I have no idea what the context of the Neil Young quote . . . but I can tell you Neil's politics have been all over the place over the decades . . . from ironic pro-union songs to proppaganda style patritiotic. . .
just gotta say I'll be a die-hard Nyoung fan for ever . . . .and have been for ever . . I mean way back . . .
Have Young's politics been all over the place? Seems fairly lefty to me.
The quote was from "Ohio," which Young wrote in response to the Kent State massacre.
Numbers can be used both ways in an argument. I'm telling you though there's a lot of unhappy people out there and Bush has about a year to do something about it.
I don't disagree that there are a lot of unhappy people out there. I never said things were great. On a side note, I find it amusing that you accuse me of basing my posts on emotion while you make statements about there being "a lot of unhappy people".
You links don't really prove anything big. Unemployment was extended? Well, this may say something about the economy, but it doesn't conflict with anything I said. The second link talks about growth at about 2.2%. That's well within the range I've been referring to.
I do agree that Bush has about a year. I'd argue that he is taking quite a different approach than his father. The economy is also at a different point in the curve. It seems that in '92, we were about at this point in recovery arond the time of the election. The public didn't perceive it that way though. This, combined with Bush 41's breaking of his most popular pledge...that being not to raise taxes, his lousy campaign, Ross Perot and Clinton's strength and charisma led to Clinton's victory.
I don't disagree that there are a lot of unhappy people out there. I never said things were great. On a side note, I find it amusing that you accuse me of basing my posts on emotion while you make statements about there being "a lot of unhappy people".
You links don't really prove anything big. Unemployment was extended? Well, this may say something about the economy, but it doesn't conflict with anything I said. The second link talks about growth at about 2.2%. That's well within the range I've been referring to.
I do agree that Bush has about a year. I'd argue that he is taking quite a different approach than his father. The economy is also at a different point in the curve. It seems that in '92, we were about at this point in recovery arond the time of the election. The public didn't perceive it that way though. This, combined with Bush 41's breaking of his most popular pledge...that being not to raise taxes, his lousy campaign, Ross Perot and Clinton's strength and charisma led to Clinton's victory.
We'll see how things turn out.
Just because there are two references to emotion here doesn't mean one negates the other. You're begining to grasp at straws again. The logic is if those unhappy people are still that way in a years time it won't bode well for Bush. No matter what the numbers say. And that's really the thing to look at. It involves much more than statistics.
Just because there are two references to emotion here doesn't mean one negates the other. You're begining to grasp at straws again. The logic is if those unhappy people are still that way in a years time it won't bode well for Bush. No matter what the numbers say. And that's really the thing to look at. It involves much more than statistics.
And what do you think "the economy" is jimmac? It's....wait for it....NUMBERS. The numbers REFLECT emotional setiment.
You didn't just make "two references", either. You based nearly your entire argument on this:
Quote:
"There are a lot of unhappy people out there..."
What? A lot? How many? More people than in 1992? Less? Unhappy...what does that mean?
It's a totally unsupported statement. It's numbers, jimmac. The numbers say things aren't horrible. They could be better. I'd like them to be better and presumably so would you. But we're not in a recession. We're growing. And, I'm not sure what you base your "I'm not to optimistic about things turning around by next year..." comment on. What's your basis for that? It's just more unsupported jimmac pessimism. I just have to ask: DO YOU want things to be better? Or, would you rather have it stay this way so Bush will have a chance of losing? I honestly wonder. I doubt you'd like Bush any better if the economy was superb. I'm sure you wouldn't, even though you point to it as a major reason for not supporting him.
You also still cannot answer which economic policy you disagree with that is causing our currrent economic condition. Go ahead. You tried more typical rhetoric with your "unecessary war" comment....even though you can't prove that has hurt the economy AT ALL. In fact, the NUMBERS actually show it has done nothing but HELP. The market's up. Consumer confidence is up. Unemployment is unchanged at 2.5% below historical averages.
There are a lot of people that see your in check right now.
And what do you think "the economy" is jimmac? It's....wait for it....NUMBERS. The numbers REFLECT emotional setiment.
