Politics: J'accuse!

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Similar to the question on everyone's lips: Is President Bush a Homo?

Poor Scott McClellan. The guy just can't catch a break.

From the original article, I particularly liked the reaction from the "prettier" Press Secretary for a Head of State:

For the first time in his life, Mr. Reid had no reply. “I didn't know what to say,” said Mr. Reid, noting later that he wished that Mr. Bush had referred to him as a “rugged-looking young man or something.

“But I'll take what I can, I guess,” he joked. “When a Texas Republican says you've got a pretty face, then I guess there is just no way around it.”

Were the roles reversed, when asked about the exchange, no doubt McClellan would've simply replied that this proves that Bush completed his service in a satisfactory manner.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm assuming that if an entire industry faces the same across-the-board cost increase, then the elasticity of demand for that industry's products/services is close to zero over the range of that passed-through cost increase, because everyone will pass it through or be unable to maintain long-run viability. If you're the only guy trying to raise prices, sure, you face infinite elasticity (well, high, because some clients actually hire you for talent, not price . . at least I assume). But if everyone has higher costs, and thus a need to raise prices, it's a different proposition. Seems to me plenty of firms (indeed, all), raised prices when their associate salaries increased.

If you're contending you're entitled to supra-competitive prices, well, as a client, I say fuck you, sir, fuck you.

Boy, and I get tarred with the old liberal tax and spend bit.

When there is a significant across the board tax, the burden is generally split, eating into profits some, raising costs some, decreasing demand some -- and the decrease in demand is, after all, the goal of sin taxes everywhere. You are positing a tax being imposed for the purpose of decreasing demand for the sin - don't you think the purveyors of sin will suffer?

Whatever industry is affected usually does see a variety of pressures on profitability and sustainability from any tax increase. And demand often shifts, seeking alternative sources (tax gas, railroads benefit and car dealers suffer). If the burden is not significant, expect some providers to eat it hoping to beat the competition that doesn't (so if lawn guy A has been doing your yard and now want $12.25 instead of $12.00, but lawn guy B keeps his price at $12.00, lawn guy B is hoping you'll switch for the $.25).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Were the roles reversed, when asked about the exchange, no doubt McClellan would've simply replied that this proves that Bush completed his service in a satisfactory manner.

I'm trying to picture a Rush-type writing a similar piece about Kerry.

Oh, the outrage . . .

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm trying to picture a Rush-type writing a similar piece about Kerry.

Oh, the outrage . . .

[whiff] Hunh? [/whiff]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You are positing a tax being imposed for the purpose of decreasing demand for the sin - don't you think the purveyors of sin will suffer?

Who's the sinner, the person who does buys the gas or the person who buys the service that requires the use of gas?

The objection to raising the gas taxes is that "it hits the little guy." I say, not true, because the costs will be passed along. And, if they're not passed along, it's because the person with the higher costs is unable to match on efficiency, which is not something I'm sympathetic towards. Or, the other reason they're not passed along, is because current pricing for those services is above the competitive level, which allows for cost increases without commensurate price increases.

Now, about this tax and spend stuff: I'm all for less of both. But your home-state boy isn't. So if he wants to spend, he'd better learn to tax (his experience with Dukakis in the early 80s should come in handy). And I'm suggesting there are better (i.e., more efficient) ways of taxing than by soaking the rich. After all, better to tax an activity that hurts people (using gas) than one that helps (producing wealth).

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm trying to picture a Rush-type writing a similar piece about Kerry.

Oh, the outrage . . .

Huh? If the right-wing cartoons you occasionally post were anywhere near as funny as anything on bettybowers.com, I wouldn't be outraged --- I'd subscribe. The reason Doonesbury and Betty Bowers and The Onion will always be funnier than "Mallard Fillmore" and the other crap right-wing comics is that Trudeau (for example) puts the desire to be funny ahead of his politics, so making a point is subsidiary to making a joke. Thus, he skewered the Deaniacs even as he gave money to the Dean campaign. Right-wing comics make humor the tool of the agenda, rather than making the agenda the springboard for the humor.*

How's Rush's rehab going? I make it my practice not to deal with addicts until they make amends. No offense --- that includes family members.

