The Politics of Exclusion

George W. Bush summed up the essence of the politics of exclusion when he said the now famous line, "You are either with us or against us." George Soros, the well-known billionaire philanthropist who is currently a prominent supporter of the Democrats, commented that this line quoted by Bush reminds him of the Nazi occupation of his native-born Hungary. Having escaped the anti-semitism of the Nazis as well as the Communists and made his fortune in America, one would expect he knows what he is saying.

In the aftermath of 9/11, it seems, the US entered into a new era of a paranoid "us vs. them" mentality, most noticeably reflected in its political scenario. For Bush, "them" applies to anyone who doesn't support him--anyone who is on the opposite camp. His line, cited above, reflects that fact--"you are either with us or against us"--in other words, you are either a Republican who supports Bush, or a terrorist bent on undermining the United States. The USA Patriot Act is based on this essential assumption--that anyone who isn't explicitly a supporter of the Bush administration constitutes a potential terrorist threat and, as such, has no rights. This is not democracy. This is not America. To call such a repressive piece of legislation the "USA Patriot Act" is a joke, because it resembles the tyranny of Saddam Hussein more than it represents the spirit of American liberty and human rights.

In any case, we are living in an age of "us vs. them" paranoia--a reign of terror, it seems, rivalling the spirit of hatred and fear prevalent during the McCarthy Communist trials, or even that of the Spanish Inquisition, centuries ago. Even Howard Dean, the democratic contender for the "heavyweight title of the world"--i.e. the US Presidency--is not free from such thinking, as his campaign seems to be overwhelmingly centered around bringing down his opposition, mainly Bush, and also the Democratic Leadership Council--what he refers to as the "Republican Wing" of the Democratic Party.

It's sad that politics these days has been reduced to tearing down the opposition and undermining "them"--your enemies--anyone who is not with you--any way you can. It doesn't seem to be focussed on a constructive discussion of the issues, it only seems to thrive on personal hostility. It seems to be about winning popular support by exploiting the baser instincts of the human race--that of arbitrarily targeting an enemy and enjoying the backlash of hatred directed against them--popularity won at the expense of a common enemy. That's a sadly negative approach to politics and, ultimately, only serves to undermine the state as a whole. Bill Clinton, for all his shortcomings, was, at least, a statesman who sought to promote inclusiveness in the American political arena:

Basically, it looks like we need a radical shift in our thinking--instead of focussing on who our enemy is and how we can bring them down, we need to focus on how we can improve our situation in the world we live in--think positively and constructively instead of thinking negatively and destructively.

The consequences of negative, destructive politics is pretty apparent--the current administration is thriving on exactly these sentiments of seething hatred, vengefulness and resentment. As a result, we have the largest budget deficit in history of $1.3 trillion (immediately after the largest budget surplus in history), 3.3 million jobs lost (the most since the Great Depression) and a nation embroiled in what's looking more and more like a replay of the Vietnam War, with the Iraq War costing thousands of lives and $150 billion of taxpayer money.

Basically, I'd say, we need to quit fostering hatred and divisiveness and start working together for the common good.

The sky is blue, water is wet, and Django contradicts himself. This big ball we call Earth continues to turn.

You gonna leave, or what? Because nobody really wants you here, and if we're all the brainwashed racists you repeatedly say we are, what reason is there for you to stay?

The point of Bush's quote is to illustrate that there can be no fence-straddling on such a grave issue. He's right. To liken it to Nazis is to paint Bush negatively, but with deniability, as no actual accusation has been made. It wouldn't make much less sense for me to liken you to Stalin because you're both fond of peanuts.

There is nothing in the Patriot Act which is even remotely akin to "has no rights." You're sensationalizing in lieu of facts.

Spoken exactly like someone who's never lived under that tyranny. You'd do well to abandon such exaggerative jabber. You may think it gets people's attention, but ultimately it only alienates reasonable folks.

If someone were to randomly walk through the streets today, they'd find no noticable difference between the way it looks now, and the way it looked 3 years ago. To call this a "reign of terror" is a silly thing. Save phrases like that for regimes similar to the one whose supplanting you opposed.

It hasn't even come close to being "reduced" to that. For all the time they spend fighting amongst each other, every major candidate spends just as much, if not far more, talking about their proposed initiatives and ideas to set things right.