You didn't just make "two references", either. You based nearly your entire argument on this:
What? A lot? How many? More people than in 1992? Less? Unhappy...what does that mean?
It's a totally unsupported statement. It's numbers, jimmac. The numbers say things aren't horrible. They could be better. I'd like them to be better and presumably so would you. But we're not in a recession. We're growing. And, I'm not sure what you base your "I'm not to optimistic about things turning around by next year..." comment on. What's your basis for that? It's just more unsupported jimmac pessimism. I just have to ask: DO YOU want things to be better? Or, would you rather have it stay this way so Bush will have a chance of losing? I honestly wonder. I doubt you'd like Bush any better if the economy was superb. I'm sure you wouldn't, even though you point to it as a major reason for not supporting him.
You also still cannot answer which economic policy you disagree with that is causing our currrent economic condition. Go ahead. You tried more typical rhetoric with your "unecessary war" comment....even though you can't prove that has hurt the economy AT ALL. In fact, the NUMBERS actually show it has done nothing but HELP. The market's up. Consumer confidence is up. Unemployment is unchanged at 2.5% below historical averages.
There are a lot of people that see your in check right now.
Well I think there might be a lot of people laughing right now ( or shaking their heads ). If they're smart they're home with someone BBQing.
I was BBQing with a friend. We were talking about these very things and he had a new saying : " Out the door in two thousand four ! ".
Interestingly, this morning I went to my local greasy spoon for a bite of breakfast, and I overheard a remarkable converation for these parts. You need to understand that I live in a thoroughly republican area, and that in the mornings this diner is populated by local skilled and unskilled laborers.
The guy behind me said something like this about Bush: "And there he is dressing up like a fighter pilot and playing cowboy." He then went on a little rant about Rumsfeld. Sure, this was likely an isolated event (and if you knew the place, you'd know what I'm talking about), but the problem is that I'm hearing sporadic conversations more often than I *ever* did before.
I just wonder if the admin has pushed even those conservatives who initially supported Bush too far. Two large-scale military conflicts from which we haven't left yet. An economy publicly perceived to be in the toilet. Craziness with North Korea. No bin Laden. No Hussein. And now it seems we're turning our eyes toward Iran.
Interestingly, this morning I went to my local greasy spoon for a bite of breakfast, and I overheard a remarkable converation for these parts. You need to understand that I live in a thoroughly republican area, and that in the mornings this diner is populated by local skilled and unskilled laborers.
The guy behind me said something like this about Bush: "And there he is dressing up like a fighter pilot and playing cowboy." He then went on a little rant about Rumsfeld. Sure, this was likely an isolated event (and if you knew the place, you'd know what I'm talking about), but the problem is that I'm hearing sporadic conversations more often than I *ever* did before.
I just wonder if the admin has pushed even those conservatives who initially supported Bush too far. Two large-scale military conflicts from which we haven't left yet. An economy publicly perceived to be in the toilet. Craziness with North Korea. No bin Laden. No Hussein. And now it seems we're turning our eyes toward Iran.
" Sure, this was likely an isolated event "
It's not as isolated as you would think. I hear this just about everywhere I go.
I just wonder if the admin has pushed even those conservatives who initially supported Bush too far. Two large-scale military conflicts from which we haven't left yet. An economy publicly perceived to be in the toilet. Craziness with North Korea. No bin Laden. No Hussein. And now it seems we're turning our eyes toward Iran.
You guys are are living in ****ing dreamworld. What kind of evidence is this?
Oh things are sooooo bad! "Even" the conservatives are unhappy with Bush! What a disaster!!!
You hear these things because you WANT TO. You guys remind me of the of the Saturday Nigh Live parody of Bill O'Reilly....when the characer starts arguing that the population of one state is greater than another because everytime he goes to the first one he "just sees loads of people everywhere".
To try and safely put an end to this thread, I'd say the Democratic Leadership is in disarray, not denial.
Perhaps we should open an economic thread? Or just continue on...
