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 !
What evidence? Show me. Please. Bush's popularity/job approval is 60-70%, depending on which poll one uses. I've already posted the numbers on the economy and compared many of them to historical averages.
Bush is popular. The economy ISN'T that bad. Those are facts. If you have data to support other conclusions, then please post it. Show me negative growth and I'll agree with you. Show me 8.5% unemployment and I'll agree with you. Just becasue things are slow doesn't mean things are bad. There's a difference. Any, I repeat ANY reasonable, informed, educated person would come to the conlcusion that we are growing ecnomically. The facts tell a story that is competely opposite from yours.
I am perfectly willing to listen to people's opinions on Bush. I won't listen to those who have no BASIS for their opinions....like you. The fact is you just don't like him. That's fine. But telling me that "even conservatives" are now opposing Bush is laughable. Are there some who oppose him? Sure. Then again, I know many Democrats that will vote for him next time. I generally don't use that in an argument though, because it's anecdotal.
You live in a surreal environment where isolated and INSULATED opinions rule. Birds of a feather, I guess....
Its a republican country at the moment peeps... Fed and state not just executive branches, but also in their respective state congresses. The country was just tired of the line of BS it was getting from the dems.
What evidence? Show me. Please. Bush's popularity/job approval is 60-70%, depending on which poll one uses. I've already posted the numbers on the economy and compared many of them to historical averages.
Bush is popular. The economy ISN'T that bad. Those are facts. If you have data to support other conclusions, then please post it. Show me negative growth and I'll agree with you. Show me 8.5% unemployment and I'll agree with you. Just becasue things are slow doesn't mean things are bad. There's a difference. Any, I repeat ANY reasonable, informed, educated person would come to the conlcusion that we are growing ecnomically. The facts tell a story that is competely opposite from yours.
I am perfectly willing to listen to people's opinions on Bush. I won't listen to those who have no BASIS for their opinions....like you. The fact is you just don't like him. That's fine. But telling me that "even conservatives" are now opposing Bush is laughable. Are there some who oppose him? Sure. Then again, I know many Democrats that will vote for him next time. I generally don't use that in an argument though, because it's anecdotal.
You live in a surreal environment where isolated and INSULATED opinions rule. Birds of a feather, I guess....
Well before the war it was way down. Election time ( and the state of the economy at that time ) are still a year away. Things could get pretty negative for him if the economy doesn't turn around by then. Maybe he can pull another war out of his hat ( but now I think that would work against him ).
" You live in a surreal environment where isolated and INSULATED opinions rule. Birds of a feather, I guess.... "
This ones pretty funny. Coming from where you do I could say the same thing.
Knee-jerk? What I'm saying is that this thread, no thanks to you, has degenerated into Democrat bashing rather than anything constructive despite your claim that you would keep it otherwise.
Your points have whittled down to name calling and defensive and reactionary pro Bush rantings.
Knee-jerk? What I'm saying is that this thread, no thanks to you, has degenerated into Democrat bashing rather than anything constructive despite your claim that you would keep it otherwise.
Your points have whittled down to name calling and defensive and reactionary pro Bush rantings.
Wrong. I'm not bashing Democrats in general. When I say "the democrats", I mean the prominent, powerful leaders of the party. i thought I made that clear.
I have, in fact, responded to jimmac more, eh, adamantly. This is because he attacks with nothing more than anecdotal evidence and partisan rhetoric. His suppositions are totally unsupported by any data in most cases. He then used these "positions" to tell me I'm some sort of fanatic who is living in denial. This, despite nearly ALL my arguments being supported by hard data.
Now, jimmac:
I agree Bush's pre-war ratings weren't what they are now. But, here are some of the "lows" he hit:
These are Bush's lowest numbers, some even before 9/11. This was the man that supposedly "not elected". He's commanded a majority of support since his election.
These numbers are WITH a slow economy. Now, tell me again how bad a situation Bush is in... Tell me how a Democrat, or anyone else for that matter, has any reasonable chance of winning if said economic conditions improve from slow growth to moderate or high growth?
These are Bush's lowest numbers, some even before 9/11. This was the man that supposedly "not elected". He's commanded a majority of support since his election.
These numbers are WITH a slow economy. Now, tell me again how bad a situation Bush is in... Tell me how a Democrat, or anyone else for that matter, has any reasonable chance of winning if said economic conditions improve from slow growth to moderate or high growth?
Class dismissed.
