are the basic components of any effective debate. How can we expect to debate the issues when debaters conveniently introduce peripheral issues to distract one from the main issues? It's basic debating skills to stick to the topic under discussion and not get strayed from it.

Like I said, it's a peripheral issue--one that I have undoubtedly mentioned, but it isn't the crux of my argument, which has largely been ignored by Yoda and Caitlyn, except when I raised the issue to their face!

Come on! These are the basic guidelines for effective debating! How can we be expected to debate the issues when the threads get polluted by peripheral discussions, personal attacks, meaningless and long-winded statements that don't make any sort of coherent or valid point?

All I said was that Caitlyn's political stance appears to be extreme/radical right-wing, bordering on neo-Nazi. That is a valid statement of my opinion concerning the political viewpoints she has expressed. Hardly a personal attack. Sorry if it is offensive, but that's my point of view.

See... that's my basic problem with you... the way you constantly ingratiate yourself with Yoda and blame me for everything. I am doing my best to stick to the points without getting dragged into pointless discussions over irrelevancies, which Yoda insists on introducing to the argument. Golgot, I appreciate your insights and intelligence, but you need to show some backbone sometimes--take a stand for what you believe in and quit pointing the finger at me! I am not to blame for polluting this thread with irrelevancies.

I would like a topic discussed under some basic guidelines having to do with debating courtesy--some basic requirements like sticking to the issues, avoiding personal attacks and avoiding long-winded statements. The reason being that I don't have time to waste to wade through irrelevant comments.

Hardly condescension on my part. If there is dissension, it has to do with the tactics of distraction employed by Yoda and Caitlyn. Like I said, let's keep it simple and avoid needless complications. The reason we have threads of discussion in here, presumably, is so that topics can get addressed effectively. That's the whole idea. It makes no sense to raise issues that have no bearing to the thread--it's a distraction and it makes the discussion ineffective.

Great... always glad to get some input from you, because you always have insightful comments to make.

Yeah... the deployment of mercenary forces... very disturbing. Thanks for this insight.

That's it. I give up. I tried. Django - go back and read my post - and the parts of your original post quoted above, coz from your replies you really don't seem to have.

And if you accuse me once more of ingratiation or not showing backbone i'm going to not only give up on you, i'm going to join in with the others in positively enjoying hounding you into some internal honesty (if not track you down and beat you about the head with your own foot, once i've removed it from your mout where you so often place it).

At the moment i'm just trying to prompt you into it appreciation of your debating failings. I understand why the others hound you - and to be honest, i've got the smell of blood in my nostrils too now. Because Django - when someone questions you i.e. asks you for an explanation of a statement you have made that isn't self-explanatory, (especially if you then treat that statement as having dealt with the whole issue) IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE OF THE OPPOSITE POINT OF VIEW necessarily. It just means, first and foremost, that they want you to justify your opinions.

You calling Caitlyn a neo-nazi is totally out of whack. And in case you haven't noticed, she hasn't made a single statement on this thread that shows political alignment. Let alone ones aligning herself with Adolf Hitler and racial persecution.

Now, altho you will doubtlessly say that you are totally justified in having used this incredibly insulting term (on the justification, that she has questioned you about your economic statements apparently) i will quote these things you have stated, the second of which was your introduction to this thread:

Don't start threads like this if you don't want to discuss economics. You divot.

If you can't see in what way you've been guilty of what you accuse others of, then there is absolutely no hope for you, and i can only wonder if you accuse your own toothbrush of being Benito Mussilini if you find plaque on your teeth.

Please, please stop being such an idiot.