Cynical Nation

Barry,
I am glad you realized your mistake (even that late). I have to say that your analysis on the issue is very good and I agree with most things. I think that Bush's veto was unbelievable, and in a way bizzare, and of course hypocritical.

I respect your wish to have voted for a libertarian instead, but let me say this:
If Kerry were president today (as he should), stem cell research will be moving forward. There is no question that he will be supporting it. I believe that's a very big deal and it matters a lot.

Well Barry, this is just one issue, among a number, over which I disagree with GW.

I not only support abortion, but would require mandatory birth control (and where applicable, abortion) for ALL those on public assitance, in prison and other such "wards of the state."

Ironically enough, Margeret Sanger, the Founder of Planned Parenthood went even further than I do, but that's a whole other topic.

At any rate, with this veto, Bush merely maintained the 1996 Dickey Amendment, which was passed by a huge bi-partisan majority back then.

Remember, the embryonic stem cell research ban began in 1996. It must be noted that Bill Clinton NEVER challenged the Dickey Amendment. In 1999 he merely side-stepped it, to avoid a confrontation with Congressional Republicans.

It was that leaving the Dickey Amendment in tact that left the issue unsettled and uncertain.

Currently bio-technology is a $100 BILLION a year, industry in the U.S. and as it should be, almost all of that money and all of the research is being conducted by private enterpises...again, AS IT SHOULD BE.

Once again poor Blue (BW) is WRONG on ALL counts.

I may disagree with Bush on this issue, BUT, it was NOT "unbelievable."

Bush couldn't have over-turned Dickey. To do so would've been hypocritical, yes, even "unbelievable," especially after his six year, pro-life stance.

It was NOT "bizarre," as it did NOT end federal funding for stem cell research. In fact, all but one line of stem cell research (embryonic stem cell research) is being federally funded - that INCLUDES umbilical and placental stem cell research.

AND, it's ANYTHING BUT "hypocritical," again, since G W Bush campaigned as a pro-life (that's anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and anti-embryonic stem cell research, in case you weren't aware of that BW) candidate. It WOULD'VE been very hypocritical of G W Bush to have done anyhting other than what he did today, considering his long-time pro-life stance.
"If Kerry were president today (as he should), stem cell research (would) be moving forward. There is no question that he (would) be supporting it." (BW)
(BW)


Hey! Apparently I have some real GOOD NEWS for you BW!

Stem cell reesearch, even embryonic stem cell research, is even now "moving forward!" Yipee!!! Only federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is banned and that research hasn't suffered, as tons of private money has flowed into that research.

In short, it's being done in the best possible way, in the hands of knowledgable, profit-motivated private enterprise!

Personally, I wish government would get out funding ALL such research. Getting government OUT fo the WAY would be a good first step toward opening up real advances in bio-technology, alternative energy and every other possible solution to man's problems.

not to be antagonistic, but BW, you are a political snob.
And I agree with JMK ( and never voted for W). I knew Bush's stance on abortion, stem cells, and environment. so being so shocked is kinda off.

Again, Rachel, you can always be counted on to be honest, independent and a generally fair minded person (no, not because you agree with me...in this instance), but because you see things as they are.

For GW to have done anything else, given his professed pro-life views, WOULD BE "hypocritical," "bizarre" and yes, even "unbelievable." He ran TWICE as a pro-life candidate!

I may not agree with this particular stance, or some of his other pro-life positions, but anyone who didn't know where he stood on such issues, has spent the last six years either kidding themselves, or not paying attention.

My views are closer to Margret Sanger's than G W Bush, when it comes to abortion, birth control, etc, BUT overall, I agreed more with his views (especially on the war on terrorism) than those of his opponents.

In this case, I'll have to take the bad with the good.

I understand where Barry is going. I just read Glenn Reynold's op ed and the consensus is of all the times he had to veto something, W had to veto something that could be useful to Americans. It's just relieving to know he can't stop the private business. It makes me happy that abortion is not supported by public funds.

Here's the problem I have with both Barry's and Glenn's and many other people's stances on this issue, it's that at its core, urban elitist, or more aptly, urbane elitist.

I believe that Barry knows that (1) stem cell research is STILL federally funded (except for one line - embryonic stem cell research) and (2) that even embryonic stem cell research is going on UNABATED, as the $100 BILLION/year bio-tech industry is moving forward even with embryonic stem cell research.

What I believe Barry's major problem with this veto is how this will look to most Americans.

Look, when you live in NYC, SF, Wash, D.C., LA, etc, it's easy to come to believe that "everyone else must think like us."

Well, as Barry actually knows (in his heart, if not his head) is that's just not so.

Millions of rural, exurban and suburban voters DON'T view things and issues the way their more urban and urbane cousins do.

Moreover, given Bush's stance on abortion and the Schiavo case, he couldn't even consider upholding a Bill that effectively overturned the 1996 Dickey Amendment.

As to abortion, it's actually a BLESSING that it's not federally funded, Rachel. Planned PArenthood is BIG BUSINESS!

Like I've often said, even though I'd actually mandate enforced birth control and even abortion for the indigent wards of the state, I acknowledge that Roe vs Wade is BAD LAW, just as the 1973 SC ruling that temporarily made Capital Punishment "Unconstitutional," was BAD LAW.

It over-reaches. Both those decisions did.

Abortion, like Capital Punishment should be up to each individual state...and that's all that the over-turning of Roe would do - send that issue back to the individual states.

How many states would today outlaw abortion?

Not many, would be my guess.

How much embryonic stem cell research is stymied by the lack of federal funding?

Probably VERY LITTLE. Individual states have supported and MORE IMPORTANTLY and VITALLY, more independent, individual investor money has gone into that research.

Private research is almost ALWAYS more efficient and effective than governmental research.

JMK wrote:
"It was NOT "bizarre," as it did NOT end federal funding for stem cell research.

JMK,
You are good guy and I am relieved to find that you are socially liberal. Thats great. However, you always feel the need to defend Bush no matter how bizzare, extreme, and out of touch with reality his actions are.

