"The title of this thread should be : SDW IS STILL IN DENIAL.
Sure Bush will win easily because there's nothing wrong with the economy ( never mind the fact the last time we saw interest rates like this I was ten years old ). I'll bet he thinks Saddam still has WOMD in Iraq. Man you are one to talk about reality.
The question to ask is if the economy does improve slightly is the voting public willing to accept serial recession like they have for the republic"
Jimmac, I am really fighting the urge to question your intelligence right now. Every piece of polling data, recent politcal history and simple common sense points the same direction:
If the economy improves in any significant way, and barring anything completely unforseen, the President will be reelected in a landslide. In addiition he will VERY LIKELY be reelected even IF the economy doesn't get much better, partly due to the weakness of the Democratic field Though, there would still be a chance he could lose.
Any other argument is not based in reality here. Once again, jimmac, you love to twist words, thinking all the while you are angering me for sport (you're not, by the way). I never said there was "nothing wrong" with the economy....YOU DID. I sais we weren't in a "technical" recessions, or something to that effect. I have admitted all along that we did have a PRACTICAL recession, and we are in a SLOWDOWN right now. Unemployment is still historically low, even at 6%. The market has stablized a bit and earnings data has been a little better as of late.
I know that you would LOVE for things to be worse. This isn't 1992, jimmac. If the election was this year, you and others would have a point. But it's not. All things being equal, Bush is going to DESTROY his opposition. The economy improving will simply seal the deal.
Oh, and on you stupid "serial recession" comment. Give me a break. Presidents don't directly cause recessions and booms. Go ahead and think that the 90's were a utopia caused by Clinton if you want. But then, you better also realize that the practical recession began at the end of his second term. Then again, you've always been a good one for illogical polarized beliefs.
It's good to know you're as delusional as ever. I haven't read any polls that say if the economy improves even slightly Bush will be elected by a landslide. Where do you get your info? By the way interest rates are low also. A forty year low. That not a good sign. Also to assume that I want things to remain in the red just so Bush can lose is childish at best!
no doubt, what in the world got in her craw to run for..........PRESIDENT?!?!?
I don't know but it wasn't brains. I'd probably have to vote third party or abstain if the choices were Bush or Braun. She is dumb, but he is more dangerous.
Keep in mind I was talking about political candidates, not folks here or Democrats in general.
jimmac:
Oh, gloom and doom! A weak dollar! Gasp!
Why would you even post links like that? Do you think I don't know that there is opposition to the plan? I mean, really. OF COURSE there will be opposition. Then, you spout off about "how Bush is handling things". What does that even mean?
Typical jimmac: Point to a set of outcomes and then attach them automatically to the desired hero or in this case, scapegoat. For me to take you seriously, you have to tell me SPECIFFICALLY what you think Bush has mismanaged. Are you blaming the weak dollar on Bush? Are you blaming the tech collapse on Bush, even though it started in March of 2000? Are you blaming 9/11 and its effects on him? What exactly has he done that you disagree with? He lowered taxes across the board....and yes, for the rich too. And caused a recession? Hmmm.
None of this matters, jimmac. Let me tell you what will happen:
Bush will get his tax cut to the tune of around $500 billion. The economy will improve--mostly due to he natural business cycle and low rates (not to mention low energy prices), and Bush will get credit for it in the next election. The tax cut will have some effect on growth, but not all that much. Really now jimmac: I'm not naive enough to think that $50 billion a year in cuts is really going to do that much. But, it is still tax relief that I'll see (as I saw it the last time)....and I'll take it!
It's the same thing in every thread and with every post. You have no specific criticisms. And, when you actully DO manage one on the off chance you're feeling lucid that day ( ), you have no real solution. If things are so bad, why don't you tell us how you'd do things differently?