This proves my point. This is just a pissing contest for you, not anything constructive. This is 'my penis is bigger than your penis' and nothing more.
If you're really going to trust the poll numbers then you're just naive and insecure.
The truth is the war could continue to 'go well', the economy could improve and get to 'great' levels and Bush could still lose. You're an irrational idiot if you can't see or acknowledge that.
This proves my point. This is just a pissing contest for you, not anything constructive. This is 'my penis is bigger than your penis' and nothing more.
If you're really going to trust the poll numbers then you're just naive and insecure.
The truth is the war could continue to 'go well', the economy could improve and get to 'great' levels and Bush could still lose. You're an irrational idiot if you can't see or acknowledge that
You call me condescending and stupid, all while calling me an idiot? Hmmm...sounds like a personal attack to me. The comment was tounge-in-cheek. I notice you say nothing to jimmac about is "still in check" comment. Figures.
Is there a possibility Bush could lose anyway? Sure. How much of one? Not much.
I would be interested in your thoughts on exactly WHY you think he could lose if you would kindly move it into the Bush Wins 50 States thread.
The comment was tounge-in-cheek. I notice you say nothing to jimmac about is "still in check" comment. Figures.
1) It didn't come across as tongue-in-cheek.
2) jimmac's comments do come across as such.
3) I believe it was you who started the whole 'checkmate' thing anyway. I never gave you crap about starting it either.
I'll say it again. I don't think the leadership is in denial, but in disarray. And yes I think they'll have a message that isn't 'we are republican lite'.
3) I believe it was you who started the whole 'checkmate' thing anyway. I never gave you crap about starting it either.
I'll say it again. I don't think the leadership is in denial, but in disarray. And yes I think they'll have a message that isn't 'we are republican lite'.
Except you have no basis for thinking that. They haven't had a message for three years, which is exactly why they lost bigtime in the mid-terms.
Perhaps you are right, perhas not. We'll see.
So you know, jimmac started the whole "your in check" thing about 18 months ago. It's been a running thing ever since. I don't really care what you think it came across as being, because it DOESN'T INVOLVE YOU.
I don't really care what you think it came across as being, because it DOESN'T INVOLVE YOU.
Then why the **** did you drag me into that little pissing fest you have with jimmac? Remember how I was responding to your accusation? I didn't involve myself so take your own advice and don't involve me in that either.
You're right he isn't involved. But, last time I looked you aren't god or a mod so back off!
Further more my comments are in ernest. I really believe you're wrong! You say I don't have any facts but I've asked valid questions time and again. You're only response is to only pay attention to the part of the facts out there that support your viewpoint. Not the whole picture. Reading you're response reminds me of watching one of those " Aliens among us " UFO programs. " Now that we " know " this we can also assume that ".
Or your response will be to start a little intimidation of your own. So I don't feel bad about poking you in the side about an issue that you couldn't resolve. This was to remind you that you're logic is flawed at times. After that fails you cry that I'm personally attacking you and threaten to go to the administrator ( anything to get your way ).
If you think my little " Still in check " thing is bad it's nothing when compared to your outragous and blatant flame fests you start here. By the very title of your threads you've got to know what kind of response you're going to get.
I'm sorry if the possiblity that Bush might lose the next election bothers you. But, as Bunge says it's not really about that is it? It's all about you being right.
I still stand by OUT THE DOOR IN TWO THOUSAND FOUR
And guess what? Still in check ( for 18 months now )
3) I believe it was you who started the whole 'checkmate' thing anyway. I never gave you crap about starting it either.
I'll say it again. I don't think the leadership is in denial, but in disarray. And yes I think they'll have a message that isn't 'we are republican lite'.
I admit I started it. But only because he was attempting to practice a little intimidation himself. I got sick and tired of his stupid " The criminal liberal media " comments so I decided to call him on it. I asked him a question that I knew he couldn't answer ( otherwise it would undemine his entire argument ). He was ( and still is ) very good at dancing around it but not able to supply a good, direct rebutal.
I do like to inject a little humour in to my posts because....ah where would we be if we couldn't laugh? I suppose that's the tougue in cheek part.
My counters to his arguments are just that. I don't reply to his every comment. I'm not out to get him. Maybe just take him off his high horse now and again. But, if he says something I disagree with I'll comment on it. I know I'll never change his mind as it's so closed I think he will always be this way. But, there are some comments he makes that need challenging. If I have a little fun along the way ( because after all with some of his comments it's hard to take him seriously ) I guess that's my little guilty pleasure.