Applying his only Veto ever to block federal funding for SCR is beyond bizzare. It is very similar to what some religious fanatic kings and other leaders were doing in the name of religion in the medieval times in Europe when they were refusing to accept scientific advances. The fact that the bill had broad support among many republican senators says a lot.

"Stem cell reesearch, even embryonic stem cell research, is even now "moving forward!""

JMK,
It is in other countries, but not in the USA. For a few reasons:

1. Several of the cell lines that you are talking about are well known to be contaminated and of very little use. There have been extensive discussions by stem cell researchers on that in scientific journals. That is an undisputable fact. Check it out.

2. The lack of federal funding in that area has catastrophic consequences. Although private companies are supporting (their own) research in the area, the researchers in the Universities can not conduct such research in the absence of federal funds. That is exactly why some leading figures in the field of SCR have been relocating to european universities.

Sorry, but these are the real facts.

WoW!

Does that mean you agree with me that birth control and, where necessary, abortion, be mandated for the indigent "wards of the state" (those on public assistance, in prison, etc), BW?

That's cool!

It's not the most popular view right now, but it is the most practical and I think, over time, it will become more popular, as most logical things do.

AGAIN, the ban on federal funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research began in 1996 with the passage of the Dickey Amendment.

Bill Clinton never sought to repeal the Dickey Amendment. He never had the courage to challenge it. So those who expect G W Bush to turn his back on some fifty million "Religious Right" votes, are being more than a little silly.

As I said, (1) there is NO BAN on embryonic stem cell research itself, just a ban on federal funding for it, (2) there are numerous other FORMS (not lines of embryonic stem cells that can be used - LINES & FORMS are two different things) of stem cells. There are different FORMS of stem cells - umbilical stem cell research is one such alternative FORM and (3) the bio-tech field is actually a lot better off with LESS government funded research. Government funding ALWAYS comes with lots more restrictions and tons of paperwork.

Sorry, but America's bio-tech industry is one of the most vibrant in all the world.

The private sector always does the best research and tends to keep its eye, RIGHTFULLY, on the bottomline.

So, yes, there are existing LINES of embryonic stem cells that can still be used in government funded research (not a perfect substitute by any means), BUT more importantly there are other KINDS or FORMS of stem cells (umbilical, placental, etc) and those can be used in federally funded research.

AGAIN, if you agree with me on mandatory birth control & abortion, then you should also agree that government funded research, more often than not, pales in comparison to profit-driven, private enterprise research, because the private sector is where the results are usually found.

To me, it's a minor issue. First, it does NOT curtail embryonic stem cell research. Second, it does NOT diminsh the government funding for other FORMS of stem cell research and third, it has actually stimulated more private/investor funding and many states (including NJ) have set aside monies for embryonic stem cell research.

In the final analysis, at least in my view, not a big deal.

I'm glad we can agree on some issues.

JMK wrote:

"WoW!
Does that mean you agree with me that birth control and, where necessary, abortion, be mandated for the indigent "wards of the state" (those on public assistance, in prison, etc), BW?"

LOL. I did not read carefully what you had written in the other post. No, not at all!!! I dont agree with you on that.

JMK wrote:

"BUT more importantly there are other KINDS or FORMS of stem cells (umbilical, placental, etc) and those can be used in federally funded research."

JMK,
I think you have a major misunderstanding on what stem cell research really is (due to misleading statements by right wing groups in order to promote their anti-scientific agenda).

"Adult" stem cells have essentially nothing to do with "real" stem cell research. Adult stem cells (and "umbilical" stem cells are one type of adults SC) are only used in the treatment of certain blood diseases. Thats their only application. They can not become cells for other organs in the body. Adult stem cell research has been in effect since the 70s (when they started doing bone marrow transplants), but holds no real promise for neurological illness, heart disease, diabetes, etc. Simply because these cells are limited to becoming only blood cells. On the other hand, embryonic stem cells can be driven to any different cell type in the body. Thats the whole thing. Thats why scientists are pushing for real stem cell research that is only one in reality: embryonic stem cell research.

JMK wrote:
that government funded research, more often than not, pales in comparison to profit-driven, private enterprise research, because the private sector is where the results are usually found

Nope. The private sector is extremely important and makes major contributions, but essentially all major breakthroughs over the last decade have directly resulted from federally funded research. There are some notable exceptions of course (like the cloning of the human genome).

BW, there are numerous FORMS of stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are one type of MANY.

That is a fact.

There numerous other forms of stem cells - umbilical stem cells and placental stem cells are two other kinds...and the research concerning what they can be used for is ongoing.

The RC Church, Orthodox Jews and many other religious groups oppose the "farming" of embryos (embryonic tissue) on moral grounds.

I have to admit, it IS well founded moral ground, if you belive in the "sanctity of life," that is.

I DON'T.

That is why I'm consistent in my views, I support abortion (would even mandate it in some instances), support Capital punishment and believe fervently in the innate and inalienable right to violent self-defense and vigorously oppose the inane and idiotic standard that contemporary American jurisprudence adheres to - "If you can run/escape, you have no legal right to engage in physical violence."

In my view, simply put, "My STUFF is worth more than an assailant's life," because I neither accept, nor fully comprehend the ideal of "the sanctity of life."

It's an absurd viewpoint to me on its face. Look around, it's very clear that life is NOT sacred, nor even cherished by the vast majority of people on earth.

I've simply discarded that as a "quaint notion." Actually I discarded it long ago.

That said, I can't rail against Roman Catholics, Fundamentalist Christians or Orthodox Jews simply because they adhere to principles that I don't.

We simply disagree.

G W Bush agrees with them, and not with me, on this issue.

I accept their position on abortion, so long as they're consistent on Capital Punishment - the RC Church and others ARE, they oppose BOTH.

Here's the difference between governmental research and private, commercial research in a nutshell - it's sort of like my definition of "art," - If it can't be sold for large amounts of money, it's not really art, likewise, if it doesn't serve an overriding commerical interest (solving problems for profit) then it isn't really valuable research.

The Private Sector is much better at finding and bringing commercial applications to market.

