"They are the Most Crooked, Lying Bunch..."

[selfmademug]

It is just that no one has said a single damn credible thing to unsubstantiate my original post. Not a single thing.

Which of your four or five points do you refer to here? I think they've all been addressed. You may not find them credible but many of us do. I think I've seen HS addresseing your points more directly than I've seen you do of his. It's a common mistake-- I make it all the time, myself-- to feel that if there is a large group of folks with whom you disagree, that they all feel the same and are being brainwashed by some evil power. But it's rarely the case.

What strikes me as odd, Mr. A., is that you continue to use words like 'slam' and 'slur' when this has been a very non-personal debate, very different in tone and vocabulary, for example, than what we saw (including from my own little keyboard) in our de-baits with ARL. You may well be in the politcal minority on this board, but many of us feel in the political minority in other contexts in our lives, and I think we all know how inherently personal 'politics' can feel when we're passionate and dedicated to righting what we see are wrongs that come from those same 'politics'. You know we feminists used to say back in the 80s that the personal is political, and the reverse is damned true as well. I really hope you do not see this paragraph as a personal attack or slam; it ius meant to be an informal analysis of why we get angry over this stuff and perceive personal attacks where they may not exist.

Frankly I'm not emotionally strong enough just now to engage in the political discussion specifically; I've got a big chunk of life falling apart and I know better than to add to my troubles here. But I do have one actual substantive question for you: how do you square your obviously sincere and deep concern for soldiers and veterans with your support of Bush when faced with his repeated slashing of their benefits? Fair warning, I'm not going to respond to it, so you don't have to answer, but truly, I am curious.

[Mr. Average]

Selfmademug:

The best of the best to you and yours.

I cannot answer yuor question. I do not have an answer. I am not educated in this matter. Thanks for posing the question, and I will get to work to understand it.

The support bill passed, in spite of Kerrys vote against it. In that light, I see no reason for the cuts that you mentioned.

Thank you for sharing your strong opinions in a PM. You have such an ability to render an opinion that opens the mind to consideration. Your PM, without any real specifics, did more than the entirety of this thread to help me open my mind to a more balanced view. I clearly disclaimed that I am not a blind, ardent support of Bush. I abhore some of the proposed legislation of this administration, and see the pandering and voting bias implication in some of the policy. It is inexcuseable, in spite of the fact that it is integral to the fabric of the power of the presidency. Too bad.

Thanks, A SelfMeadeMug for your always thoughtful discourse and challenges.

[HungupStrungup]

Which of your four or five points do you refer to here? I think they've all been addressed. You may not find them credible but many of us do. I think I've seen HS addresseing your points more directly than I've seen you do of his. . . .

What strikes me as odd, Mr. A., is that you continue to use words like 'slam' and 'slur' when this has been a very non-personal debate, very different in tone and vocabulary, for example, than what we saw (including from my own little keyboard) in our de-baits with ARL.

Yeah, what she said.

[selfmademug]

I did a quick search, and of course the findings are quite partisan (though I found far more against Bush than for him on this issue).

As far as pundits go, I'm quite fond of Bob Kuttner. So while this is as much of a 'take' on the issue as any other, I'll give you this (rather than the hilarious one in THE ONION, which I know would not convince you!).

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/ ... 03-27.html

At this point in the thread, I provide this as much for your own Republican activism (since you say you are not entirely enamored of Bush and I know you support Vets) as I do as reasons why I'm a tree-stump voter too.

Nuf' said. From me anyway.

[HungupStrungup]

I'm beginning to think I'm not going to get a recanting of the misquoting accusation or an apology for the "just plain cowardice" accusation. Ok, if that's the case, I'll just have to put them in the context of the thread and from now on, just "consider the source."

I'll try one more substantive argument, and if I get the same response (or lack of one) as my others have elicited, I'll be done. Then you can just say "nya nya nya" and "your mother wears combat boots" to your heart's content, or the equivalent, "I've been slurred, and no one will respond with facts."