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.
Oh good lord. You're hysterical.
It's not evidence of ANYTHING. I asked a friggin' QUESTION. I overheard a conversation, a relayed it here, and I asked whether or not this might be indicative of anything. I even ADMITTED that it was likely an unusual thing.
Was I implying anything, however obliquely? You bet. I was implying that there's a significant disconnect between the libertarian and neo-conservative wings of the Republican party right now, and that this disconnect could potentially leave the Republican party in as much disarray as the Democrats are in at the moment.
There was actually an article on this in the Wash. Post a while back.
These don't sound like healthy indicators to me........ if you read the fine print that is. They have to give an optimistic report other wise that might effect things.
Was I implying anything, however obliquely? You bet. I was implying that there's a significant disconnect between the libertarian and neo-conservative wings of the Republican party right now, and that this disconnect could potentially leave the Republican party in as much disarray as the Democrats are in at the moment.
I'd agree there is a disconnect. But I disgaree it will lead to the disaray the Dems are in. The Republican base WILL vote for Bush. I will personally guarantee that. This, IMO is one of the reaosn Bush won. He unified his base. Gore couldn't do that. What I'm saying is that in the wake og 9/11 and two wars, and IF the economy improves, Bush will carry not only his party but some Democrats as well....just as Reagan did.
jimmac:
Quote:
These don't sound like healthy indicators to me........ if you read the fine print that is. They have to give an optimistic report other wise that might effect things.
But before you start ( since you didn't seem to listen to me last time ) I want the economy to improve even if it means four more years.
The first article argues that because the market is doing well, we should be worried. It's blatant, assisine opinion.
The second is a bit panicky, don't you think? You also are pretty good at ignoring many parts of it:
Quote:
It's important to keep in mind, however, that the $44.2 trillion is a theoretical number -- the White House, which chooses to project just 75 years into the future, sees an $18 trillion shortfall -- and any number that goes too far into the future is likely to be fraught with uncertainty.
18 Trillion over 75 years is .24 Trillion a year, or 240 billion a year.
Quote:
And even if the $44.2 trillion figure is correct, it won't come due all at once -- there likely will be time to take incremental steps early to deal with it, Kogan added.
Finally, what does this support? Are you saying the Bush administration is resposnisble for this because they got tax cuts passed? Liberals argue against tax cuts because they feel it is a zero-sum game. It's not. I still maintain that tax cuts can increase revenue. It doesn;t even matter....do you honestly believe that this WOULDN'T happen if there was a different admin in power? What poitn are even trying to make? It says nothing about the CURRENT state of the economy, which is what we were talking about. Weak, jimmac. Really weak.
Quote:
You're only response is to only pay attention to the part of the facts out there that support your viewpoint. Not the whole picture. Reading you're response reminds me of watching one of those " Aliens among us " UFO programs. " Now that we " know " this we can also assume that ".
Imagine! ACTUAL logic being used on my part! Wow! Deductiona nd reason based primarily on hard data! How insane!
Quote:
I'm sorry if the possiblity that Bush might lose the next election bothers you. But, as Bunge says it's not really about that is it? It's all about you being right.
It doesn't bother me at all. All I'm saying is that if the economy improves, it's simply not going to happen (barring anything compeltely unforseen). That's all. Most Democrats know this too, jimmac. They may not like it, but they know. " It the economy, stupid!"
Quote:
I admit I started it. But only because he was attempting to practice a little intimidation himself. I got sick and tired of his stupid " The criminal liberal media " comments so I decided to call him on it. I asked him a question that I knew he couldn't answer ( otherwise it would undemine his entire argument ). He was ( and still is ) very good at dancing around it but not able to supply a good, direct rebutal.
The in-check thing is funny. I don't care.
As for your question, I answered it completely on several ocassions. I stated my argument in both paragragh and list form. I did not dodge it it in anyway. Do you need me to repost my rebuttal? It's fine if you disagree, but don't go around telling everyone I dodged the question. It's disingenuous.
Comments
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 !
What evidence? Show me. Please. Bush's popularity/job approval is 60-70%, depending on which poll one uses. I've already posted the numbers on the economy and compared many of them to historical averages.
Bush is popular. The economy ISN'T that bad. Those are facts. If you have data to support other conclusions, then please post it. Show me negative growth and I'll agree with you. Show me 8.5% unemployment and I'll agree with you. Just becasue things are slow doesn't mean things are bad. There's a difference. Any, I repeat ANY reasonable, informed, educated person would come to the conlcusion that we are growing ecnomically. The facts tell a story that is competely opposite from yours.