Government research grants come with tons of restrictions, loads of paperwork and is done, let's face it, by less skilled and lower paid academics, rather than the more highly skilled, better remunerated (better paid) private sector research scientists.

Private sector work pays better and draws the "best and brightest," the "also rans," for the most part, wind up in academia.

I know that may sound like heresy, but it's simply the way of the world.

And by the way, I like you too. We just disagree on so many basic things. That doesn't make you a "bad person" in my eyes, it actually makes you "somewhat more interesting" to me.

Well, finally all of my hard work is paying off, and Barry is starting to wake up. Too bad JMK still has Energizer batteries in his chattering teeth of disinformation.

JMK, embryonic stem cell research is way behind in the United States, and it is being taken over by asian countries. Many of our brightest minds have had to leave this country just to pursue the most promising line of research.

Soon, the asian countries will make breakthroughs and they will lead the world in medicine, just like India is taking over computing, all while slack-jawed retard Bush drives the country into the ground for short-term payola from Halliburton.

Bush is a traitor and he should be hanged.

> Well, finally all of my hard work is paying off, and Barry is starting to wake up.

Yeah Bailey, I was no match for your Aristotelian flights of unassailable logic. I think it was all those metaphors about me sucking Bush's cock that finally showed me the error of my ways. I'm guessing you must've been captain of the debate team in high school.

anon, you are a coward. and an annoying drive by. Next...

I was actually more offended by the whole show that went on while W was ensuring that he was not going to be the first two term president since Jefferson to not veto a single thing. The babies? Seriously? Just shameless pandering. Yes, yes, I know. Welcome to the dirty, yeuchy, makes you want to run, not walk, to your shower to wash off the filth world of politics. :p

Here's what Barely Hanging (anonymous) doesn't get...I HAVE ALWAYS had problems with the current administration (certainly somewhat different problems than Barry and many of my Libertarian friends). My problem is that he HASN'T been CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH.

The southern border is still porous, five years after 9/11, the wildly expensive NCLB Act and the prescription drug boondoggle...I HAVE and I've had big problems with ALL those things.

Since 9/11 I have become decidedly LESS Libertarian and MORE Conservative...and I know, more than most, the tendency for expansion and ultimately abuse of laws by law enforcement.

Bio-tech is a $100 Billion a year and fast growing sector in the U.S. and that will continue despite the American ban on cloning and its lack of federal funding for stem cell research.

In fact, the lack of federal funding for stem cell research has driven more private monies INTO that research right here in the U.S.

Private enterprise rarely depend on federal grants for their own R&D, as it comes with too many restrictions.

The overwhelming bulk of federally funded research goes on in Universities across the country, by those who couldn't compete succesfully for the more lucrative private sector positions. As of this date, few, if any American University researchers/professors are giving up their tenured positions for jobs in Asia.

Unlike at the Universtiy, you even have to produce actual commercial results in the Asian private sector.

K, to those who disagree with the veto, it comes off as shameless pandering, exactly the same kind of "shameless pandering" we'd expect from a Democrat beholden to the teacher's UNions vetoing a Bill that would actually improve education, but require more work at the same level of pay, for teachers.

Just as virtually every Democrat is beholden to the AFT and other such powerful Unions, G W Bush is beholden to, and shares the views and values of "the religious Right."

That includes the "sanctity of life," which as I said, I DO NOT share.

I have no problem with those who believe in the sanctity of life, so long as they're consitent - oppose abortion, embryo farming and euthanasia, but oppose Capital punishment too (most of those groups DO).

Those I have little respect for are those who hold wildly inconsistent views, such as opposing abortion, but supporting Capital punishment, or supporting abortion ("the right to choose) and opposing Capital punishment.

Those inconsitencies just don't make any sense to me.

So JMK,
I am confused. Do you agree with Bush's veto or you condemn it? If you disagree with him and you think his action was shameless, just say it. Dont try to rationalize his thinking. Thats his problem, not yours. Just clarify YOUR position in a simple way.

The consistent position would be to have issued an executive order banning IVF clinics, because this veto does NOTHING to stop embryos from being discarded.

The whole argument is crap, by the way. Fertilized eggs and blastocysts are not people. If they were you'd have to prosecute every woman who has a period or a miscarriage.

I hear you, Barry. I reached the same conclusion a while ago.

But I still wouldn't vote for Kerry.

As I said Blue, I completely disagree with him over this issue (and a number of others), this one because I don't accept the ideal of the "sanctity of life."

"Pro-lifers," including people as diverse as fundamentalist Christians, Orthodox Jews and Roman Catholics view the farming of embryonic tissue as abhorent, as "taking a human life."

I DISAGREE with that, but I knew that Bush was "pro-Life" before the last two elections. I expected this kind of ruling from him on such matters.

In reality, I don't expect to agree with anyone more than 70% of the time, at most, so all in all, this is a relatively minor matter for me, since stem cell research itself isn't banned, and that even more private money is being funneled into all kinds of bio-tech, including embryonic stem cell research.

I thought I was pretty clear - I DISAGREE with the veto, but all-in-all, I think it's not a big deal, at least not for me.

If he'd actually banned stem cell research, the way we've banned cloning (I support cloning
as well), then it would've been a HUGE deal to me.

I disagree with him over the border issue (I'm against amnesty and support an enforcement FIRST policy), and though I supported the primary idea behind the NCLB Act (more standardized testing is GOOOOD), I didn't like its implementation and I virulently oppose the prescription drug boondoggle.

I also DISLIKE his inconsitency opposing abortion, while supporting Capital punishment, which is ALMOST as inconsistent as the reverse (opposing Capital punishment for the guilty, while supporting abortion for the unborn).
"Fertilized eggs and blastocysts are not people. If they were you'd have to prosecute every woman who has a period or a miscarriage." (Jill)
IS the taking a human life.

There's no doubt that it's certainly the taking of a "potential human life," as absent any accidental barriers (trauma induced, or internally/biologically induced miscarriages) it WOULD almost certainly BECOME a human life.