*I don't have pay cable and thus haven't seen Dennis Miller since he started sucking the president's dick. Thus, I can't comment on whether he's successful where others have failed.

ETA link.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm trying to picture a Rush-type writing a similar piece about Kerry.

Oh, the outrage . . .

Your response presumes that Bush and Kerry are similarly situated with regard to their postures re homosexuality.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Huh? If the right-wing cartoons you occasionally post were anywhere near as funny as anything on bettybowers.com, I wouldn't be outraged --- I'd subscribe. The reason Doonesbury and Betty Bowers and The Onion will always be funnier than "Mallard Fillmore" and the other crap right-wing comics is that Trudeau (for example) puts the desire to be funny ahead of his politics, so making a point is subsidiary to making a joke. Thus, he skewered the Deaniacs even as he gave money to the Dean campaign. Right-wing comics make humor the tool of the agenda, rather than making the agenda the springboard for the humor.*

How's Rush's rehab going? I make it my practice not to deal with addicts until they make amends. No offense --- that includes family members.

*I don't have pay cable and thus haven't seen Dennis Miller since he started sucking the president's dick. Thus, I can't comment on whether he's successful where others have failed.

WTF is a Mallard Fillmore?

All of what you've said is very pretty. Just keep in mind that you're defending queer jokes. How noble.

(ETA: In retrospect, I think you described GT from a few years ago. Now, I think he does exactly what you decry.)

((ETA again!: If DM's sucking a prez's dick, you certainly can't claim he's treading on new ground.)

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
WTF is a Mallard Fillmore?

Crap right wing comic strip. Link here. Apparently, about 400 papers feel duty-bound to run it as a counterpoint to Doonesbury.

All of what you've said is very pretty. Just keep in mind that you're defending queer jokes. How noble.

I live in California. Jokes about prominent people with anti-gay agendas being latent homosexuals is our stock in trade, and hardly homophobic. If anything, it helps to remove the stigma. If only there had been a similar way to skewer Strom Thurmond as a closeted lover of African Americans, we all would have experienced a delicious irony explosion recently. I don't know whom to blame for missing that one. Probably the left's fault for being too earnest.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I live in California. Jokes about prominent people with anti-gay agendas being latent homosexuals is our stock in trade, and hardly homophobic. If anything, it helps to remove the stigma.

So, if I lived in Alabama, . . .

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
WTF is a Mallard Fillmore?

All of what you've said is very pretty. Just keep in mind that you're defending queer jokes. How noble.

(ETA: In retrospect, I think you described GT from a few years ago. Now, I think he does exactly what you decry.)

Mallard Filmore is the stupid comic strip written by an unfunny rightwinger who realized he could salvage his lack of talent by marketing a comic strip as providing editorial balance for the comic pages.

But that particular web page really is more objectionable than funny, in my ocassionally humble opinion.

[Hank Chinaski]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gattigap
Poor Scott McClellan. The guy just can't catch a break.

For the first time in his life, Mr. Reid had no reply. “I didn't know what to say,” said Mr. Reid, noting later that he wished that Mr. Bush had referred to him as a “rugged-looking young man or something.

“But I'll take what I can, I guess,” he joked. “When a Texas Republican says you've got a pretty face, then I guess there is just no way around it.”

Keep it in context. I don't know about Texas, but up here, if you describe someone as "having a pretty face" it usually means they got the big legs.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Similar to the question on everyone's lips: Is President Bush a Homo?

At least he didn't use the full "Deliverance" quote.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
but up here, if you describe someone as "having a pretty face" it usually means they got the big legs.

To wit,

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
To wit,

Got what it takes.