To say the leadership is in disarray instead of denial would denote to me that the Democrats have real alternatives and are just disorganized about getting their message out to the public.
The only thing I see the Democrats saying and planning is, "we are Republican Lite, but support Affirmative Action and Abortion." Then adding "BTW, they are wrong and evil."
That doesn't sound like much a plan for me and that is why people talk about denial.
To say the leadership is in disarray instead of denial would denote to me that the Democrats have real alternatives and are just disorganized about getting their message out to the public.
The only thing I see the Democrats saying and planning is, "we are Republican Lite, but support Affirmative Action and Abortion." Then adding "BTW, they are wrong and evil."
That doesn't sound like much a plan for me and that is why people talk about denial.
Nick
I don't even think they are there yet. They still are blaming their losses on the last two major elections on external factors. They continue to attack Bush on things like the carrier landing. Even if I believed this was appropriate, which I don't, I still wouldn't use that strategy because it WILL fail and HAS failed.
bunge:
Quote:
SDW, that's how good the point of this thread is too.
Nice knee-jerk response there, bunge. You cannot possibly be arguing that the Democrats are in good shape now as a party. You can't possibly argue that Daschle, Pelosi, McCaullife Byrd et al have done well for the party, can you be? They have completely lost control of the agenda and the trifecta of elected government. The hisotric mid-term election was the ultimate example ofthe leaership's failure. It had been 100 years since seats were gained like they were...and it was the first time ever that Republicans did it. Why is that, bunge?
While you and I disagree on a great many things, please understand I'm not saying you are in denial or dissaray or at fault. I'm saying the venom of people like McCualiffe, the rantings of Robert "KKK" Byrd (the ultimate in Democratic hypocrisy by the way), the idiotic ideas and tax and spend policies of Nancy Pelosi, Gephardt's sickening approach, and Daschle's flip-flopping on nearly every issue....have all FAILED. The voters showed that in 2002.
Where were the statements saying "We're going to come back strong"? Where IS the agenda, other than attacking Bush? They just don't get it...National Security is not something Bush can be beat on publicly. Our arguing here won't change it: Publicly, Bush is unbeatable on National Security and integrity as well. Yet, the leaders continue to spew forth poison instead of putting forth a real agenda.
This isn;t just about my disagreeing with the party. It's about the fact that they haven't put forth anything TO disagree with.
You guys are are living in ****ing dreamworld. What kind of evidence is this?
Oh things are sooooo bad! "Even" the conservatives are unhappy with Bush! What a disaster!!!
You hear these things because you WANT TO. You guys remind me of the of the Saturday Nigh Live parody of Bill O'Reilly....when the characer starts arguing that the population of one state is greater than another because everytime he goes to the first one he "just sees loads of people everywhere".
That's how ridiculous your points are.
The evidence is everywhere under your nose SDW. It's you who are living in a dream world. Refusing to listen to other people's opinion on Bush. Pretending that the economy isn't that bad and is going to get better soon. Maybe things are fine in Coatesville they aren't elsewhere.
Comments
Perhaps we should open an economic thread? Or just continue on...
Originally posted by pfflam
I have no idea what the context of the Neil Young quote . . . but I can tell you Neil's politics have been all over the place over the decades . . . from ironic pro-union songs to proppaganda style patritiotic. . .
just gotta say I'll be a die-hard Nyoung fan for ever . . . .and have been for ever . . I mean way back . . .
Have Young's politics been all over the place? Seems fairly lefty to me.
The quote was from "Ohio," which Young wrote in response to the Kent State massacre.
Before you start partying on that new deck you might want to have look these.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...s.ap/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/20/new....reut/index.htm
Numbers can be used both ways in an argument. I'm telling you though there's a lot of unhappy people out there and Bush has about a year to do something about it.
I don't disagree that there are a lot of unhappy people out there. I never said things were great. On a side note, I find it amusing that you accuse me of basing my posts on emotion while you make statements about there being "a lot of unhappy people".