That's why even the miscarriage analogy is a flawed one. We don't even charge people who drive their cars into crowds with murder, UNLESS they're impaired.

If their car was damaged (ie. worn out breaks) or if they hit the accelorator, rather than the break, they are generally NOT CHARGED with a crime. The same would be true for a miscarriage.

Now, if you're saying that there SHOULDN'T be any distinction made between such things as homicide, manslaughter, "reckless disregard," and accidental death/homicide, I'm not sure I agree, but I personally know many who do.

I've known people who've actually paid to have the driver of a car who accidentally killed their kid killed. In fact, the guy made a very compelling argument for that, in effect, arguing that "there are no such things as accidents." Still, that's not my view.

I have many problems with the American system of jurisprudence, but that really isn't one of them.

So while I neither fully understand this obsession many have over "the sanctity of life," I don't hate those who hold to it. In some ways I find it admirable, not practicable, but admirable none-the-less.

Given the law makes gradations between deliberate, reckless and accidental acts when it comes to actual murder, it's reasonable to assume that "pro-life" people would meke or support gradations between the deliberate destruction of "potential life" (embryos and fetuses) and the accidental destruction (miscarriages) of same.

As I've often said, not only do I support abortion, but I'd mandate birth control (and where applicable) abortion for the indigent "wards of the state," those in prisons, and those in mental institutions, etc. as, in my view, NO ONE should be able to bring a life into this world that they themselves can't afford to raise on their own.

I knew what his position on ESC research was when I voted for Bush, and made the conscious decision that I would vote for him in spite of it.

I still don't agree Bush on this and I still don't regret voting for him.

I still don't agree Bush on this and I still don't regret voting for him.

When will you regret voting for him? He has not done a single thing right. It is amazing that you dont agree with him, but you vote for him and you dont regret your vote, despite the fact that he has been destructive to everything. Amazing. The more incompetent someone is, the easier for him to get elected and maintain the support of the republican base.

BW - While I understand you're frustration, I don't know that there's a point in asking "[w]hen will you regret voting for him?"

Given the selection, there were a lot of people who voted for W. I wish things had gone differently, of course - I wish they had gone differently in 2000 - but that doesn't change what happened.

With a few exceptions, I think most of the electorate probably voted for whichever candidate they chose with some reservations. Regretting the vote doesn't do much except possibly making the regretter feel like bashing his/her head against a wall (don't do that, Baz).

I find the whole veto of the funding thing vaguely unreal. No one who's crowing about the decision seems to have taken into account that the "murder of innocents" or however they phrase it, hasn't and won't stop since private funding continues so that this veto? Is just dumb.

I think reflection is fine and necessary, but in the case of elections? What does regret serve? Except possibly a headache (seriously, don't do it, Baz).

GG. I started writing "I understand you're frustrated" and then changed it to "frustration" but forgot to change "you're" to "your"! Gah. Mrs. Taylor is probably twitching.

The point of the veto i think was so that no "public" funds be used for the research. It was never to ban embryo use in research altogether.

The point of the veto i think was so that no "public" funds be used for the research. It was never to ban embryo use in research altogether.

Thats exactly why it is complete irrational and bizzare.

""WoW!

Does that mean you agree with me that birth control and, where necessary, abortion, be mandated for the indigent "wards of the state" (those on public assistance, in prison, etc), BW?" (JMK)
LOL. I did not read carefully what you had written in the other post. No, not at all!!! I dont agree with you on that." (BW)
(BW)


The let me ask you this question, and you don't have to answer now, just think about it.

If you believe in the viability of abortion on demand, then you DON'T/CAN'T claim to believe in the ideal of "the sanctity oof life."

At minimum, you believe in the arbitrary annihilation of "potential life," as I do (hell, I even believe in the seemingly arbitrary destruction of existing life, for a variety of reasons - wars, self-defense, etc, etc).

Given that you accept the viability of abortion on demand, then why don't you accept the vitality of personal responsibility?

If person A, who is either dependant on government assistance, in prison, or in a mental hospital, can have a child at state/taxpayer expense, that would seem to very OBVIOUSLY violate the 14th Amendment's stricture against involuntary servitude (on the part of the taxpayers).

After all, I have no sympathies for such people, nor do I have any vested interest in them having children, so why do YOU support the enslaving via involuntary servitude of millions of taxpayers who feel exactly as I do?

On that part of the issue, I support freedom/LIBERTY, that each of us is responsible ONLY for ourselves and none of us can foist any part of our burden unwillingly upon the shoulders of others.

How do you justify allowing the most reckless, irresponsible and impulsive among us to put the most productive among us into involuntary servitude, to their private benefit?


But there's still more, let us accept what must seem obvious to virtually all of us, if we're honest, and that's that people who are currently wards of the state, are, at least while wards of the state, BY DEFINITION "unfit parents."

Those in prisons and mental institutions lacking both the mental/emotional capacities to care for a child and the free time (emphasis on "free") to raise that child, while those unable to even meet their own needs without assistance, are certainly too "overwhelmed" by life to be able to care for a dependant being.

Does EVERY child have some intrinsic worth?

If that's true, then don't they all deserve at least a shot at having a decent home, without stacking the deck against them from day-1?

How can you justify allowing UNFIT PARENTS to sire children they can neither emotionally nor financially support?

THAT issue is NOT about "choice," or "freedom," for the policy of letting wards of the state sire litters of children at taxpayer expense is really about ABUSING, RESTRICTING the freedom of the vast majority of productive, tax-paying Americans.

What it's really all about is CHILD SAFETY.

These people, whether chronically poor or in prison, are usually in those predicaments generally because they are reckless, irresponsible and impulsive, the precise traits that most child abusers possess.

Why should the "choice" of these self-centered, reckless and irresponsible people be celebrated at the expense of the "choice" of the children...presuming, for the moment, that no child would CHOOSE to be abused?

"The point of the veto i think was so that no "public" funds be used for the research. It was never to ban embryo use in research altogether." (ortho)
"Thats exactly why it is complete irrational and bizzare." (BW)
(BW)


Again, considering his background beliefs it is neither "irrational" nor "bizarre."