Bush will get his tax cut to the tune of around $500 billion. The economy will improve--mostly due to he natural business cycle and low rates (not to mention low energy prices), and Bush will get credit for it in the next election. The tax cut will have some effect on growth, but not all that much.\\
I live in california and all i can say is that for us californians tax cuts will make a huge differance. The job market has dried up quite a bit and many many businesses have closed and left town.
I am a registered democrat but am againt big goverment because i have seen it in action. with our tax money they have cut down on the number of police and have raised money to send underprivalaged low income families to national parks. not so long ago california was the number one place that people wanted to be. Now i tremble at yhe thought of the whole country being exposed to this distructive governing under democratic rule.
I live in california and all i can say is that for us californians tax cuts will make a huge differance. The job market has dried up quite a bit and many many businesses have closed and left town.
I am a registered democrat but am againt big goverment because i have seen it in action. with our tax money they have cut down on the number of police and have raised money to send underprivalaged low income families to national parks. not so long ago california was the number one place that people wanted to be. Now i tremble at yhe thought of the whole country being exposed to this distructive governing under democratic rule.
Well, what I mean is we need more tax relief than the package offered. But, I'll take it. Eliminating the evidends tax is a great idea, really. Again...I'll take it!
You are quite a situation in CA. This is what happens when the Dems go an a tax and spend binge when things are good. It's the same thing in Washington, really...it's just that they can borrow more.
How's the recall of Davis going? That would be something.
Keep in mind I was talking about political candidates, not folks here or Democrats in general.
jimmac:
Oh, gloom and doom! A weak dollar! Gasp!
Why would you even post links like that? Do you think I don't know that there is opposition to the plan? I mean, really. OF COURSE there will be opposition. Then, you spout off about "how Bush is handling things". What does that even mean?
Typical jimmac: Point to a set of outcomes and then attach them automatically to the desired hero or in this case, scapegoat. For me to take you seriously, you have to tell me SPECIFFICALLY what you think Bush has mismanaged. Are you blaming the weak dollar on Bush? Are you blaming the tech collapse on Bush, even though it started in March of 2000? Are you blaming 9/11 and its effects on him? What exactly has he done that you disagree with? He lowered taxes across the board....and yes, for the rich too. And caused a recession? Hmmm.
None of this matters, jimmac. Let me tell you what will happen:
Bush will get his tax cut to the tune of around $500 billion. The economy will improve--mostly due to he natural business cycle and low rates (not to mention low energy prices), and Bush will get credit for it in the next election. The tax cut will have some effect on growth, but not all that much. Really now jimmac: I'm not naive enough to think that $50 billion a year in cuts is really going to do that much. But, it is still tax relief that I'll see (as I saw it the last time)....and I'll take it!
It's the same thing in every thread and with every post. You have no specific criticisms. And, when you actully DO manage one on the off chance you're feeling lucid that day ( ), you have no real solution. If things are so bad, why don't you tell us how you'd do things differently?
I'm sorry but there's no other way to look at this poor fool. Think WOMD!
Even if there wasn't any WOMD the war was a great success... Its a win win win situation... low energy prices... israel and palentsine are working together because of the overbearing pressure... syria and iran are listening... and the people of iraq can have the spoils of their resources they deserved all along, with us offering them our investment. Sure sacrifices had to be made, but I see it as a stroke of brilliance. If bush can keep his huge popularity going, the democrats are screwed. They have absolutely no leadership, all the candidates are yes sayers not workers, in speaking of history along those terms it used to be the opposite, the democrats used to be the decision makers and hard-liners, very idealistic and got the job done (roosevelt, JFK, etc), things are very wierd right now for us in america politically.
First, jimmac, I'm not even sure what that first post was supposed to mean. You still have not levied any real, specific criticism against Bush that isn't pure "gotcha politics" rhetoric.
The WOMD things has NOTHING to do with this thread. Though, anyone that doesn't think they are there or WERE there right up until the invasion is absolutely kidding himself.
