Here is what George Walker Bush III said yesterday:

"History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, but too much. Our aim should not be more government, it should be smarter government."

....and.....

"The answer is not to try to reinvent that system.  It is to fix the problems we face, make the reforms we need, and move forward with the free market system."

WTF?  Its almost too much.  Who is he even talking to?  Who is he trying to convince?  Himself?  No fucking kidding, goofy.  You should try it yourself.

Is there no end to the absurdity of this twit?  Weeks after he goes Neo-Socialist, he's up there yacking about why not to fuck with free markets.  And we're not even shocked anymore.  Ever see clips of him when he tries to explain supply-side economics?  I swear he thinks he invented it.

Whether you Bush Geeks know it or not, and you sure seem like you don't, you have done your country a grave disservice with this fool.  I seriously hope that 200 years from now, some Romney type baptizes the living fuck out of your dead body.  If there is anyone more deserving of Mormon heaven than the Bush Geeks, I don't know about it.  I swear to god I don't.

Brainbell Jangler wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 9:41am:

Actually, McCain took a quick lead in the polls after the GOP convention. His lead held until mid-September. So, you're our own little Nostradamus. We're all so proud of you. I bet you have yer own lil geek squad. Yes, I bet you do!

Pdog wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 10:30am:

I understand the difference between conservatism and racism clearly.  Cracks like "affirmative action baby" directed at a person whose achievements are due solely to his substantial abilities are nothing but racist.  I challenge Glencar to provide any proof that Barack's admission to Harvard Law (or to Columbia or Occidental) was a product of affirmative action.  I would also be interested in any evidence that Clarence Thomas was even close to being the most qualified person for a Supreme Court appointment, and not merely appointed because of his race.

Now, as to conservatism and racism, it is true that they are not equivalent.  On the other hand, opposition to advances in civil rights has always been associated with conservatism.  Conservatives like to point out that many Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of
1965 while many Democrats opposed it.  What they fail to note is that, in the mid-Sixties, you had two types of elected officials who are now essentially extinct:  liberal or moderate Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats.  Liberal (so-called "Rockefeller") Republicans joined Northern Democrats in supporting civil rights.  Conservative Republicans (chief among them Barry Goldwater) joined racist, reactionary Southern Democrats in opposing civil rights.  This is why Goldwater won only in the Deep South (and his native Arizona) and why Republicans had a virtual lock on the South from that day until this election.  Of course, conservatism is generally associated with opposition to every form of progress, from belief in the heliocentric theory of the solar system through rejection of the Divine Right of Kings in the Enlightenment right down to the teaching of evolution today.  That is the legacy of conservatism:  to wrongheadedly fight progress every step of the way.

sirmoonie wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 12:51pm:

Nope.  The Inquisition that burned Bruno and bullied Galileo was the conservative movement of its day.  The Tories who opposed independence from England were America's early conservatives.  Which were the conservatives:  Abolitionists or slaveholders and their supporters?  Liberals supported Reconstruction; conservatives put on sheets.  [Perhaps for "liberal" and "conservative" you could substitute "neophile" and "neophobe."]  It was ever thus.

Brainbell Jangler wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 1:01pm:

Actually, the abolitionists were mostly GOPers. And the rest of your nonsensical post is equally specious. Thus, you are an idiot.

Quote:

Once again, you confuse party name with political philosophy.  The Republican Party at its founding was the liberal (some at the time said "radical") party in the US; the Democrats were then the conservatives.  Please reread my explanation about the civil rights acts of the mid-Sixties.  This stuff is not that complicated if you pay attention.

Brainbell Jangler wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 1:11pm:

Are you saying that history is not a constant struggle between the forces of change and progress (the neophiles or liberals) and the forces of retrenchment and stagnation (the neophobes or conservatives)?  Howe do you figure?
[/quote]

I think to a certain extent you are right. Your analysis of party alliances in American politics in the 60s was spot on. However, all change is not good, and all conservatism is not bad. If we look at the political spectrum, with moderates in the middle, and liberals to the left of them, and radicals to the left of the liberals, there is much fault to find. Radicals are fucknutz too. Robespierre, Stalin and Bill Ayres...all so far to the left that they caused grave damage to their respective societies. Same for the righties too: moderates in the middle, conservatives to the right of them, and reactionaries to the extreme right. Hitler, Nathan Bedford Forrest and Dick Cheney (!!) were all losers too. Cept'n Forrest's generalism. but that's a different matter.

You're overgeneralizing to the extreme. all liberal beliefs and progress is not a good thing, and all conservatives aren't bad.

Brainbell Jangler wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 2:04pm:


fair and balanced. that's me. i'm the #@$*ing fox news of rocks off.

i believe moonie was hinting at the fact that mccain was more qualified because he has more experience. nobody can deny that. obama is still wet behind his big, floppy ears in terms of his governmentalism, and mccain has been governing since rocks were invented. from that perspective, moon q. dizzle is correct.

however...palin thinks dinosaurs and people walked on the earth at the same time! tee hee! was that good judgement? hell nizzle.

sirmoonie wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 2:30pm:

moonie...c'mon. palin? don't tell me you can defend the selection.  she was a hail mary that sailed into the third row of bleachers behind the end zone.

she should be kept as far away from the oval office as possible.  if she could baptise dead people in the name of her lord and savior jesus h. christ, you better believe she would.

Quote:


when did barry say he was going to take money directly from rich peoples' bank accounts and give it to lazy people? let's talk specifics and not just conservative catch phrases.

he would like to give a tax cut to those who make under $250K per year - the middle class. personally, i think people who have three homes and 12 jet skis can afford it.

Starbuck wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 4:20pm:

A t last someone answered my question(somewhat...). Better than last week when it was just stupidity & frivolity. Now, is it fair to take money from someone who has gone to school, racked up huge debts, worked 6 or 7 days a week & 10/14 hour days & finally starts making money & give it to someone who has never made a successful effort in their life? Yes, the money actually is coming from their bank accounts at some point. And the person who is getting the "free" money is someone who doesn't pay income taxes & has never actually done anything with their lives. This is socialistic in its essence & I'm betting that many of those who voted for the idiot didn't realize that he's planning on doing it.

I know of a certain lawyer who has told me that he'll have to lay off 2 or 3 people from his practice if this plan is put into law. I might be affected by it & I can tell you that I will cut back mine own spending, alddie. Even if you think it IS fair (!) you have to see how it will hurt the economy.

monkey_man wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 4:28pm:

Although others threw hissy fits last week & tried to get me banned )for which they've earned my undying enmity) I'm not lying when I say that I gave up on Bush quite a while ago. His ineptitude & general absence this past year solidified my dislike of what he has done.