I won't, as some seem to find it necessary to do, claim that what follows is all factual. I'll editorialise first, clearly labelled, and then some facts will follow, then more editorialising. Ready?

Analysis (editorial): In the 2000 campaign, W derided Al Gore for "fuzzy math" and his repetitive "lock box" wonkage, but what Mr. Gore proposed was what the government should have been doing all along: sequestering the so-called Social Security Trust Fund from the general pool of tax funds, putting money aside in the good times, so that it will be there for your retirement and mine so as not to put a crippling burden on future workers. W said that wasn't necessary. He claimed that we could give tax cuts, while still using the surpluses to come in future years to pay down debt and meet looming obligations. In my opinion, HE LIED! He only cared about tax cuts for his wealthy contributors, never about paying down debt, paying for necessary programs out of current revenues, the future of Social Security, its recipients and the taxpayers who will have to pay the bills that are coming due.

Ok, enough editorialising, here are some facts:

This administration inherited a budget surplus, with projections of more of the same for years to come. In presenting his annual budget proposal in 2002, W provided projections as are always done. It was then projected that for the fiscal year we are now in, the Federal deficit would be $14 billion. According to him, the tax cuts he was then proposing were affordable, and necessary to stimulate growth, and with it job creation.

Flash forward to the present. The deficit projections for the current year stand at $531 billion and rising, about 38 times what was projected two years ago. Economic growth has been negligible, except for one or two quarters, and this administration will be the first since Herbert Hoover's to preside over an economy in which jobs have been lost overall.

Conclusions (ok, more editorialising):

Mind you, in early 2002, the time period in which the budget we're discussing was formulated and the tax cut legislation presented, 9/11 had already happened and its impact on the economy was fairly well established; further, the recession following the bursting of the dot.com bubble was already over, although we didn't know it yet. Given those factors, you'd think the growth forecasts and tax revenue projections of early 2002 would be on the conservative side, that we would by now have exceeded the targets considerably, that is if the tax cuts were ever going to have the stimulative effect promised.

Earlier in this post I stated my belief that W lied, Further, I think he never cared about plunging the country into unprecedented debt and squandering our future wealth, not on infrastructure, education or economic development, areas of investment that might ultimately benefit us as a nation; but rather on tax cuts for the wealthy, programs that benefit no one but big corporations, and tax breaks for polluters and other bad corporate citizens. I believe he has learned nothing from his failures, that in fact his agenda for the next term remains the same. You don't have to agree with my assessment, but if you believe he means well, and you have any shred of objectivity, you must conclude that W is totally incompetent to bring about the results he promises.

Frankly, it astonishes me that anyone gives Bush even a chance of being reelected. If it weren't for Al Qaeda, he probably wouldn't have a prayer. With enemies like these, who needs friends?

The fact that it's actually going to be a close election is monumentally scary.

[noiseradio]

HUngup,

One caveat in the factual section of your post:

To say Bush inherited an actual budget surplus is not quite accurate. It would be more accurate to say that Bush inherited a projected budget surplus, based on economic indicators remaining approximately where they had been under Clinton/Gore. During the 2000 campaign, both sides (editorial: manipulatively, IMHO) made promises about what they were going to do with the surplus. How they were going to use this extra money. Bush said let's give some back it back to the taxpayers, Gore said let's shore up Social Security with it. The problem is they were talking about money that did not yet materially exist. Those figures were calculated based on the assumption that the economy would continue to do pretty much exactly what is had already done for the last decade. As you noted, the dotcom bubble was bursting, and 9/11 was to have devistating effects on the economy. The dotcom bubble would have burst for Gore as well. Assuming (and there's no way to be sure, but I think it would) that 9/11 would have happened on Gore's watch, the not-yet-extant surplus would have disappeared either way.