To get back to the point, Kraig911 is right. The Democrats are now almost the total opposite of what they used to be. JFK cut taxes. FDR ended the depression and saw the country through most of WWII. They have become nothing but plastic political whores. At least we know what the Republicans stand for in general. The Democrats have lost their identity.
As I said though, what really troubles me (or actually entertains me) is that they keep sticking to the same failed tactics. The mor eit gets talked about the worse it gets. Before the last election and immediately after it, the talk was of a lacking conherhent agenda. Why, then, are they STILL without one?
As I said though, what really troubles me (or actually entertains me) is that they keep sticking to the same failed tactics. The mor eit gets talked about the worse it gets. Before the last election and immediately after it, the talk was of a lacking conherhent agenda. Why, then, are they STILL without one?
You are, I think, pretty much right here. I'd quibble with you over the rhetoric, but I'm with you: the D party needs to realize that these aren't the same Republicans they've been campaigning against for the past 40 years. I'm betting that the Republicans and Libertarians are going to notice/have noticed this, as well. I'm also betting that there will be some pretty serious fractures in the right as a result.
But that's down the road. At the moment, the Democrats seem to have no bloody clue what they're doing. Those mid-terms were a friggin' DISASTER. Crap campaigns across the board. And that, as I've said again and again, is why the Democrats piss me off worse than the Republicans these days.
I really think the only way the dem's are going to get any say anywhere in this country is finding some potential screw-up by a big republican, and market the hell outta it. Its sad but i mean a demonic goatman is more likely get lucky with a stacked plantinum angel in heaven than a dem president is getting into the oval office.
*parden my obscure beer induced analogy*
Wear your raincoat, this next campaign season... there's going to be a lot of flinging...
First, jimmac, I'm not even sure what that first post was supposed to mean. You still have not levied any real, specific criticism against Bush that isn't pure "gotcha politics" rhetoric.
The WOMD things has NOTHING to do with this thread. Though, anyone that doesn't think they are there or WERE there right up until the invasion is absolutely kidding himself.
To get back to the point, Kraig911 is right. The Democrats are now almost the total opposite of what they used to be. JFK cut taxes. FDR ended the depression and saw the country through most of WWII. They have become nothing but plastic political whores. At least we know what the Republicans stand for in general. The Democrats have lost their identity.
As I said though, what really troubles me (or actually entertains me) is that they keep sticking to the same failed tactics. The mor eit gets talked about the worse it gets. Before the last election and immediately after it, the talk was of a lacking conherhent agenda. Why, then, are they STILL without one?
Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feeling and personal posturing than logic or fact.
I'm sure they just shipped them out of the country when they heard there was going to be a war. Uh, huh.
Yeah, that's about it in a nutshell. But I do love your really wild metaphorical examples " The criminal liberal media......Plastic, political, whores " Pretty colorful.
I really think the only way the dem's are going to get any say anywhere in this country is finding some potential screw-up by a big republican, and market the hell outta it. Its sad but i mean a demonic goatman is more likely get lucky with a stacked plantinum angel in heaven than a dem president is getting into the oval office.
*parden my obscure beer induced analogy*
Wear your raincoat, this next campaign season... theirs going to be a lot of flinging...
yeah the demonic goatman getting it on, I'd pay to see that... too bad that wouldn't happen either...8)
This isn't about WOMD's dude, who cares if they had them or not, Its all now one less variable less out of the equation, less stuff to muck things up. You're just the type that hates to be wrong... heh
yeah the demonic goatman getting it on, I'd pay to see that... too bad that wouldn't happen either...8)
This isn't about WOMD's dude, who cares if they had them or not, Its all now one less variable less out of the equation, less stuff to muck things up. You're just the type that hates to be wrong... heh
It's my feeling that armchair generals like yourself should have been on the front line. Variables? You're talking about lives! On both sides!
About the demonic goatman.......you obviously have too much time on your hands and need to get a life. But I do recognize flamebait when I see it. Go have another beer.
Comments
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
and don't even get me started on carol mosely-braun.