That'd only be bad in the other direction. We need both. It is cynical and hopeless to think only of opposition, but it is silly and unrealistic to presume that there will ever be a time in which it is not necessary to attack bad ideas. Case in point: this very post, which you use to both decry negative politics, and extensively criticize the current administration.

What does negative campaigning have to do with our budget situation?

This sentence demonstrates a complete lack of economic understanding. The amount you're talking about is our debt; it's what we've amassed. The deficit is the amount of debt we're adding to that each year. If you run a business for five years, losing $10,000 each year, your deficit is $10,000, and your debt is $50,000.

That said, you're not just confused about the concepts, but the numbers, too. Our national debt is not $1.3 trillion. It's $6.9 trillion. You presumably got your (faulty) number from the fact that the debt is $1.3 trillion higher than it was around the time Clinton left office.

What you probably don't realize, however, is that the national debt rose every year under Clinton, ending up around $1.6 trillion more when he left than when he first took over. In fact, the national debt's been rising almost invariably each year for over a century now, through both boom and bust.

The moral, in a nutshell, is that a rising debt is not a problem; when the payments come due, we always make them. Debts are paid off, and new debts are issued. Debt is not, in and of itself, an evil thing. It all depends on what it's being used for, and whether or not you can afford to pay it off. If memory serves, Alexander Hamilton understood this, but most Democrats don't seem to.

The difference being that the losses at the time of the Great Depression sent us from bad to worse, whereas these losses have sent us from good to okay. And, of course, there's also the fact that the unemployment rate has been dropping for a couple of months, and the number of jobless claims (as well as virtually all other major indicators) are very clearly indicative of a recovering market.

We can't work together for the common good if a great many people are wrong about just what is in the common good. Thus, internal conflicts are inevitable and necessary.

For those who'd rather not read the post: more made-up facts drenched in rhetoric.

Now keep your repeated promise and get lost.

You know... next month marks the one year anniversary of when Django first appeared. One year!

Amen brother!

To Yoda,
Your entire post is wrong. You're arguing to win but the problem is Bush sucks. You can't win an argument that's wrong unless you're a lawyer with a dumb jury. Sadly, in America today there are more dumb people than smart.

P.S. I agree with the brainwashed part.

What planet are you from?

Repeat: What planet are you from?

Repeat: What planet are you from?

Repeat: What planet are you from?

Repeat: What planet are you from?

Well, if you read my comments carefully, what I said was that we need to focus more on the issues instead of promoting hatred and divisiveness by tearing the opposition down through personal attacks.

Not negative campaigning, per se, but, rather, the "us vs. them" thinking--the "you are with us or against us" brand of politics--fear-mongering and hate-mongering. Negative politics

Let's get this straight... first you say that the $1.3 trillion is not our budget deficit, but, rather, our national debt. Then you say that our national debt is actually $6.9 trillion, and that the margin of increase since Bush took office is $1.3 trillion. Hmm... correct me if I'm wrong but what you are doing here is contradicting yourself--shooting yourself in the foot, even. If the margin of increase of the national debt is $1.3 trillion, then that is the cumulative budget deficit since Bush took office, because every budget deficit adds to the national debt even as every budget surplus subtracts from the national debt. So, in effect, what I said was true--the cumulative budget deficit since Bush took office is $1.3 trillion, which has increased the national debt by that amount. In other words, by 18%. On the other hand, while Clinton was in office, the budget was consistently being balanced, and by the time he left office, we were looking at record-breaking budget surpluses. Thus, it's quite evident that the Bush tax cuts are a notoriously short-termist approach to reviving the economy, because the $1.3 trillion cumulative budget deficit--or increase in the national debt--whatever you want to call it--is directly owing to his tax cuts--40% of which benefit the 1% wealthiest Americans, while the man on the street benefits, on average, by a couple of hundred dollars. So, while the economy is apparently reviving, our nation's debt continues to soar, so that, today, we pay more annually in interest for this debt than we spend for the education of American children.

Yeah, well, let's see what happens in the job market scenario. It's still pretty shabby. 3.3 million jobs lost is not a joke.

Well, an inclusionary attitude is still a goal worth aspiring after. Perhaps it can never be fully realized, but it's still a noble pursuit, and something we should strive for, in my opinion.

Django, since it is pretty obvious you’re not going anywhere, would you please tell me exactly what rights of yours have been taken away by the Patriot Act? And I don’t mean anything you have read somewhere… I mean anything that has happened to you personally that is directly linked to the Patriot Act….