He voted the way tens of millions of Christian (and Orthodox Jewish) Conservatives wanted him to vote.

”When will you regret voting for him? He has not done a single thing right. It is amazing that you don’t agree with him, but you vote for him and you don’t regret your vote, despite the fact that he has been destructive to everything.” (BW)
(BW)


K has it exactly right on this one. Most people vote for the lesser of two evils. With a few exceptions, I think most of the electorate probably voted for whichever candidate they chose with some reservations.

That’s correct, because no matter what your belief system, there is no perfect candidate.

BW, to paraphrase Bubba, “I’m feeling your pain,” but trying to parlay some disappointment on some Conservatives and Libertarians part into some kind of sea-change AGAINST Conservative and Libertarian values, is a hopeless enterprise.

Me, I’m certain that if Pat Buchanan were elected President, I’d have more than my share of disappointments with him, but I’LL ALWAYS VOTE the most PALEO-LIBERTARIAN (that’s Conservative-Libertarian) candidate I can find, and lately I’d prefer a more Conservative one to a more Libertarian one.

Most people are pretty fixed to a particular ideology or worldview and that's not easily changed.

"With a few exceptions, I think most of the electorate probably voted for whichever candidate they chose with some reservations." (K)
(K)


The above quote was quoted from K and I forgot the appelation in the above post.

It's a good line K

"It is amazing that you dont agree with him, but you vote for him and you dont regret your vote, despite the fact that he has been destructive to everything. Amazing. The more incompetent someone is, the easier for him to get elected and maintain the support of the republican base." (BW)
"...he's been destructive to everything," and "The more incompetent someone is, the easier for him to get elected and maintain the support of the republican base," the sillier you sound.

Be realistic. Right now the "war on terrorism" is probably the number one issue with most Americans, followed closely by the economy - the economy is ROCKING right now and the war on terrorism, the success of which can only really be measured by "safety at home," has a 100% success rate, at this point - ZERO attacks within America since 9/11/01.

So where's the "Loyal Opposition" on all this?

Take the border issue, where do the Democrats stand?

I'll tell you, open borders and "welcoming diversity," as if it's a "cultural diversity issue," and not a public safety issue.

The Dems are WORSE on the borders.

On the war on terrorism, the Left's moonbats oppose the Patriot Act - HUGE advantage Republicans.

On the economy, the Democrats support "tax increases to pay for all this," - tax CUTS have again INCREASED REVENUES and shrunk the Deficit - advantage Republicans.

Even on the ONE issue the Dems should've been trying to make hay with over the past decade, "Free Trade versus Fair Trade," they've supported NAFTA, CAFTA & GATT, thus supported massive outsourcing, making them no better than Republicans on this issue.

On the prescription drug boondoggle, the Dems didn't oppose it, they wanted a LARGER GIVEAWAY!!!

Same with the NCLB Act, the Dems wanted even MORE SPENDING!!!

MORE SPENDING...HIGHER TAXES??? That's not where the majority of Americans want to go.

You guys NEED an issue you can run with.

Open borders failed - the GOP kept Cunningham's old seat on that very issue.

Higher taxes ain't gonna work either.

Again, the issue they should go with is anti-Free Trade, but that would have to go hand-in-hand with a stricter border policy, because illegal immigration puts a persistent downward pressure on wage rates.

I really don't see that happening, becasue the Dems are too beholden to various special interests...and that's a shame.

"I find the whole veto of the funding thing vaguely unreal. No one who's crowing about the decision seems to have taken into account that the "murder of innocents" or however they phrase it, hasn't and won't stop since private funding continues so that this veto? Is just dumb." (K)
(K)


K, my Mom's a Catholic and supports abortion, though as she always says, "BUT NOT PUBLIC FUNDING FOR IT."

She always adds, "I don't want to pay for someone else's abortion."

Me, I'm the reverse. I want the government to fund birth control and where applicable abortions for those in prison, dependant on public assistance, and other such "wards of the state," but I can certainly understand the argument of the other side.

I think that's what the battle over federal funding comes down to. Opponents don't want the government endorsing what they see as a "taking of human life."

Like my Mom's stance on abortion, those who oppose federal funding fro ESC research want that research done on the private sector's dime.

That's fine with me. That's where the best researchers are anyway and that's where the real money is too.

"The ECONOMY - he gets an A+ right now."

LOL, so he started off with a huge surplus, and has driven into the deepest hole in HISTORY, having ruined two major industries (IT and stem cell research) ... that rates an A+ in your book! Rush has rotted your brain.

"The "War on Terror," - he gets an A++"

You know, initially I would have agreed with you, until he dropped the ball in Afghanistan and lied his ass off to murder 2,500 American soldiers in his Iraq War for Profit, which had absolutely nothing to do with the so-called "War on Terror".

They always need a boogeyman, and the "terrorists" have become the convenient excuse for these traitors to lie, steal, violate the constitution, and implement their money grubbing plutocratic agenda.

Bush, an "oilman", seems to have magically turned cheap oil into the highest profit margin liquid in recorded history. Accident? Coincidence?

The man is not American or a Conservative, he is a Corporatist and an Authoritarian. He is a psychopath and a traitor to this country.

Hey, Bailey! You're a prick and a retard and a goober-head, heeheeheehee....

"LOL, so he started off with a huge surplus, and has driven into the deepest hole in HISTORY, having ruined two major industries (IT and stem cell research) ... that rates an A+ in your book! Rush has rotted your brain." (Barely Hanging)
Budget Deficit Drops $296B Under Estimate

Associated Press
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
July 11, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060711/ap_on_go_pr_wh/budget_deficit&printer=1;_ylt=AlrlVVlw4Ax1dOqRBj3TNjIGw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

President Bush touted new deficit figures Tuesday showing considerable improvement upon earlier administration predictions, trumpeting it as validation of his tax cuts.

Bush himself announced the deficit — a task that has in the past been left to lower-ranking administration officials.