You links don't really prove anything big. Unemployment was extended? Well, this may say something about the economy, but it doesn't conflict with anything I said. The second link talks about growth at about 2.2%. That's well within the range I've been referring to.
I do agree that Bush has about a year. I'd argue that he is taking quite a different approach than his father. The economy is also at a different point in the curve. It seems that in '92, we were about at this point in recovery arond the time of the election. The public didn't perceive it that way though. This, combined with Bush 41's breaking of his most popular pledge...that being not to raise taxes, his lousy campaign, Ross Perot and Clinton's strength and charisma led to Clinton's victory.
We'll see how things turn out.
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:
I don't disagree that there are a lot of unhappy people out there. I never said things were great. On a side note, I find it amusing that you accuse me of basing my posts on emotion while you make statements about there being "a lot of unhappy people".
You links don't really prove anything big. Unemployment was extended? Well, this may say something about the economy, but it doesn't conflict with anything I said. The second link talks about growth at about 2.2%. That's well within the range I've been referring to.
I do agree that Bush has about a year. I'd argue that he is taking quite a different approach than his father. The economy is also at a different point in the curve. It seems that in '92, we were about at this point in recovery arond the time of the election. The public didn't perceive it that way though. This, combined with Bush 41's breaking of his most popular pledge...that being not to raise taxes, his lousy campaign, Ross Perot and Clinton's strength and charisma led to Clinton's victory.
We'll see how things turn out.
Just because there are two references to emotion here doesn't mean one negates the other. You're begining to grasp at straws again. The logic is if those unhappy people are still that way in a years time it won't bode well for Bush. No matter what the numbers say. And that's really the thing to look at. It involves much more than statistics.
Originally posted by jimmac
Just because there are two references to emotion here doesn't mean one negates the other. You're begining to grasp at straws again. The logic is if those unhappy people are still that way in a years time it won't bode well for Bush. No matter what the numbers say. And that's really the thing to look at. It involves much more than statistics.
And what do you think "the economy" is jimmac? It's....wait for it....NUMBERS. The numbers REFLECT emotional setiment.
You didn't just make "two references", either. You based nearly your entire argument on this:
"There are a lot of unhappy people out there..."
What? A lot? How many? More people than in 1992? Less? Unhappy...what does that mean?
It's a totally unsupported statement. It's numbers, jimmac. The numbers say things aren't horrible. They could be better. I'd like them to be better and presumably so would you. But we're not in a recession. We're growing. And, I'm not sure what you base your "I'm not to optimistic about things turning around by next year..." comment on. What's your basis for that? It's just more unsupported jimmac pessimism. I just have to ask: DO YOU want things to be better? Or, would you rather have it stay this way so Bush will have a chance of losing? I honestly wonder. I doubt you'd like Bush any better if the economy was superb. I'm sure you wouldn't, even though you point to it as a major reason for not supporting him.
You also still cannot answer which economic policy you disagree with that is causing our currrent economic condition. Go ahead. You tried more typical rhetoric with your "unecessary war" comment....even though you can't prove that has hurt the economy AT ALL. In fact, the NUMBERS actually show it has done nothing but HELP. The market's up. Consumer confidence is up. Unemployment is unchanged at 2.5% below historical averages.
There are a lot of people that see your in check right now.
Originally posted by SDW2001
And what do you think "the economy" is jimmac? It's....wait for it....NUMBERS. The numbers REFLECT emotional setiment.
You didn't just make "two references", either. You based nearly your entire argument on this:
What? A lot? How many? More people than in 1992? Less? Unhappy...what does that mean?
It's a totally unsupported statement. It's numbers, jimmac. The numbers say things aren't horrible. They could be better. I'd like them to be better and presumably so would you. But we're not in a recession. We're growing. And, I'm not sure what you base your "I'm not to optimistic about things turning around by next year..." comment on. What's your basis for that? It's just more unsupported jimmac pessimism. I just have to ask: DO YOU want things to be better? Or, would you rather have it stay this way so Bush will have a chance of losing? I honestly wonder. I doubt you'd like Bush any better if the economy was superb. I'm sure you wouldn't, even though you point to it as a major reason for not supporting him.