__________________

Well, Caitlyn, so far, nothing that I am aware of. But that isn't the point. The point is what the government can potentially do by virtue of the Patriot Act. Basically, by your argument, if, hypothetically, the government shoud pass a law tomorrow decreeing that all sick people are to be executed to save on medical costs, I shouldn't complain about it until and unless I fall ill myself! That's a pretty hollow argument, with all due respect!

It's time to face the fact that you believe what you believe because you want to, and are blissfully unaware of the facts. Please stop posting until you have an actual argument to make. Thanks.

One in which speculation alone is insufficient for belief, and repetitive one-liners are poor argumentative substitutes.

I think we do focus more on the issues, and I have the sneaking suspicion that you use the word "divisiveness" more encompassingly than you should. It's not a synonym for disagreement.

Then what do negative politics have to do with our budget situation?

I didn't contradict myself in any way, shape, or form, because I did not say the debt was $1.3 trillion; you did. I said that the figure you were referring to was not called the "deficit," but the "debt," and then went on to inform you that both your terminology and your numbers were at fault. I was quite clear on this; pay a bit more attention.

It wasn't true at all, unless you believe in subjective terminology. You cannot use any term you want and expect those who actually know what they mean to gloss right over it.

Anyway, it sounds to me as if you heard this number mentioned somewhere, decided to repeat it, slipped up in doing so, and are now trying to hide the fact that you're just mouthing what someone else has said. This is par for the course when you try to construct an economic argument.

As I stated before, the national debt rose around $1.6 trillion under Clinton's tenure. How does that translate into the budget "consistently being balanced"? And as I said, the national debt has been rising constantly for over a century, through both economic recessions and explosions, hence any complaint based purely on the fact that the national debt has risen is no complaint at all.

There's nothing short-termist about it. The CBO budget forecast (which was too pessimistic in its predictions for 2003, by the way) has the deficit rising next year, and then decreasing each year after to the point at which we'll be running surpluses again...and that's with the tax cuts.

Here's something else to chew on: governmental tax revenues went up in the first two months of this fiscal year compared to the same period of time the year before, despite the fact that these cuts were made. Thus, there's no reasonable way to try to pin the deficit (which I assure you you cannot show to be a detriment in the first place) on the tax cuts. It's the Laffer Curve in action, and shows us that we were overtaxing.

As for the top 1%; we've been over this before, though you generally duck out of such discussions, only to return again with the same hollow gripe. Summary: the middle and poor got their tax cuts in 2001. Bush gave the wealthy their end of the same cut (which was going to be delayed several years after the first phase) in May of this year. Directly following the latter was the largest period of growth in two decades. The wealthy, arguably the key component in a proper tax reduction/growth stimulus plan, were and are overtaxed. If their reduction seems ridiculous, then their level of taxation does, too.

As I've stated in the past, you contradict yourself when you whine about the job market, yet simultaneously decry giving more financial freedom to many of those who provide those jobs in the first place.

No, it's not a joke. And 5.9% unemployment isn't bad.

The job market is notoriously laggy, and as such is the last refuge of those opposing Bush's economic policies. The Bush-haters are really clinging to a sinking ship on this one.

How is it a noble pursuit to advocate that we have no internal conflict? Unless you mean to say that it is noble to strive for a world in which every single person advocates the best and correct idea, in which case the post's primary message is just a truism.

Didn't you say you were going to leave? Don't you think it says something that you ignored this question the last several times it was posed to you?

She didn't make that argument, though. She just asked the question, presumably to demonstrate (quite well, I think) that for all your shrieking about injustice, you haven't witnessed any at all.

Thank you, and yes, that was my purpose for asking… thus far, the majority of people I have encountered who are shrieking injustice over the Patriot Act have exhibited a gross ignorance of not only the Patriot Act, but the law period… Basically the only people who even need worry about the Patriot Act are in fact the terrorists/criminals themselves…

I'll say one thing. I don't like Bush. I'll also say that according to the research I have just done on some of these facts in this argument, Yoda's numbers check out. This doesn't mean our little beady eyed pres doesn't need replacing, but the post speaks true. I am also having a little trouble seeing a correlation between Bush and a man who tried to roast an entire race in the oven.