The figures show that the deficit for the budget year ending Sept. 30 will be $296 billion — much better than the $423 billion that Bush predicted in February and a slight improvement over 2005.
Incredibly LOW inflation, low interest rates and a near record LOW 4.7% unemployment rate = a rocking economy.
"You know, initially I would have agreed with you, until he dropped the ball in Afghanistan and lied his ass off to murder 2,500 American soldiers in his Iraq War for Profit, which had absolutely nothing to do with the so-called "War on Terror".

They always need a boogeyman, and the "terrorists" have become the convenient excuse for these traitors to lie, steal, violate the constitution, and implement their money grubbing plutocratic agenda. (Barely Hanging)
Ah, I see you've spent an extensive amount of time studying at the prestigious IBSC (the Institute for Bat Shit Crazy), give my regards to Professor Emeritus Debbie Frisch, if you run into her.

The war in Afghanistan is still ongoing, in case you haven't noticed.

In fact southern Afghanistan is being contained by NATO forces. Belgian Special Forces confirmed kills of 18 Taliban insurgents with no Belgian losses.

Saddam's regime was toppled in less than six weeks ("Mission Accomplished"). You could argue (well, not YOU actually, but it could be argued) that we should'v esimply removed Saddam's cancerous government and let Iraq go the way of Yugoslavia, but we didn't...we went another way on that - a little "nation building" along the way.

Our problem is that we entered this World War very late and now we've probably got another twenty years of fighting left to do.
"Bush, an "oilman", seems to have magically turned cheap oil into the highest profit margin liquid in recorded history. Accident? Coincidence?" (Barely Hanging)
Straight from your IBSC Valedictorian Address, I see.

I know the rising price of oil seems like "magic" to some folks, but it's not.

Back in 1998 when oil was still $10/barrell and 98 cents/gallon here in the States, Lee Raymond of Exxon-Mobil made a very astute observation, that with India and China fast industrializing, the worldwide demand will climb faster than our ability to produce it will, ergo "increasing demand, relativce to supply," or in oil parlance, "Jackpot!"

Guess who was ALSO an "oilman," who worked in the WH, way back then...

No, not a clue.

OK, it was Al Gore, whose family owns a huge stake in Occidental Petroleum. In fact, you could say (and I DO) that Al Gore is much more "an oilman," than G W Bush.

In short, Al Gore saw the same things Lee Raymond did. So that makes Al Gore either a blithering idiot, who couldn't connect the dots and recognize that (1) long term oil prices were headed through the roof and (2) the effect that higher energy costs would have on our economy would be negative...[b]OR[/b] a shrews businessman (like Lee Raymond) who did what was best for Occidental Petroleum, the American public (which he was sworn to serve, be damned).

You see?

Lee Raymond was duty-bound to do what was best for Exxon-Mobil shareholders, while Al Gore was duty-bound to do what was best for the American public...one of the two failed miserably at this basic charge.

Either way, the President of the U.S. has no control over the price of oil, "magical" or otherwise, BUT market forces, like increasing world demand sure do.

We don't hire CEOs and elect representatives to magically control the price of oil, we hire and elect them to react to those demands and market pressures with foresight.

The U.S. hasn't built a single oil refinery in over thirty years, and its government has failed to react properly to the wildly increasing world demand for oil. We're now seeing the results of that, at the gas pump.
"The man is not American or a Conservative, he is a Corporatist and an Authoritarian. He is a psychopath and a traitor to this country." (Barely Hanging)
Authoritarian?

Wait just 30 more months (that's 2 1/2 years to you) and this "authoritarian" will be out of office.

Which, when you think about it, is really pretty rare for "authoritarians."

(He's) "ruined two major industries (IT and stem cell research)..." Barely Hanging)
The United States remains the global biotech leader by a significant margin:

• U.S. biotech companies raised 80 percent of venture capital.

• Seventy-eight percent of biotech revenues are U.S.-generated.

• Over 50 percent of the public companies are still U.S.-based.

A record-breaking $3.6 billion in venture capital raised in the U.S., €1.2 billion ($1.4 billion) in Europe and $271 million in Canada.

A long-awaited surge in IPOs, including 28 in the United States, 17 in Asia-Pacific, nine in Europe and four in Canada.

Cost containment demonstrated by an R&D expense increase of only 12 percent and total employee increase of only five percent globally.

http://www.bioresearchonline.com/content/news/article.asp?docid={E354D12A-69C4-4E77-9E11-8A11190C7A86}&VNETCOOKIE=NO

It seems you're under the mistaken impression that wishes/beliefs have some causal power, but in actuality, they don't. Just because you believe the BioTech sector is failing, doesn't make it so.

I know...I know...that's not what they teach at the IBSC.

Good and bad news on that, (1) that's true, they do teach that and (2) they're wrong about that, as well.

"It is amazing that you dont agree with him, but you vote for him and you dont regret your vote, despite the fact that he has been destructive to everything. Amazing."

Well, here's the thing, BW: I don't agree with anyone about everything.

For example: I don't agree with you that Bush has been "destructive of everything." I mean, he put an end to the horrific massacre by starvation and disease imposed on the children of Iraq by the UN's monstrous 1991-2002 sanctions. You know what I'm talking about -- the 100,000+ per year deaths of Iraqi children about which Madeleine Albright said (on the May 12, 1996 edition of CBS's 60 Minutes) "...we think the price is worth it." Well, clearly it wasn't, and thank God George W. Bush had the courage to put an end to that crime against humanity.

I also agree with most (but not all) of his tax policy, and I believe he is dead on right that there is no way we can round up and deport 12-20 million illegal aliens.

I mean, he put an end to the horrific massacre by starvation and disease imposed on the children of Iraq by the UN's monstrous 1991-2002 sanctions.

and thank God George W. Bush had the courage to put an end to that crime against humanity.

Hey withoutfearhers,
I finally figured out why you and I can not agree on anything. We apparently live in different planets. Pfewww.....

"Hey withoutfeathers,
I finally figured out why you and I can not agree on anything. We apparently live on different planets." (BW)
(BW)


Actually, that's a pretty close assessment of what differing perceptions feel like across the board BW.