I am perfectly willing to listen to people's opinions on Bush. I won't listen to those who have no BASIS for their opinions....like you. The fact is you just don't like him. That's fine. But telling me that "even conservatives" are now opposing Bush is laughable. Are there some who oppose him? Sure. Then again, I know many Democrats that will vote for him next time. I generally don't use that in an argument though, because it's anecdotal.
You live in a surreal environment where isolated and INSULATED opinions rule. Birds of a feather, I guess....
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jimmac:
What evidence? Show me. Please. Bush's popularity/job approval is 60-70%, depending on which poll one uses. I've already posted the numbers on the economy and compared many of them to historical averages.
Bush is popular. The economy ISN'T that bad. Those are facts. If you have data to support other conclusions, then please post it. Show me negative growth and I'll agree with you. Show me 8.5% unemployment and I'll agree with you. Just becasue things are slow doesn't mean things are bad. There's a difference. Any, I repeat ANY reasonable, informed, educated person would come to the conlcusion that we are growing ecnomically. The facts tell a story that is competely opposite from yours.
I am perfectly willing to listen to people's opinions on Bush. I won't listen to those who have no BASIS for their opinions....like you. The fact is you just don't like him. That's fine. But telling me that "even conservatives" are now opposing Bush is laughable. Are there some who oppose him? Sure. Then again, I know many Democrats that will vote for him next time. I generally don't use that in an argument though, because it's anecdotal.
You live in a surreal environment where isolated and INSULATED opinions rule. Birds of a feather, I guess....
Well before the war it was way down. Election time ( and the state of the economy at that time ) are still a year away. Things could get pretty negative for him if the economy doesn't turn around by then. Maybe he can pull another war out of his hat ( but now I think that would work against him ).
" You live in a surreal environment where isolated and INSULATED opinions rule. Birds of a feather, I guess.... "
This ones pretty funny. Coming from where you do I could say the same thing.
OUT THE DOOR IN TWO THOUSAND FOUR !
Originally posted by SDW2001
Nice knee-jerk response there, bunge.
Knee-jerk? What I'm saying is that this thread, no thanks to you, has degenerated into Democrat bashing rather than anything constructive despite your claim that you would keep it otherwise.
Your points have whittled down to name calling and defensive and reactionary pro Bush rantings.
Originally posted by bunge
Knee-jerk? What I'm saying is that this thread, no thanks to you, has degenerated into Democrat bashing rather than anything constructive despite your claim that you would keep it otherwise.
Your points have whittled down to name calling and defensive and reactionary pro Bush rantings.
Wrong. I'm not bashing Democrats in general. When I say "the democrats", I mean the prominent, powerful leaders of the party. i thought I made that clear.
I have, in fact, responded to jimmac more, eh, adamantly. This is because he attacks with nothing more than anecdotal evidence and partisan rhetoric. His suppositions are totally unsupported by any data in most cases. He then used these "positions" to tell me I'm some sort of fanatic who is living in denial. This, despite nearly ALL my arguments being supported by hard data.
Now, jimmac:
I agree Bush's pre-war ratings weren't what they are now. But, here are some of the "lows" he hit:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect...s-bside15.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/10/cnn.poll/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...07-02-bush.htm
These are Bush's lowest numbers, some even before 9/11. This was the man that supposedly "not elected". He's commanded a majority of support since his election.
These numbers are WITH a slow economy. Now, tell me again how bad a situation Bush is in... Tell me how a Democrat, or anyone else for that matter, has any reasonable chance of winning if said economic conditions improve from slow growth to moderate or high growth?
Class dismissed.
Originally posted by SDW2001
These are Bush's lowest numbers, some even before 9/11. This was the man that supposedly "not elected". He's commanded a majority of support since his election.
These numbers are WITH a slow economy. Now, tell me again how bad a situation Bush is in... Tell me how a Democrat, or anyone else for that matter, has any reasonable chance of winning if said economic conditions improve from slow growth to moderate or high growth?
Class dismissed.
This proves my point. This is just a pissing contest for you, not anything constructive. This is 'my penis is bigger than your penis' and nothing more.
If you're really going to trust the poll numbers then you're just naive and insecure.
The truth is the war could continue to 'go well', the economy could improve and get to 'great' levels and Bush could still lose. You're an irrational idiot if you can't see or acknowledge that.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Class dismissed.