I would probably vote for Bush before I voted for Carol Mosely-Braun.
Originally posted by bunge
I would probably vote for Bush before I voted for Carol Mosely-Braun.
i said that about dukakis, but it was a different bush.
i don't know if i could make that leap in the next presidential.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i don't know if i could make that leap in the next presidential.
But...but...she's so...dumb.
Originally posted by bunge
But...but...she's so...dumb.
no doubt, what in the world got in her craw to run for..........PRESIDENT?!?!?
her stunning record as an ambassador, probably.
she may be dumb (and i probably shouldn't say this, because, well, "THEY'LL" come) but bush is dangerous and scares me.
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:
"The title of this thread should be : SDW IS STILL IN DENIAL.
Sure Bush will win easily because there's nothing wrong with the economy ( never mind the fact the last time we saw interest rates like this I was ten years old ). I'll bet he thinks Saddam still has WOMD in Iraq. Man you are one to talk about reality.
The question to ask is if the economy does improve slightly is the voting public willing to accept serial recession like they have for the republic"
Jimmac, I am really fighting the urge to question your intelligence right now. Every piece of polling data, recent politcal history and simple common sense points the same direction:
If the economy improves in any significant way, and barring anything completely unforseen, the President will be reelected in a landslide. In addiition he will VERY LIKELY be reelected even IF the economy doesn't get much better, partly due to the weakness of the Democratic field Though, there would still be a chance he could lose.
Any other argument is not based in reality here. Once again, jimmac, you love to twist words, thinking all the while you are angering me for sport (you're not, by the way). I never said there was "nothing wrong" with the economy....YOU DID. I sais we weren't in a "technical" recessions, or something to that effect. I have admitted all along that we did have a PRACTICAL recession, and we are in a SLOWDOWN right now. Unemployment is still historically low, even at 6%. The market has stablized a bit and earnings data has been a little better as of late.
I know that you would LOVE for things to be worse. This isn't 1992, jimmac. If the election was this year, you and others would have a point. But it's not. All things being equal, Bush is going to DESTROY his opposition. The economy improving will simply seal the deal.
Oh, and on you stupid "serial recession" comment. Give me a break. Presidents don't directly cause recessions and booms. Go ahead and think that the 90's were a utopia caused by Clinton if you want. But then, you better also realize that the practical recession began at the end of his second term. Then again, you've always been a good one for illogical polarized beliefs.
It's good to know you're as delusional as ever. I haven't read any polls that say if the economy improves even slightly Bush will be elected by a landslide. Where do you get your info? By the way interest rates are low also. A forty year low. That not a good sign. Also to assume that I want things to remain in the red just so Bush can lose is childish at best!
I don't know what chicken bones you're throwing to view the future of the economy but some of mine don't look good : http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/12/mark...reut/index.htm
Also about how Bush is handling things : http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/09/news...cuts/index.htm
Also I think the economy will have to improve alot to fool the voters this time. They're too smart ( or tired ) to want serial recession again.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
no doubt, what in the world got in her craw to run for..........PRESIDENT?!?!?
I don't know but it wasn't brains. I'd probably have to vote third party or abstain if the choices were Bush or Braun. She is dumb, but he is more dangerous.
Keep in mind I was talking about political candidates, not folks here or Democrats in general.
jimmac:
Oh, gloom and doom! A weak dollar! Gasp!
Why would you even post links like that? Do you think I don't know that there is opposition to the plan? I mean, really. OF COURSE there will be opposition. Then, you spout off about "how Bush is handling things". What does that even mean?
Typical jimmac: Point to a set of outcomes and then attach them automatically to the desired hero or in this case, scapegoat. For me to take you seriously, you have to tell me SPECIFFICALLY what you think Bush has mismanaged. Are you blaming the weak dollar on Bush? Are you blaming the tech collapse on Bush, even though it started in March of 2000? Are you blaming 9/11 and its effects on him? What exactly has he done that you disagree with? He lowered taxes across the board....and yes, for the rich too. And caused a recession? Hmmm.