Liberals certainly seem to FEEl/perceive the world differently than do Conservatives and Libertarians.

Conservatives perceive anyone who foolishly believes that you can negotiate settlements between people who have no common moral ground, no common values (ie. Christians and Muslims, Jews and Muslims, basically any non-Muslims with Muslims), are "living on a different planet."

What's somewhat astounding is that over the past forty years, the Conservatives have been proven right, time and time again, simply by looking at Israel's string of failed "negotiations" in the Mid-East.

Every time Israel has been forced, cajoled or conned into "negotiating" with its enemies, they've dropped their guard and have promply gotten slapped.

"Land for peace" doesn't work, "international negotiaions" don't work, but do you know what does work?

Defeating your enemy.

That always works!

But what else is new?

Many Liberals still cling to the eroneous notion that tax increases bring in MORE revenues, even though it's been shown, time and time again, that when income tax rates rise, higher income earners simply defer more of their incomes to avoid the tax hit.

It's also why the tax CUTS enacted by the current administration have resulted in record revenues and an "incredible shrinking Deficit."

I have no problem with people "perceiving" or "feeling" things differently than I do, I just wish they'd accept the FACTS as they are.

The FACTS say tax rate cuts down to about 22% actually INCREASE revenues and the FACTS say that Westerners "negotiating" with Islamicists can expect about the same results a vacuum cleaner salesman would get pitching his product to a cobra - a lot of senseless hissing, followed by a painful, venomous and potentially deadly attack.

"Hey withoutfearhers,
I finally figured out why you and I can not agree on anything. We apparently live in different planets. Pfewww....."

BW: If it didn't happen, why did Madeleine Albright feel compelled to justify it? You are entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own historical facts -- and you can't simply dismiss history with a "Pfewww." Not here on this planet, anyway.

JMK, you ignorant boob. Why do you think Bush has the lowest approval rating since his retarded father? Wow, must be that BOOMING economy (for the mega-rich, everyone else has fallen behind). It must be that BIG SUCCESS in Afghanistan (the Taliban has now retaken control of two cities and Osama makes weekly press releases.

The lies you tell can be refuted by simple common sense.

The Stem-Cell Also-Ran: America
"The Bush Administration's restrictions on U.S. research will inflict major pain down the road as other countries keep advancing"

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2005/tc20050527_7309_tc120.htm

Yes, this is from that moonbatshit crazynutto publication, Business Week.

WoW! Even more from the famed Institute for Bat-Shit Crazy (IBSC)!

Look, Bush didn't steal your job and give it to a Pakistani," so as a Pakistani named Amir, who I know, would say, "Shtop dat! Shtop dat!!"

Again, what does the current data on the American Biotech industry show?

Oh yes, THIS;

The United States remains the global biotech leader by a significant margin:

• U.S. biotech companies raised 80 percent of venture capital.

• Seventy-eight percent of biotech revenues are U.S.-generated.

• Over 50 percent of the public companies are still U.S.-based.

A record-breaking $3.6 billion in venture capital raised in the U.S., €1.2 billion ($1.4 billion) in Europe and $271 million in Canada.

A long-awaited surge in IPOs, including 28 in the United States, 17 in Asia-Pacific, nine in Europe and four in Canada.

Cost containment demonstrated by an R&D expense increase of only 12 percent and total employee increase of only five percent globally.

The Business Week article doesn't refute ANY of that, just as this website http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/Demographics.htm
didn't refute the fact that H-1B Visas grew from under 50,000 to nearly 900,000 between 1992 & 2000.

It's an unfortunate veto, but it (1) DOES NOT ban ESC research and (2) HAS actually had a positive effect on private monies going into that research, as more private investors (along with a number of States) are putting money into that research.

Once again, incredibly LOW inflation (2.2%), low interest rates and a near record LOW (4.7%) unemployment rate = a very strong economy.

You may hate your own predicament, but (1) G W Bush didn't steal your job and give it to some Pakistani and (2) you, like everyone else, are responsible for where you're at...and only YOU can do something about that.

Your inanities about "Bush = Hitler" and "Bush is an authoritarian, who is out to plunder the country for the mega-rich," are straight out of the IBSC...and they make it real hard to take anything else you say, after that, at all seriously.

JMK, I'm liberal and this republican-president-is-evil
schtick goes way back to the Reagan administration. so if there is a IBSC, it's been here for at least 20 years.
And Bailey, the pres. is unpopular over Iraq and gas prices. Period. Control one or the other and his ratings would boost up 10 percent (20 percent if he could get gas back down to 2004 prices)

Excellent point, Rachel. What short memories we have as a nation. Reagan was tarred with *exactly* the same caricatures as Bush -- heartless, fascistic, and a dangerous, unsophisticated cowboy. Plus ça change....

Absolutely true Rachel.

And there has always been a certain amount of demagoging on both sides. When the GOP has put up a weak “Moderate Republican” (a Dole, or Bush Sr), they’ve resorted to fear-mongering over the havoc that “Liberal activist judges would bring about,” to bring out the vote.

Now, it’s true that the Warren and Burger courts (the two most Liberal activist courts in our history) were disgraces.

The Exclusionary Rule, the ban on Capital Punishment as “Cruel and Unusual,” were just two of their more egregious decisions that were later over-turned by saner (more Americanist) courts.

What was done to Reagan was not just idiotic, as many have posited, but deliberately nefarious.

Remember homelessness being blamed on Reagan’s policies?

Starting in the mid-1970s, America became incensed over the “warehousing” of the mentally handicapped and mentally ill and emotionally disturbed. Many of the mentally ill and emotionally disturbed, who’d been previously institutionalized, were no “re-introduced back into the community,” under the mistaken assumption that so long as they took their medications, they’d be able to function in society.

Most of them (A) didn’t take their medications regularly and (B) even on their medications, many were unable to function effectively within society. As a result, many became homeless wanderers.

The nefarious reality is that while the MSM (mainstream media) ALL knew that the homeless problem was actually a failure of de-institutionalization, they and many Left-wing educators blamed it on Reagan’s cutting government services, since they wrong-headedly opposed those policies.