You also still cannot answer which economic policy you disagree with that is causing our currrent economic condition. Go ahead. You tried more typical rhetoric with your "unecessary war" comment....even though you can't prove that has hurt the economy AT ALL. In fact, the NUMBERS actually show it has done nothing but HELP. The market's up. Consumer confidence is up. Unemployment is unchanged at 2.5% below historical averages.
There are a lot of people that see your in check right now.
Well I think there might be a lot of people laughing right now ( or shaking their heads ). If they're smart they're home with someone BBQing.
I was BBQing with a friend. We were talking about these very things and he had a new saying : " Out the door in two thousand four ! ".
PS. You're ranting again!
Still in Mate.
Ar-nald
Nick
" DO YOU want things to be better? "
I've already answered that one previously. That was a cheap shot.
" I doubt you'd like Bush any better if the economy was superb. "
I'd be very happy if this happened. However with our leadership it's unlikely to happen.
Still in check, mate, whatever!
Originally posted by trumptman
What would happen to the Democratic candidate of the Terminator takes California for the Republicans?
Ar-nald
Nick
Nothing. He's not running for president.
A better question to ask is : What will happen to the Terminator if his new movie without James Camaron sucks!
Originally posted by SDW2001
there's a chill wind
there's a dark cloud
there's a bleak trend
there's an ill feeling
there's a bad loving
where their lies are spreading
there's dogma growing
there's venom flowing
their's is hating
dressed as ideal holding
there's a a dark cloud
there's a chill wind blowing
the one is torn into many
and the despair is showing
this virus of thought
turns eyes tight closing
blinds us into breaking
breaks us in the dimming
there's a chill wind blowing
there's a dark cloud gowing
an empty sounding of brass
empty sounding brass
there's a chill wind
there's a dark cloud
Interestingly, this morning I went to my local greasy spoon for a bite of breakfast, and I overheard a remarkable converation for these parts. You need to understand that I live in a thoroughly republican area, and that in the mornings this diner is populated by local skilled and unskilled laborers.
The guy behind me said something like this about Bush: "And there he is dressing up like a fighter pilot and playing cowboy." He then went on a little rant about Rumsfeld. Sure, this was likely an isolated event (and if you knew the place, you'd know what I'm talking about), but the problem is that I'm hearing sporadic conversations more often than I *ever* did before.
I just wonder if the admin has pushed even those conservatives who initially supported Bush too far. Two large-scale military conflicts from which we haven't left yet. An economy publicly perceived to be in the toilet. Craziness with North Korea. No bin Laden. No Hussein. And now it seems we're turning our eyes toward Iran.
Originally posted by midwinter
Originally posted by pfflam
Interestingly, this morning I went to my local greasy spoon for a bite of breakfast, and I overheard a remarkable converation for these parts. You need to understand that I live in a thoroughly republican area, and that in the mornings this diner is populated by local skilled and unskilled laborers.
The guy behind me said something like this about Bush: "And there he is dressing up like a fighter pilot and playing cowboy." He then went on a little rant about Rumsfeld. Sure, this was likely an isolated event (and if you knew the place, you'd know what I'm talking about), but the problem is that I'm hearing sporadic conversations more often than I *ever* did before.
I just wonder if the admin has pushed even those conservatives who initially supported Bush too far. Two large-scale military conflicts from which we haven't left yet. An economy publicly perceived to be in the toilet. Craziness with North Korea. No bin Laden. No Hussein. And now it seems we're turning our eyes toward Iran.
" Sure, this was likely an isolated event "
It's not as isolated as you would think. I hear this just about everywhere I go.
she is so absolutely angry about everything Bush that it makes her cry
my parents have to agree not to talk about politics
my father is an ex military and so the last thing he would do is think critically about his Grand Old Party . . . .so they avoid it entirely
go figure . . . and I mean she and my father were seriouse Reaganites in real hand-writing correspondence with Ronny type conservatives . . .
go figure?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?! ?!?
emphasis just to get to groverat
I just wonder if the admin has pushed even those conservatives who initially supported Bush too far. Two large-scale military conflicts from which we haven't left yet. An economy publicly perceived to be in the toilet. Craziness with North Korea. No bin Laden. No Hussein. And now it seems we're turning our eyes toward Iran.