__________________

Well, the similarity comes from the divisive attitude that Bush is promoting, by such statements as "you are either with us or against us." You may interpret the statement as you choose, but I think I speak for most of us when I say that a statement like that in a time of crisis serves, essentially, to exploit fear for political advantage. However you may choose to rationalize that statement, how it comes across as sounding to most people, in America and the world over, is: "either you support George W. Bush and his Republican administration, or you will be treated as a potential terrorist suspect with no rights." That is the essence of totalitarianism. Democracy is founded on the right to question our government. Take away that right, and what you have left is a dictatorship--like that of Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein. George W. Bush, through his statements and legislation (i.e. the Patriot Act, which I will get to in greater detail subsequently) seems to be doing just that.

Well, when I asked you what planet you come from, what I was getting at is that you live in a world of theory and fantasy. My words are based in practical reality and experience. What I was trying to say was that your words may check out in theory, but you happen to be out of touch with reality--practical, experiential reality.

That's mere speculation on your part. When I say divisiveness, what I am referring to is the tendency to make derisive personal attacks and ignore the substance of issues raised. That pretty much sums up your debating style, for the most part.

Well, negative politics tends to promote fear and divisiveness in society, which, in turn, adversely affects the condition of our society as a whole, one of the repurcussions of which is the budget crisis.

Oh yes you did, and don't try to deny it! You first tell me that the $1.3 trillion is not the deficit, but, rather, the national debt. Then you tell me that the national debt is $6.9 trillion. Well... I never said that the national debt wasn't $6.9 trillion. If you can't see how absurd your self-contradiction is, you need to look again. What I said stands--the cumulative budget deficit since Bush took office is $1.3 trillion, which amounts to the rise in the national debt.

What I said is completely accurate and concurs with what you yourself said. So please, no more confused self-contradiction!

Well, what's your point?

If the national debt rose by $1.6 trillion in the 8 years that Clinton was in office, that is because of the debt inherited from the 8 years of Reaganomics and 4 years of Bush tax cuts preceding it--irresponsible Republican deficit spending. Clinton's policies consistently reduced annual budget deficits, until he was balancing the budget and, towards the end of his term in office, had turned the budget to a surplus. On the other hand, Bush's tax cuts have produced a $1.3 trillion increase in national debt in the 3 years he has been in office--compare it with the 8 years Clinton was in office.

Well, again, that's pure speculation on your part. Speculative projection. It doesn't say very much about a fiscal policy based on hopes and dreams and speculative projections.

Well, that's because of the fact that the economy was in recession last fiscal year, whereas it has experienced noticeable improvement of late.

Okay, first of all, who got their tax cuts first is irrelevant--the fact is that the poor benefitted by a few hundred dollars on average--hardly a significant amount--whereas the rich have benefitted enormously. This is hardly equitable. Secondly, the fact that the Dow rose sharply following the huge tax breaks afforded to the wealthy is hardly a coincidence. Reflecting on this course of events it is inevitable--with the substantial increase in cash on hand, the wealthy naturally had more cash to invest. Point is, how does this increase in stock market activity translate to a rise in production and more jobs. A 6 % unemployment rate may not look too bad on paper, but it does translate to 3.3 million jobs lost in 3 years. In human terms the cost is horrific. Ultimately, it seems that the stock market jump resulting from tax breaks is a travesty, because these tax breaks came at the expense of a huge budget deficit, which seems to be slowly bankrupting the nation, especially by virtue of interests accumulated on the national debt. Question is--will deficit spending save the day? All it did in the past was rack up a steadily increasing national debt. Clinton was the only president in recent history to have actually balanced the budget and even produce budget surpluses, putting a dent on the national debt. This has been completely overturned by Bush's deficit spending. His tax cuts are completely short-termist. Will this short-term spurt in stock market activity resulting from tax breaks bring about the huge increase in production that will offset the giant budget deficits created by Bush's tax cuts? Remains to be seen.

Question is--is there a correlation between tax cuts and an increase in the job market? Remains to be seen.

Like I said, it may not look bad on paper, but the cost in human terms is what it is.

No... I think they are voicing their concern that tax breaks for the rich do not necessarily translate to more jobs. The fact is that Bush has a history of caring more about his corporate funders and CEO buddies than the average man on the street. His long-time association with Enron CEO Ken Lay speaks for itself.

Well, if we debate and discuss the issues, there doesn't have to be internal conflict. Internal conflict translates to civil war. Is that how you would like our political situation to be? An ongoing civil war? Basically, this is America--one nation. What's the point of promoting divisiveness through exclusion? My point is that the policies of the Bush administration amount to equating any criticism of the government--one of the fundamental precepts of democracy--with collaboration with the terrorists. This essentially amounts to unscrupulously milking a national tragedy for political advantage.

