Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

"____, when I read what you say, it is clear that you misunderstand ______"

Board motto?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
Charles Darwin's theory has been substantiated by thousands of studies over and over again by many different groups of researchers all over the world. No one has ever amassed any evidence that evolution doesn't occur exactly as he predicted that it occurs. When a theory has been tested like that and all available evidence substantiates the theory, then it becomes a scientific fact.

So you want me and the others to believe that man came from, .........from.............a MONKEY? NO! I won't do that.

Leag'l, vile anti-god heretics are ruining our fair page. I have Kids for goodness sake, andI know some of the other do also. What if those kids read this, this, anthology of lies.

Leag'l for the god of this forum you must act to ban such filth, and ban Not me from ever again posting such a lie-filled diatribe. He can't be allowed to teach this agenda.
If we don't stop this now, soon there will be homosexuals prostlsixzing on our virtual electronic doors.
I am more interested in the Rock of Ages than I am in the age of rocks.
The Gospel according to Hank! God speaks to Hank, and Hank tells the world! Hank, Hank, Hank Almighty!
All of you know what I stand for - what I believe! I believe in the truth of the Book of Genesis! Exodus! Leviticus! Numbers! Deuteronomy! Joshua! Judges! Ruth! First Samuel! Second Samuel! First Kings! Second Kings! Isaiah! Jeremiah! Lamentations! Ezekiel! -*

*this is amovie reference for the uneducated in a second major, basic area of knowledge.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm ready to guess. SAM is Irv Kayton.

I am moderately insulted.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Spree: Close up of Janet's Nip:

http://www.drudgereport.com/jjt.jpg

Her breast augmentation looks as bad as her brother's nose. And what a nasty nipple piercing.

[Not Me]

I wonder how long it will take someone to try to turn Janet's nasty nip exposure into a racial issue? My guess? Not long. I can see Sharpton weaving it into one of his campaign speeches as a justification for reparations.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I wonder how long it will take someone to try to turn Janet's nasty nip exposure into an issue? My guess? Not long.

I think you misunderstand the phrase "swing voter."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think you misunderstand the phrase "swing voter."

I think the fun FB idea of altering quotations and presenting them as . . . um . . . quotations might not translate so well here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think the fun FB idea of altering quotations and presenting them as . . . um . . . quotations might not fly here.

You're just cranky 'cuz I beat you to the joke.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

A Bush administration budget vow to cut the record $521 billion deficit in half by 2009 assumes higher tax revenues and restrained spending while excluding key areas sure to require hefty outlays, like Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/po...E-DEFICIT.html

On the one hand I guess the SOTU's promised deficit reduction wouldn't be much of a discussion point if it was based on some aggressive supply-side revenue projections. We could all make our usual statements and and snarky asides, etc etc, without getting very far into meat of the statement itself.

But if the admin is getting to that reduction number by simply ignoring the expected cost of reconstructing Iraq, is it too much to say that this statement in the SOTU was actively misleading? To use a meaningless cliche myself, isn't this Enron accounting?

[Not Me]

Interesting CNN poll

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...rez/index.html

Bush was seen as a stronger leader than Kerry -- 53 percent to 39 percent --and, despite Kerry's military service in Vietnam, more patriotic than the senator from Massachusetts, 49 percent to 34 percent.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
On the one hand I guess the SOTU's promised deficit reduction wouldn't be much of a discussion point if it was based on some aggressive supply-side revenue projections. We could all make our usual statements and and snarky asides, etc etc, without getting very far into meat of the statement itself.

But if the admin is getting to that reduction number by simply ignoring the expected cost of reconstructing Iraq, is it too much to say that this statement in the SOTU was actively misleading? To use a meaningless cliche myself, isn't this Enron accounting?

Gosh Larry, you certainly won't generate a civil discussion on this Board by suggesting that anything "actively misleading" comes out of Washington. Or, you might get the response that it can't be a "lie" because it is predictive.

In my view, it misleading unless every single time you say the number you flash up the screen ("Not counting some number up to $50 billion (but probably less) for the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005.") Others would say its not misleading, because "everyone" knows the truth.

Also note that per the last numbers I heard -- the Bush administration's promise to cut the deficit "in half" by then was talking about cutting the projected deficit from $511 billion (FY 2004) to $364 billion. Math is Hard, but by the time you get down to the Assistant Secretary level there must be someone who can do sums.

So, yeah, its misleading, but I think that this is all within the standard range of political bullshit that one receives from most administrations.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So, yeah, its misleading, but I think that this is all within the standard range of political bullshit that one receives from most administrations.

The suggestion that "everyone lies about this stuff" masks the fact that this Administration's finances are seriously out of whack. At least the last two administrations were trying. These guys are only pretending.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Gosh Larry, you certainly won't generate a civil discussion on this Board by suggesting that anything "actively misleading" comes out of Washington. Or, you might get the response that it can't be a "lie" because it is predictive.

In my view, it misleading unless every single time you say the number you flash up the screen ("Not counting some number up to $50 billion (but probably less) for the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005.") Others would say its not misleading, because "everyone" knows the truth.

Also note that per the last numbers I heard -- the Bush administration's promise to cut the deficit "in half" by then was talking about cutting the projected deficit from $511 billion (FY 2004) to $364 billion. Math is Hard, but by the time you get down to the Assistant Secretary level there must be someone who can do sums.

So, yeah, its misleading, but I think that this is all within the standard range of political bullshit that one receives from most administrations.

S_A_M

I agree that they should have made some assumptions and included them, I don't think the $50 billion is material given the size of the budget.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The suggestion that "everyone lies about this stuff" masks the fact that this Administration's finances are seriously out of whack. At least the last two administrations were trying. These guys are only pretending.

I tend to agree (perhaps its because the lack of divded government has removed checks and balances).

I also hope lots of folks see it that way -- the fiscal arguments could be one of the Democrats' best cards to play with the moderate voters in retaking the White House.

(Which still matters to me due to judicial nominations, environmental policy, etc. I've been thinking, though, (and want to pass this along to tweak Club and the boys), that so long as the Dems retain enough clout to block certain judicial nominations and to block some of the more radical changes to environmental policies, etc., we might as well keep Bush. He's basically governing like a conservative Democrat -- except for the spending orgy.)

S_A_M

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think the $50 billion is material given the size of the budget.

I understand you in the literal math sense ($50B is small when compared to $2.4T), but given that this is the time of year when people scream at each over a few million thrown here and there over (say) NEA funding or moehair subsidies, this statement makes me smile.