Class dismissed? How condescending and stupid.
Originally posted by bunge
Class dismissed? How condescending and stupid.
and then...
This proves my point. This is just a pissing contest for you, not anything constructive. This is 'my penis is bigger than your penis' and nothing more.
If you're really going to trust the poll numbers then you're just naive and insecure.
The truth is the war could continue to 'go well', the economy could improve and get to 'great' levels and Bush could still lose. You're an irrational idiot if you can't see or acknowledge that
You call me condescending and stupid, all while calling me an idiot? Hmmm...sounds like a personal attack to me. The comment was tounge-in-cheek. I notice you say nothing to jimmac about is "still in check" comment. Figures.
Is there a possibility Bush could lose anyway? Sure. How much of one? Not much.
I would be interested in your thoughts on exactly WHY you think he could lose if you would kindly move it into the Bush Wins 50 States thread.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The comment was tounge-in-cheek. I notice you say nothing to jimmac about is "still in check" comment. Figures.
1) It didn't come across as tongue-in-cheek.
2) jimmac's comments do come across as such.
3) I believe it was you who started the whole 'checkmate' thing anyway. I never gave you crap about starting it either.
I'll say it again. I don't think the leadership is in denial, but in disarray. And yes I think they'll have a message that isn't 'we are republican lite'.
1) It didn't come across as tongue-in-cheek.
2) jimmac's comments do come across as such.
3) I believe it was you who started the whole 'checkmate' thing anyway. I never gave you crap about starting it either.
I'll say it again. I don't think the leadership is in denial, but in disarray. And yes I think they'll have a message that isn't 'we are republican lite'.
Except you have no basis for thinking that. They haven't had a message for three years, which is exactly why they lost bigtime in the mid-terms.
Perhaps you are right, perhas not. We'll see.
So you know, jimmac started the whole "your in check" thing about 18 months ago. It's been a running thing ever since. I don't really care what you think it came across as being, because it DOESN'T INVOLVE YOU.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't really care what you think it came across as being, because it DOESN'T INVOLVE YOU.
Then why the **** did you drag me into that little pissing fest you have with jimmac? Remember how I was responding to your accusation? I didn't involve myself so take your own advice and don't involve me in that either.
Originally posted by bunge
SDW, that's how good the point of this thread is too.
Right, you didn't get involved.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Right, you didn't get involved.
You were referring to the 'in check' comment. That didn't involve me until you brought it up.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Right, you didn't get involved.
SDW,
You're right he isn't involved. But, last time I looked you aren't god or a mod so back off!
Further more my comments are in ernest. I really believe you're wrong! You say I don't have any facts but I've asked valid questions time and again. You're only response is to only pay attention to the part of the facts out there that support your viewpoint. Not the whole picture. Reading you're response reminds me of watching one of those " Aliens among us " UFO programs. " Now that we " know " this we can also assume that ".
Or your response will be to start a little intimidation of your own. So I don't feel bad about poking you in the side about an issue that you couldn't resolve. This was to remind you that you're logic is flawed at times. After that fails you cry that I'm personally attacking you and threaten to go to the administrator ( anything to get your way ).
If you think my little " Still in check " thing is bad it's nothing when compared to your outragous and blatant flame fests you start here. By the very title of your threads you've got to know what kind of response you're going to get.
I'm sorry if the possiblity that Bush might lose the next election bothers you. But, as Bunge says it's not really about that is it? It's all about you being right.
I still stand by OUT THE DOOR IN TWO THOUSAND FOUR
And guess what? Still in check ( for 18 months now )
Originally posted by bunge
1) It didn't come across as tongue-in-cheek.
2) jimmac's comments do come across as such.
3) I believe it was you who started the whole 'checkmate' thing anyway. I never gave you crap about starting it either.
I'll say it again. I don't think the leadership is in denial, but in disarray. And yes I think they'll have a message that isn't 'we are republican lite'.
I admit I started it. But only because he was attempting to practice a little intimidation himself. I got sick and tired of his stupid " The criminal liberal media " comments so I decided to call him on it. I asked him a question that I knew he couldn't answer ( otherwise it would undemine his entire argument ). He was ( and still is ) very good at dancing around it but not able to supply a good, direct rebutal.
I do like to inject a little humour in to my posts because....ah where would we be if we couldn't laugh? I suppose that's the tougue in cheek part.
