Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
My guess is either flouridation of urban water supplies or school desegregation.

Real estate developers and highway contractors may also play a role.

A matchbox of our own,
a fence of real chain link,
grill out on the patio- diposall in the sink

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I will leave it to those more macroeconically inclined than me to flesh this out, but I would suggest you consider the long-term impact of the runaway deficit on your financial self-interest. I suspect you will end up losing far more than the few bucks you're saving from the novelty tax cuts.

There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are projections.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) You're the only one on here saying the criticism was "unpatriotic". The truth of the matter is that the comments were wholly irresponsible and politically unjustifiable.

2) What the people say in the streets and what the would-be leader of the US say and do are 2 separate things. If you see no distinction, you're insane.

3) To argue the truth is shitty and low? As you may say, so fucking what?

1. Actually, you have said several times that it was unpatriotic. You also quoted the Kristol piece which said the same thing. The truth of the matter is that the comments were perfectly valid and justifiable in the face of Bush's use of Allawi as a dog and pony show.

2. The biggest problem with the American political process is that we can't field candidates any more who are capable of calling something dogshit as they're scraping it off their shoes. It's refreshing to see someone actually do it somewhere other than either West Wing or Chuck Norris movies.

3. If you lie down with dogs...

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I will leave it to those more macroeconically inclined than me to flesh this out, but I would suggest you consider the long-term impact of the runaway deficit on your financial self-interest. I suspect you will end up losing far more than the few bucks you're saving from the novelty tax cuts.

I've explained this far too many times to do it again. If anyone is voting for Bush because they think it's the right thing for their bank balance, they're just proving yet again that the one thing this nation needs to cure all its financial woes is an excise tax on stupidity.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The thing is, I agree with you about the fury thing. But I can't help it that the only people who color your vision of the "Right" are the drunks left behind when the Right left the legacy of the dying northern cities to the democrats and other leftists. The "Right" is not an angry drunk in the bar or the guy doing a line off your ass. And the "Right" is not McNaRummy or Father Ashcroft.

The Right is not Racist, Sexist, or anti-immigration. The Right is law-abiding, in favor of limited (very limited) government, and hates unfairness and inefficiency. The Right does not externalize costs onto other people's children or other neighborhoods. You might think you know the Right, but all you are describing is the guy getting drunk next to you at the bar.

People like to cast themselves as part of my Right to shield their hateful views under the cloak of my dignity (see e.g., Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly). And stupid people like to cast me out of the Right, in order to present a skewed picture of the Right as a drunk in a bar.

Than again, if you are invoking an image of an imaginary child being drafted to fight someone else's war, am I thinking too little of you in believing that your characterization of the "Right" was formed in a bar in a northern city?

Done a line off my ass? WTF?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
2. The biggest problem with the American political process is that we can't field candidates any more who are capable of calling something dogshit as they're scraping it off their shoes. It's refreshing to see someone actually do it somewhere other than either West Wing or Chuck Norris movies.

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with the truth of the above. The problem is you wrote it to compliment Kerry. I really don't see how your view could be any more different than the views of most Bush supporters here, and the majority of Americans. I mean seriously wonk, you'd be hard pressed to find many people who'd say Kerry takes clear stands and defends his position.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can you please cite one "relaxed standard" that goes to anything where there is evidence of harm?

Relaxing standards on air quality, has been a consistent part of the Republican agenda since the Reagan Administration. Simply because they've been unsuccessful in achieving a goal does not mean they don't have it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with the truth of the above. The problem is you wrote it to compliment Kerry. I really don't see how your view could be any more different than the views of most Bush supporters here, and the majority of Americans. I mean seriously Club, you'd be hard pressed to find many people who'd say Kerry takes clear stands and defends his position.

What do I have to do with this?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
We covered this in the old days on the Infirm politics boards. The not_Right (is that you?) used scare tactics to ban DDT. Now (insert some huge number) of children die every year because of mosquito-borne diseases.

But surprisingly, very few children are now born without limbs

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's)? I dare you to look for any study that reasonably demonstrates they are dangerous.

CDC has done at least three or them. One was done by the National Cancer Institute. Either Northwestern or U of Chicago did one based on the PCBs dumped in Waukegan harbor. It hasn't been published yet, because it's still ongoing. All of them, including the ongoing one, have found a strong correlation between PCBs and cancer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I've explained this far too many times to do it again. If anyone is voting for Bush because they think it's the right thing for their bank balance, they're just proving yet again that the one thing this nation needs to cure all its financial woes is an excise tax on stupidity.

Your theory is based on projections, which are based on statistics, which are tabulated by people who are not immune to error and are sometimes even biased. Economic projections are like epidemiological models - their predictive value is not the sort of thing you'd ever take to the bank.

According to statistics, I'm dead already of lung disease, kidney cancer, cirrhosis and heart issue. I'm not saying predictions don't have value - I'm just saying that screaming chicken little based on a pile of projected numbers is foolish. I ain't handing free money back because Robert Rubin's great big juicy brain says I should. If I'm wrong and reckless, whatever... won't be the first time and won't be the last.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Suddenly the UN carries the imprimatur of legitimacy? Oh, how the neo-cons have fallen!

More seriously, I don't really get your point. The choice of Allawi came out of the Iraqi governing council, to the apparent surprise of everyone outside of it. The US' agreeing to go along with it, in light of the fact that we've got 100k soldiers in country and the keys to the joint, strikes me as important. If we weren't very comfortable with Allawi, I think we'd have said so.

The UN's acquescence came in the context where not only were they not on the field, they're hardly even on the sidelines. I'm not sure they were even in the stadium. Their agreement was nice and all, but let's not pretend that they had either significant involvement in, or impact on, the outcome.

No, but it does refute the puppet argument. Please explain why you think he is a US puppet, given that he was chosen by Iraqis among choices blessed by the UN. Or do you mean that anyone who was in charge in Iraq is a US puppet because they exist at our leisure?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with the truth of the above. The problem is you wrote it to compliment Kerry. I really don't see how your view could be any more different than the views of most Bush supporters here, and the majority of Americans. I mean seriously Club, you'd be hard pressed to find many people who'd say Kerry takes clear stands and defends his position.

I'm not Club. And I didn't write it to compliment Kerry. I wrote it to insult Dim Son. The plain truth is that both candidates are mediocre. I'm just backing the guy I think is less dangerous and whom I know is less stupid.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
However, he at least had, until recently, the power to control people's actions in a general sense. He no longer has that power, so he no longer has any claim to particular attention.

Since you asked.

Did he? You suffer from the same dream that Clinton did.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What do I have to do with this?

meant wonk

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, but it does refute the puppet argument. Please explain why you think he is a US puppet, given that he was chosen by Iraqis among choices blessed by the UN. Or do you mean that anyone who was in charge in Iraq is a US puppet because they exist at our leisure?

Way to rebut yourself.

You - 1
You - 0