Now it's perfectly fair to criticize the current administration's handling of the economy. It's fair to say that tax cuts might not have been the best plan given those circumstances (it's also fair to suggest that the very slow economic recovery we are currently experiencing--too slow, but still--is at least a shred of evidence that the tax plan isn't the abysmal failure Gephardt said it was. There's a good debate to be had there). Either way, it's not really fair to slam Bush for losing the surplus for two reasons. It didn't exist yet, except on paper, and it seems that the economy was headed for a whalloping no matter who was in office. Remember that it was under Clinton's watch that the stock market first started showing signs of trouble. After the attack on the Cole, there was a dip, and when the fighting flared back up between the Israelis and Palestinians (thanks, Mr. Sharon) it began slowly but steadily declining. Economists had been predicting a slowdown in the economy while Clinton was still pres. So for Gore (and Bush, of course) to project a surplus based on the trends BEFORE the slowdown (which had already begun) was dishonest. At first, Congressional Republicans made this exact argument--that the "surplus" was fun with numbers and that it could not be counted on. That to base longterm economic policy on the hope that an unprecedented economy would continue unchecked was irresponsible. But "surplus" sounded so good to the public that they started making their own plans for the surplus. It was all smoke and mirrors.

None of the above may have much bearing on your feelings about Bush, but the surplus shouldn't be much of an issue either way.

[HungupStrungup]

Your point is well taken, in that the projections were flawed. The theoretical surplus would have disappeared anyway. But then, such projections are always flawed. The economy simply refuses to stand still to have its temperature taken.

Gore and Bush were using the same figures and operating with very similar assumptions in projecting what they would do with whatever surplus there was. I think it's reasonable to assume that a President Gore would have followed similar principles to those he espused in the campaign, and we wouldn't be looking at half a trillion added to our debt this year, and next, and probably the year after that.

I don't blame Bush for the lousy economy, by the way, at least not more than he deserves. There is a business cycle, and downturns will occur. But he used the recession as an excuse to do what he would have done anyway, and he refuses to adjust his approach no matter how much evidence there is that it's not working.

This administration has but two solutions, no matter what the problem is. One is to invade Iraq, and the other is to cut taxes for the wealthy. Al Qaeda flies planes into buildings, so let's invade Iraq. North Korea reprocesses uranium, so let's invade Iraq. A Pakistani scientist sells nuclear technology to whomever can pay, so let's invade Iraq.

Now that Iraq is ours, they're down to one answer for whatever problems arise. Unemployment goes up, so we must cut taxes for the wealthy. Medicare is going broke, so we must cut taxes for the wealthy. If a suitcase nuclear device detonates in Chicago or New Orleans, at least Donald Trump, Ross Perot and Bill Gates will benefit.

[noiseradio]

Your point is well taken, in that the projections were flawed. The theoretical surplus would have disappeared anyway. But then, such projections are always flawed. The economy simply refuses to stand still to have its temperature taken.

That's exactly my point, and you said it so concisely! Politicians have always/will always take more credit for the good economy than they deserve and get more blame for the bad economy than they deserve as well. Clinton wasn't in office for a whole month when he took credit for job and economic growth in the first quarter of 1993. Any credit that early would have belonged to the outgoing Bush administration. (The same can be said for Bush and the military, by the way. W ran on the notion that the Clinton military was in shambles, but it was that same military that he sent into Afghanistan and Iraq that did such an impressive job. I doubt he called Clinton to say "I was wrong").

[Mr. Average]

HungUp:

Please accept my apology for spiraling into name-calling in one of my later posts. It was unacceptable, and I regret it. I let my emotions get the better of me after being misquoted as presenting a fact when I CLEARLY had labeled it an editorial.

After review of the entire thread, I draw a new conclusion. There is no black and white. My original post attempted to frame my arguments in black and white. While I retain my convictions, this is clearly a case where a thread based on black and white thinking cannot lead to anything but animosity and frustrated response.