Well, the reason I keep coming back is to answer to all the back-biting that goes on while my back is turned.

Wow! Look at all these posts!
Here some I like:
See, this is exactly the us vs them mentality. When I was against the war everyone said shut up you traitor. Now I am against re-election and you tell me to shut up again. There should not be a shut up anywhere. Where's does the hatred come from? I'm ok you're ok. Let's hug like we did on Christmas.

The Partiot Act is horrible and goes against everything America stands for. The only people who have to worry about it is every citizen who doesn't want to live in a big brother society.

It's his logic that's faulty. Look here "Our national debt is not $1.3 trillion. It's $6.9 trillion." He says that's a good thing. "The moral, in a nutshell, is that a rising debt is not a problem;" But he uses it against Clinton "What you probably don't realize, however, is that the national debt rose every year under Clinton," So is it a problem or not? If it's bad for one it's bad for the other, and worse for Bush. If it's not bad then all you can say is "Hmm, isn't it amazing how much the national debt has risen under Bushlite?" What kind of weird logic do you need to apply to get Bush to look good in this argument?

P.S. I haven't read this whole thread yet. I have to go to work. BBT

same thing can be said for a lot of things that society overlooks
such as the word n*g*er
it's amazing how black people are ok when they say it but if a white person should say it....they'll have his/her head on a stick by noon

don't use that argument unless you're willing to use it for everything else

war is bad...but guess what...so are you hippies who go after our own people who go to fight for the simple freedoms that you take advantage of

__________________
The wold is full of kings and queens
Who blind our eyes and steal our dreams
it's heaven and hell

lol! I'm not a hippie by any standard! Neither, I suspect, is sunfrog.

You don't have anywhere near the authority to try to tell Sedai (or anyone else here) what "most people, in America and the world over" think. I don't believe for a moment that most people take Bush's words to mean that anyone who is not fighting directly alongside us is a terrorist without rights. That's your own personal, paranoid interpretation.

If Bush practices the "politics of exclusion," then you routinely practice the "politics of association," wherein you make some poor attempt to discredit someone by finding some insignificant or imagined parallel between them and some notorious historical figure. It's transparent and dishonest. The fact that Sedai sees this, despite also disapproving of Bush, says quite a lot.

It's quite easy to insist that your words are practical and realistic, and that your opponents are merely fantasizing, but it amounts to little more than trash talk. You've yet to back it up.

Your entire post is almost wholly speculation. It's either some twisted, caricaturized interpretation of Bush's words, or else some subjective apparaisal as to the level of negative campaigning present in modern politics.

Right. Which is why I'm answering virtually everything you've said, chunk by chunk. THAT's my debating style, bud. My tendency to point out your personal shortcomings is almost always supplementary to point-by-point contentions on pretty much every issue raised.

How is it one of the repercussions? Do you have anything to substantiate this beyond the "mere speculation" you dismissed earlier?

Yes, why don't we both look again. I referred to it as the "amount you're talking about" -- meaning the concept you were referring to. There's a reason I didn't refer to the number itself. I then said "you're not just confused about the concepts, but the numbers, too." In other words, I corrected your terminology first, and your data second. This isn't complicated.

Moreover, if what you say is true, then I said something knowing it to be false, then purposely contradicted and exposed myself several sentences later. So, according to you, I've got both a credibility death wish, and the memory span of a goldfish.

What you said was that the "deficit" was $1.3 trillion. You used faulty terminology, I corrected it, and you're trying to brush it off. This happens all the time, and I think it speaks volumes as to your dedication (or lack thereof) to truth.

Also, if what you say is true, then you compared a cumulative debt to a single-year one, making it abundantly clear that you didn't understand the concepts you were talking about. And if that's not enough, you also called it the "largest budget deficit in history." Now, we've already established that you (apparently) were really talking about the national debt, and not the budget deficit...but if so, how would you reconcile the claim that, at $1.3 trillion, it was the "largest in history"? It can't be the largest debt itself, because it's been larger than that for some time. It can't be the largest increase, either, because out very last President saw a larger one. So what do you claim to be referring to, and why did you phrase it the way you did?

Perhaps what you were trying to say is correct, but what you actually said was certainly not.