You guys are are living in ****ing dreamworld. What kind of evidence is this?
Oh things are sooooo bad! "Even" the conservatives are unhappy with Bush! What a disaster!!!
You hear these things because you WANT TO. You guys remind me of the of the Saturday Nigh Live parody of Bill O'Reilly....when the characer starts arguing that the population of one state is greater than another because everytime he goes to the first one he "just sees loads of people everywhere".
That's how ridiculous your points are.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's how ridiculous your points are.
SDW, that's how good the point of this thread is too.
Originally posted by bunge
To try and safely put an end to this thread, I'd say the Democratic Leadership is in disarray, not denial.
Perhaps we should open an economic thread? Or just continue on...
To say the leadership is in disarray instead of denial would denote to me that the Democrats have real alternatives and are just disorganized about getting their message out to the public.
The only thing I see the Democrats saying and planning is, "we are Republican Lite, but support Affirmative Action and Abortion." Then adding "BTW, they are wrong and evil."
That doesn't sound like much a plan for me and that is why people talk about denial.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
To say the leadership is in disarray instead of denial would denote to me that the Democrats have real alternatives and are just disorganized about getting their message out to the public.
The only thing I see the Democrats saying and planning is, "we are Republican Lite, but support Affirmative Action and Abortion." Then adding "BTW, they are wrong and evil."
That doesn't sound like much a plan for me and that is why people talk about denial.
Nick
I don't even think they are there yet. They still are blaming their losses on the last two major elections on external factors. They continue to attack Bush on things like the carrier landing. Even if I believed this was appropriate, which I don't, I still wouldn't use that strategy because it WILL fail and HAS failed.
bunge:
SDW, that's how good the point of this thread is too.
Nice knee-jerk response there, bunge. You cannot possibly be arguing that the Democrats are in good shape now as a party. You can't possibly argue that Daschle, Pelosi, McCaullife Byrd et al have done well for the party, can you be? They have completely lost control of the agenda and the trifecta of elected government. The hisotric mid-term election was the ultimate example ofthe leaership's failure. It had been 100 years since seats were gained like they were...and it was the first time ever that Republicans did it. Why is that, bunge?
While you and I disagree on a great many things, please understand I'm not saying you are in denial or dissaray or at fault. I'm saying the venom of people like McCualiffe, the rantings of Robert "KKK" Byrd (the ultimate in Democratic hypocrisy by the way), the idiotic ideas and tax and spend policies of Nancy Pelosi, Gephardt's sickening approach, and Daschle's flip-flopping on nearly every issue....have all FAILED. The voters showed that in 2002.
Where were the statements saying "We're going to come back strong"? Where IS the agenda, other than attacking Bush? They just don't get it...National Security is not something Bush can be beat on publicly. Our arguing here won't change it: Publicly, Bush is unbeatable on National Security and integrity as well. Yet, the leaders continue to spew forth poison instead of putting forth a real agenda.
This isn;t just about my disagreeing with the party. It's about the fact that they haven't put forth anything TO disagree with.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You guys are are living in ****ing dreamworld. What kind of evidence is this?
Oh things are sooooo bad! "Even" the conservatives are unhappy with Bush! What a disaster!!!
You hear these things because you WANT TO. You guys remind me of the of the Saturday Nigh Live parody of Bill O'Reilly....when the characer starts arguing that the population of one state is greater than another because everytime he goes to the first one he "just sees loads of people everywhere".
That's how ridiculous your points are.
The evidence is everywhere under your nose SDW. It's you who are living in a dream world. Refusing to listen to other people's opinion on Bush. Pretending that the economy isn't that bad and is going to get better soon. Maybe things are fine in Coatesville they aren't elsewhere.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE !
OUT THE DOOR IN TWO THOUSAND FOUR !