None of this matters, jimmac. Let me tell you what will happen:
Bush will get his tax cut to the tune of around $500 billion. The economy will improve--mostly due to he natural business cycle and low rates (not to mention low energy prices), and Bush will get credit for it in the next election. The tax cut will have some effect on growth, but not all that much. Really now jimmac: I'm not naive enough to think that $50 billion a year in cuts is really going to do that much. But, it is still tax relief that I'll see (as I saw it the last time)....and I'll take it!
It's the same thing in every thread and with every post. You have no specific criticisms. And, when you actully DO manage one on the off chance you're feeling lucid that day (
Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush will get his tax cut to the tune of around $500 billion. The economy will improve--mostly due to he natural business cycle and low rates (not to mention low energy prices), and Bush will get credit for it in the next election. The tax cut will have some effect on growth, but not all that much.\\
I live in california and all i can say is that for us californians tax cuts will make a huge differance. The job market has dried up quite a bit and many many businesses have closed and left town.
I am a registered democrat but am againt big goverment because i have seen it in action. with our tax money they have cut down on the number of police and have raised money to send underprivalaged low income families to national parks. not so long ago california was the number one place that people wanted to be. Now i tremble at yhe thought of the whole country being exposed to this distructive governing under democratic rule.
Originally posted by JC
I live in california and all i can say is that for us californians tax cuts will make a huge differance. The job market has dried up quite a bit and many many businesses have closed and left town.
I am a registered democrat but am againt big goverment because i have seen it in action. with our tax money they have cut down on the number of police and have raised money to send underprivalaged low income families to national parks. not so long ago california was the number one place that people wanted to be. Now i tremble at yhe thought of the whole country being exposed to this distructive governing under democratic rule.
Well, what I mean is we need more tax relief than the package offered. But, I'll take it. Eliminating the evidends tax is a great idea, really. Again...I'll take it!
You are quite a situation in CA. This is what happens when the Dems go an a tax and spend binge when things are good. It's the same thing in Washington, really...it's just that they can borrow more.
How's the recall of Davis going? That would be something.
Originally posted by SDW2001
bunge:
Keep in mind I was talking about political candidates, not folks here or Democrats in general.
jimmac:
Oh, gloom and doom! A weak dollar! Gasp!
Why would you even post links like that? Do you think I don't know that there is opposition to the plan? I mean, really. OF COURSE there will be opposition. Then, you spout off about "how Bush is handling things". What does that even mean?
Typical jimmac: Point to a set of outcomes and then attach them automatically to the desired hero or in this case, scapegoat. For me to take you seriously, you have to tell me SPECIFFICALLY what you think Bush has mismanaged. Are you blaming the weak dollar on Bush? Are you blaming the tech collapse on Bush, even though it started in March of 2000? Are you blaming 9/11 and its effects on him? What exactly has he done that you disagree with? He lowered taxes across the board....and yes, for the rich too. And caused a recession? Hmmm.
None of this matters, jimmac. Let me tell you what will happen:
Bush will get his tax cut to the tune of around $500 billion. The economy will improve--mostly due to he natural business cycle and low rates (not to mention low energy prices), and Bush will get credit for it in the next election. The tax cut will have some effect on growth, but not all that much. Really now jimmac: I'm not naive enough to think that $50 billion a year in cuts is really going to do that much. But, it is still tax relief that I'll see (as I saw it the last time)....and I'll take it!
It's the same thing in every thread and with every post. You have no specific criticisms. And, when you actully DO manage one on the off chance you're feeling lucid that day (
I'm sorry but there's no other way to look at this poor fool. Think WOMD!
Yeah, that's rich!
Think WOMD!
*cough*
For George Bush that is................
The WOMD things has NOTHING to do with this thread. Though, anyone that doesn't think they are there or WERE there right up until the invasion is absolutely kidding himself.