That you have no real knowledge of these issues, and that your highly opinionated commentary is pretentious and uninformed.

Since you're so fond of tossing out articles to make your case, have a look at "No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget" by Stephen Moore.

That said, this is all moot unless you can demonstrate that these increases are at all harmful. Which I assure you you cannot.

Seeing as how I am no way affiliated with the organization which makes these projections, it's not speculation on my part at all. But it is a projection, yes. To call the CBO budget forecasting model "hopes and dreams," however, is downright stupid. It's a complex economic formula based on actual statistics, not a "here's what we hope to accomplish" pep talk.

Exactly. And why has it experienced that improvement? Could it have anything to do with the (gasp!) tax cuts which, coincidentally (gee, what're the odds?), proceeded each improvement?

We've discussed this before; the wealthy got a larger cut because they pay a whole helluva lot more to begin with. The fact that growth skyrocketed immediately after they received their end of the cut is a testament to how crucial the wealthy are in an effective economic stimulus plan.

Production refers to the amount produced in relation to the number of hours worked. Production is up. Learn the terminology, or else stop trying to use it.

How does investment translate into new jobs? Is that supposed to be a joke? Where the hell do you think jobs come from, anyway?

The only thing "horrific" here is your overstatement. Every indicator we have tells us that the job market never got particularly bad, and that it's been getting better steadily for months.

It's not bankrupting the nation in any way. It's a loan, plain and simple, and one that we've always been able to pay off when it comes due.

I'm starting to suspect you do not know how this system works. Can you tell me, without looking into the matter, how we pay off this debt, and to whom? Can you tell me how it is going to bankrupt us? Can you explain to me why it hasn't yet?

You've conveniently ignored the twice-mentioned fact that the national debt has been rising steadily for a very, very long time now. Does that mean, then, that you believe things have been getting worse since, oh, the 19th century?

Here's an analogy I've heard which illustrates things quite well: Man 1 skips college and works at a convenience store. Man 2 goes to Harvard. After a few years, Man 1 hasn't saved any money, but doesn't owe any to anyone, either. Man 2, by way of his student loans, is in debt, but he also has a Harvard Law Degree. Man 1 has a "balanced budget," but Man 2 has a debt. Which one is better off?

The moral of the story is that debt is a tool. How you use it is what matters. If debt were evil in and of itself people would not attend college or buy houses. Our economic growth is like that law degree; it's going to pay for itself in a very short period of time, and then some.

"In any case, the stock market going up due to tax breaks--it just doesn't happen."
-- Django, December 8th, 2003.


Oh, I think it's already been seen. Production has already shot up. GDP is growing by leaps and bounds, unemployment is dropping, and virtually every economist expects both of these trends to continue through all of next year, at least. "We'll see" is the closest thing to a counter-argument you can find in response to our current economic picture.

It depends on where the tax cuts are aimed. Employers, obviously, are the ones who provide employment, and thus less pressure on them will facilitate an improvement in the job market.

The cost of what? Of which action? What do you blame for the original rish in unemployment?

No, it doesn't, for the reasons I've detailed several times in the past. Maybe it speaks for itself, but it does not speak for you. And it sure as hell doesn't argue for you.

Internal conflict is not a synonym for civil war. War involves conflict, but conflict does not always involve war.

Show me one policy which genuinely "equates any criticism of the government with collaboration with the terrorists."

First off, you said you were leaving...not that you were leaving so long as no one said anything you didn't like. Second, you "left" while taking any number of parting shots. Expecting no response to them was silly and naive. Third, this thread is not an answer to back-biting...it is a new discussion unto itself, with only vague ties to other discussions here.

OMFG! You two really deserve each other...

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

It's no more "us vs them" than any other disagreement.

There are plenty of people here who dislike Bush whose contributions I welcome. I suggested that you stop posting because you do nothing but insist that you're right.

Methinks you spend too much time at MoVa engaging in back-patting with other like-minded individuals who never call your claims into question.

It's this kind of exaggeration which actually works against the opponents of the Patriot Act. No one's going to take such extreme claims seriously; nor should they.

You're operating without answers and filling in the blanks yourself; I didn't use it "against" Clinton at all. I cited it to demonstrate that even Presidents who presided over prosperous times contributed to the national debt, thus complaints based solely on its increase are hollow.

Uh, real logic. The kind that shows us that the national debt is not a detriment to prosperity.