I will close by saying that I do think it is noble and American to support the administration when possible. It is unAmerican to label any individual a liar and a cheat and a calculated incompetant without irrefutable evidence to support the fact. I don't see the irrefutable evidence. While I am concerned about some of the political moves of the bush administration, I am more concerned about the safety of the United States of America. Like Reagan, Bush has commanded a healthy respect from foreign leaders who would promote an agenda of terror to spread their political ideology. There was zero respect under the Clinton administration, as evidenced from Madeline Albrights statements in fron to of the 9/11 commission.

Hungup, I sincerely thank you for your comments. You made a few that have really given me pause for reconsideration of my staunch views. However, I will not vote for John Kerry for too many reasons to cite here. Suffice it to say that I would also not vote for a tree stump instead of Kerry. I would abstain from voting if I genuinely felt that either candidate had evil and sinister intentions at heart. I feel that Bush does not harbor these intentions. He may be incompetant by many accounts, but he is, IMHO, leading a valiant effort to bring safety and security to the people of the homeland, and to peoples of all races, creeds, and colors around the world. I beleive that, as silly as it sounds. I believe that.

It might be worth a good laugh. But I stand by my convictions.

Again, I apologize for some of my derogations. They were uncalled for, and reduced the integrity of my arguments. I solicit your forgiveness.

Good Health, and God Bless.

[crash8_durham]

All this arguing is due to all those crooked politicians. Wait....that was redundant

[HungupStrungup]

MrA, your apology is accepted. There are no hard feelings.

I would gladly trade in the apology, however, for a simple recanting of your accusation that I misquoted you. When I quote people, if editing is desirable to allow readers to focus on the heart of the matter, I like to think I do it fairly and present the context of what I'm quoting. I think I did that with you. But instead of recanting, you repeated your charge:

HungUp:

. . . I let my emotions get the better of me after being misquoted as presenting a fact when I CLEARLY had labeled it an editorial.

Here's what I quoted, verbatim

More to follow. Many are waiting for the TV advertisement endorsing John Kerry that ends with the statement "This is Osama Bin Laden, and I endorse this ad" (an editorial slip, I know, but sadly humourous).

and here's what I said

Sad yes, but not particularly humorous. Is this a worthy example of a "recent fact" presented "for [my] edification and review"?

You really must learn the difference between the declarative and the interrogative. I did not misquote your editorialising. I made no statement implying that you were presenting that as a fact; instead, I asked a question. I inquired as to whether you considered your statement worthy of your thread-opening, post-opening, "I present some recent facts for your edification and review"

Because I found your way of presenting what you apparently consider facts to be slanted, and egregiously so, I inquired, in a way I thought would be recognised as sarcastic, whether you were living up to your own billing. I could have selected half a dozen other examples from your original post, and in fact I and others had questioned the veracity of some of them in other posts, which had been ignored.

You think that

Like Reagan, Bush has commanded a healthy respect from foreign leaders who would promote an agenda of terror to spread their political ideology. There was zero respect under the Clinton administration, as evidenced from Madeline Albrights statements in fron to of the 9/11 commission.

I think the hearings this week show the Bush administration was so anxious to be Not Clinton that it ignored warnings about Al Qaeda and determined that Enemy #1 was Iraq, no matter what transpired. I also think Condoleezza Rice is incompetent and a liar who can't keep her excuses straight.

You also say

I do think it is noble and American to support the administration when possible. It is unAmerican to label any individual a liar and a cheat and a calculated incompetant without irrefutable evidence to support the fact. I don't see the irrefutable evidence. While I am concerned about some of the political moves of the bush administration, I am more concerned about the safety of the United States of America.

As much as I disagree with most of the policies of the administration, I support the effort to make us safer and stronger. I wish I thought the administration's actions were doing that. Our safety is critical, and our strength, for the sake of the world and the cause of peace. I think we're less safe and less secure because W is in the Oval Office, and that's why I will be voting for John Kerry.

I also think it's un-American to label a political opponent soft on defense when he's not, unpatriotic when he's not, and supportive of the views of Jane Fonda just because he sat near her at an anti-war rally. I expect this campaign to be nearly Nixonian in its negativity, and I wish it were not going to be so.