My counters to his arguments are just that. I don't reply to his every comment. I'm not out to get him. Maybe just take him off his high horse now and again. But, if he says something I disagree with I'll comment on it. I know I'll never change his mind as it's so closed I think he will always be this way. But, there are some comments he makes that need challenging. If I have a little fun along the way ( because after all with some of his comments it's hard to take him seriously ) I guess that's my little guilty pleasure.
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.
Oh good lord. You're hysterical.
It's not evidence of ANYTHING. I asked a friggin' QUESTION. I overheard a conversation, a relayed it here, and I asked whether or not this might be indicative of anything. I even ADMITTED that it was likely an unusual thing.
Was I implying anything, however obliquely? You bet. I was implying that there's a significant disconnect between the libertarian and neo-conservative wings of the Republican party right now, and that this disconnect could potentially leave the Republican party in as much disarray as the Democrats are in at the moment.
There was actually an article on this in the Wash. Post a while back.
These don't sound like healthy indicators to me........ if you read the fine print that is. They have to give an optimistic report other wise that might effect things.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/29/mark...york/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/29/news...pain/index.htm
But before you start ( since you didn't seem to listen to me last time ) I want the economy to improve even if it means four more years.
Was I implying anything, however obliquely? You bet. I was implying that there's a significant disconnect between the libertarian and neo-conservative wings of the Republican party right now, and that this disconnect could potentially leave the Republican party in as much disarray as the Democrats are in at the moment.
I'd agree there is a disconnect. But I disgaree it will lead to the disaray the Dems are in. The Republican base WILL vote for Bush. I will personally guarantee that. This, IMO is one of the reaosn Bush won. He unified his base. Gore couldn't do that. What I'm saying is that in the wake og 9/11 and two wars, and IF the economy improves, Bush will carry not only his party but some Democrats as well....just as Reagan did.
jimmac:
These don't sound like healthy indicators to me........ if you read the fine print that is. They have to give an optimistic report other wise that might effect things.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/29/mar...wyork/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/29/new..._pain/index.htm
But before you start ( since you didn't seem to listen to me last time ) I want the economy to improve even if it means four more years.
The first article argues that because the market is doing well, we should be worried. It's blatant, assisine opinion.
The second is a bit panicky, don't you think? You also are pretty good at ignoring many parts of it:
It's important to keep in mind, however, that the $44.2 trillion is a theoretical number -- the White House, which chooses to project just 75 years into the future, sees an $18 trillion shortfall -- and any number that goes too far into the future is likely to be fraught with uncertainty.
18 Trillion over 75 years is .24 Trillion a year, or 240 billion a year.
And even if the $44.2 trillion figure is correct, it won't come due all at once -- there likely will be time to take incremental steps early to deal with it, Kogan added.
Finally, what does this support? Are you saying the Bush administration is resposnisble for this because they got tax cuts passed? Liberals argue against tax cuts because they feel it is a zero-sum game. It's not. I still maintain that tax cuts can increase revenue. It doesn;t even matter....do you honestly believe that this WOULDN'T happen if there was a different admin in power? What poitn are even trying to make? It says nothing about the CURRENT state of the economy, which is what we were talking about. Weak, jimmac. Really weak.
You're only response is to only pay attention to the part of the facts out there that support your viewpoint. Not the whole picture. Reading you're response reminds me of watching one of those " Aliens among us " UFO programs. " Now that we " know " this we can also assume that ".
Imagine! ACTUAL logic being used on my part! Wow! Deductiona nd reason based primarily on hard data! How insane!
I'm sorry if the possiblity that Bush might lose the next election bothers you. But, as Bunge says it's not really about that is it? It's all about you being right.
It doesn't bother me at all. All I'm saying is that if the economy improves, it's simply not going to happen (barring anything compeltely unforseen). That's all. Most Democrats know this too, jimmac. They may not like it, but they know. " It the economy, stupid!"
I admit I started it. But only because he was attempting to practice a little intimidation himself. I got sick and tired of his stupid " The criminal liberal media " comments so I decided to call him on it. I asked him a question that I knew he couldn't answer ( otherwise it would undemine his entire argument ). He was ( and still is ) very good at dancing around it but not able to supply a good, direct rebutal.
The in-check thing is funny. I don't care.
As for your question, I answered it completely on several ocassions. I stated my argument in both paragragh and list form. I did not dodge it it in anyway. Do you need me to repost my rebuttal? It's fine if you disagree, but don't go around telling everyone I dodged the question. It's disingenuous.