To get back to the point, Kraig911 is right. The Democrats are now almost the total opposite of what they used to be. JFK cut taxes. FDR ended the depression and saw the country through most of WWII. They have become nothing but plastic political whores. At least we know what the Republicans stand for in general. The Democrats have lost their identity.
As I said though, what really troubles me (or actually entertains me) is that they keep sticking to the same failed tactics. The mor eit gets talked about the worse it gets. Before the last election and immediately after it, the talk was of a lacking conherhent agenda. Why, then, are they STILL without one?
As I said though, what really troubles me (or actually entertains me) is that they keep sticking to the same failed tactics. The mor eit gets talked about the worse it gets. Before the last election and immediately after it, the talk was of a lacking conherhent agenda. Why, then, are they STILL without one?
You are, I think, pretty much right here. I'd quibble with you over the rhetoric, but I'm with you: the D party needs to realize that these aren't the same Republicans they've been campaigning against for the past 40 years. I'm betting that the Republicans and Libertarians are going to notice/have noticed this, as well. I'm also betting that there will be some pretty serious fractures in the right as a result.
But that's down the road. At the moment, the Democrats seem to have no bloody clue what they're doing. Those mid-terms were a friggin' DISASTER. Crap campaigns across the board. And that, as I've said again and again, is why the Democrats piss me off worse than the Republicans these days.
Cheers
Scott
*parden my obscure beer induced analogy*
Wear your raincoat, this next campaign season... there's going to be a lot of flinging...
*good god I can't spell*
Originally posted by SDW2001
First, jimmac, I'm not even sure what that first post was supposed to mean. You still have not levied any real, specific criticism against Bush that isn't pure "gotcha politics" rhetoric.
The WOMD things has NOTHING to do with this thread. Though, anyone that doesn't think they are there or WERE there right up until the invasion is absolutely kidding himself.
To get back to the point, Kraig911 is right. The Democrats are now almost the total opposite of what they used to be. JFK cut taxes. FDR ended the depression and saw the country through most of WWII. They have become nothing but plastic political whores. At least we know what the Republicans stand for in general. The Democrats have lost their identity.
As I said though, what really troubles me (or actually entertains me) is that they keep sticking to the same failed tactics. The mor eit gets talked about the worse it gets. Before the last election and immediately after it, the talk was of a lacking conherhent agenda. Why, then, are they STILL without one?
Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feeling and personal posturing than logic or fact.
I'm sure they just shipped them out of the country when they heard there was going to be a war. Uh, huh.
Yeah, that's about it in a nutshell. But I do love your really wild metaphorical examples " The criminal liberal media......Plastic, political, whores " Pretty colorful.
Don't believe me? Just keep watching.
Oh! Still in check.
Originally posted by kraig911
I really think the only way the dem's are going to get any say anywhere in this country is finding some potential screw-up by a big republican, and market the hell outta it. Its sad but i mean a demonic goatman is more likely get lucky with a stacked plantinum angel in heaven than a dem president is getting into the oval office.
*parden my obscure beer induced analogy*
Wear your raincoat, this next campaign season... theirs going to be a lot of flinging...
This is just wishful thinking at best.
This isn't about WOMD's dude, who cares if they had them or not, Its all now one less variable less out of the equation, less stuff to muck things up. You're just the type that hates to be wrong... heh
Originally posted by kraig911
yeah the demonic goatman getting it on, I'd pay to see that... too bad that wouldn't happen either...8)
This isn't about WOMD's dude, who cares if they had them or not, Its all now one less variable less out of the equation, less stuff to muck things up. You're just the type that hates to be wrong... heh
It's my feeling that armchair generals like yourself should have been on the front line. Variables? You're talking about lives! On both sides!
About the demonic goatman.......you obviously have too much time on your hands and need to get a life. But I do recognize flamebait when I see it. Go have another beer.