As for who's at fault in all of this mess and what to do about it, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Mr. Average]

OK.

And I will work on understanding the difference between the declarative and the interrogative.

I'm pretty sure I have a good understanding of the differences and grammatical usage of these two kinds of statements.

But I wonder? Maybe? Maybe.

[bambooneedle]

Again, I apologize for some of my derogations. They were uncalled for,

I always find that a funny expression -- if things always had to be "called for" nothing would ever happen...

[HungupStrungup]

In her New York Times Op-ed column today, Maureen Dowd parodies a letter from Alberto R. Gonzales, White House counsel, to the 9/11 Commission, detailing the conditions under which the president and vice-president agree to appear. After stating that all questions will be answered by the vice president, and following such conditions as

The Commission must agree in writing that it will not pose any questions directly to the President. Mr. Bush's statements will be restricted to asides on Dick Cheney's brushoffs, as in "Just like he said," "Roger that" and "Ditto."

and

. . . the Vice President will only entertain questions about negligence in fighting terrorism concerning the critical period between Jan. 21, 1993, and Jan. 20, 2001. [i.e., the Clinton years]

the brilliant Ms. Dowd, as Mr. Gonzales, then gets serious:

The Vice President will not address any queries about why no one reacted to George Tenet's daily "hair on fire" alarms to the President about a coming Al Qaeda attack; or why the President was so consumed with chopping and burning cedar on his Crawford ranch that he ignored the warning in an Aug. 6, 2001, briefing that Al Qaeda might try to hijack aircraft; or why the President asked for a plan to combat Al Qaeda in May and then never followed up while Richard Clarke's aggressive plan was suffocated by second-raters; or why the President was never briefed by his counterterrorism chief on anything but cybersecurity until Sept. 11; or why the Administration-in-amber made so many cold war assumptions, such as thinking that terrorists had to be sponsored by a state even as terrorists had taken over a state; or why the President went along with the Vice President and the neocons to fool the American public into believing that Saddam had a hand in the 9/11 attacks; or why the Administration chose to undercut the war on terrorism and inflame the Arab world by attacking Iraq, without a plan to protect our perilously overextended forces or to exit with a realistic hope that a democracy will be left behind.

The Commission must not, under any circumstances, ask the Vice President why American soldiers and civilians in Iraq are being greeted with barbarous infernos rather than flowery bouquets.

[Mr. Average]

"Maureen Dowd "parodies" a letter..."


par·o·dy ( P )
n. pl. par·o·dies

A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.
The genre of literature comprising such works.

[HungupStrungup]

and your point is what?

I've got one too:

parody

n 1: a composition that imitates somebody's style in a humorous way [syn: lampoon, spoof, sendup, mockery, takeoff, burlesque, travesty, charade, pasquinade] 2: humorous or satirical mimicry [syn: mockery, takeoff] v 1: make a spoof of; make fun of [syn: spoof] 2: make a parody of; "The students spoofed the teachers" [syn: spoof, burlesque]


Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[mood swung]

hold on to your dictionaries, race fans!! the definitive battle has begun!




ok, backing out now.....

[crash8_durham]

If this was a big EC fan club dinner party and you folks were going back and forth with each other like this you would be ashamed of yourselves.

[Mr. Average]

No, as a matter of fact, I would never be ashamed to stand firmly behind my convictions, regardless of the venue.

I feel that HungUp would feel exactly the same way...that it is more important to stand firm if you feel that your opinion is an educated one, and has broad implications...literally, implications for the entire planet, not just the US.

It may seem ironic, but I admire anyone, regardless of my judgement of the merits of their arguments, who stand up and fight for something that they feel strongly about. I think HungUp is wrong. HungUp is sure thatI am nuts. BlueChair suggests that I have been brainwashed. And KofC implies that I am lacking credibility because I do not immediately cite my references. Nonetheless, I greatly admire all of these poster, personalities, and fellow EC lovers.

Dinner party or not. We hold theses truths to be self-evident.......