This upped the ante of demagoguery, for this went beyond the mere focusing on legitimate ancillary issues (like the actual dangers of Liberal activist judges), to outright LIES, not even distortion, but outright lies.

You’re also absolutely right, that Bush’s unpopularity (his numbers now hovering around 40%) is due to a perceived failure in Iraq and high gas prices.

The former is certainly, in my view, a PR failure that the current administration IS completely responsible for. The initial “war against Saddam’s Iraq” was an incredible SUCCESS. Saddam’s forces were crushed and Saddam’s government removed from power within six weeks. The current administration has (1) failed to define the real enemy in our War on Terrorism (WoT), which is radicalized Islam (really ANY Sharia Law advocating Muslims) and the militant/rogue mostly Arab/Muslim states that have sponsored, harbored and supported terrorism AND (2) embarked on an, in my view, ill-conceived “nation building/”democratization” campaign in Iraq without the necessary resources in place to effect that.

The latter (the high gas prices) are not due to this administration, nor ANY President. The world demand for oil has exploded over the past decade as India and China have industrialized. Lee Raymond of Exxon-Mobil saw that, so did Chevron’s Chairman David O’Reilly and others, so, I’m sure, did Al Gore, whose family had a HUGE stake in Occidental Petroleum.

Could Al Gore and the Clinton administration have done anything to have ameliorated the current situation?

Green-lighting the building of more refineries would’ve been a good thing, BUT that wouldn’t have changed the supply/demand ratio we face now and THAT is the cause of today’s higher oil prices.

Even back then, it was too late to embark on an alternative energy program that would effectively replace oil as our primary fuel. For one thing, such an alternative energy plan would HAVE to have been run through the private sector, which would’ve meant getting the BIG ENERGY conglomerates on board. That just wasn’t going to happen and it certainly wasn’t going to happen with Al Gore (the VP) having such an immediate conflict of interest over that issue,(his family’s large stake in Occidental Petroleum).

After all, it was AL Gore who engineered the selling of the Navy’s strategic oil reserves (the Elk Hills Oil fields) to (who else?) Occidental Petroleum.

See:

Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate

by Bill Mesler, Special to CorpWatch
August 29th, 2000

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

For thousands of years, the Kitanemuk Indians made their home in the Elk Hills of central California. Come February 2001, the last of the 100 burial grounds, holy places and other archaeological sites of the Kitanemuks will be obliterated by the oil drilling of Occidental Petroleum Company. Oxy's plans will "destroy forever the evidence that we once existed on this land," according to Dee Dominguez, a Kitanemuk whose great grandfather was a signatory to the 1851 treaty that surrendered the Elk Hills.

Occidental's planned drilling of the Elk Hills doesn't only threaten the memory of the Kitanemuk. Environmentalists say a rare species of fox, lizard and the kangaroo rat would also be threatened by Oxy's plans. A lawsuit has been filed under the Endangered Species Act. But none of that has given pause to Occidental or the politician who helped engineer the sale of the drilling rights to the federally-owned Elk Hills. That politician is Al Gore.

Gore recommended that the Elk Hills be sold as part of his 1995 "Reinventing Government" National Performance Review program. Gore-confidant (and former campaign manager) Tony Cohelo served on the board of directors of the private company hired to assess the sale's environmental consequences. The sale was a windfall for Oxy. Within weeks of the announced purchase Occidental stock rose ten percent.

That was good news for Gore.

Still good economy or bad, high oil prices or low, the public will often blame the sitting President for either, even though the President, has very little impact over the economy (Congress with control of the federal purse strings has a little more) and none over gas prices. It just “comes with the territory.”

I’ve had problems with Bush’s excessive (non-security) domestic spending (the poor implementation of the NCLB Act and the prescription drug boondoggle) and his failure to act on the porous southern border.

I understand that many people share Barely’s predilection toward “magical thinking” – “Hey! Gas prices just went up and you’re the President. Now do something and bring them back down.”

Here’s our current oil dilemma, world demand has raised the price of the easily accessed “light sweet crude oil” and there’s little chance of finding huge, accessible reserves of “light, sweet crude” that would effectively ameliorate that increased demand.

The U.S. and Canada have some of the world’s largest reserves of shale oil and oil sands, but getting oil from those sources is a much more involved and costly process. Industry sources say that oil will have to get to about $90/barrel before those technologies become cost-effective, relative to current world prices for the more accessible oil available today for around $75/barrel.

Is it possible, even probable that as that technology is brought to market and improved upon, that it will become more cost effective/lower priced?

Yes, but that’s still a ways off.

Ironically, depending upon how quickly and how high light sweet crude prices go up, even this President COULD preside over falling oil prices, again without having any personal impact on them.

If the world market price for oil hits $90/barrel by years end and oil shale and oil sands become more viable alternatives to imported oil and the extraction and production technologies get more cost-effective, prices COULD drop throughout 2007 and 2008 and Bush AGAIN, would have NOTHING to do with those energy prices.

I make six figures, JMK, which surely is more than a moron like you ever made working as a janitor at the Elks Lodge, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Like Lush, you just repeat the talking points over and over, even after they have been destroyed.

Boob.

I make six figures, JMK, which surely is more than a moron like you ever made working as a janitor at the Elks Lodge, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Like Lush, you just repeat the talking points over and over, even after they have been destroyed.

Boob.

No need to hit the [Post] button twice, Boob, we got your point the first time.

I assume you were using "Boob" as a term of endearment.

You keep complaining that "G W stole your job and gave it some Pakistani," Barely, not that that was at all easy to believe.

Just as Jerry Seinfeld said he couldn't see Architecture coming out of George Costanza, I just don't see computer programming coming out of you, more like an adjunct teaching College English or Sociology or some other "soft-science."

So stop complaining about your fictional IT self. Especially since now you've gone on record as acknowledging that even your fictional-IT persona has "moved on" and that you're doing OK.

Your penace is to immediately STOP complaining and start extolling the virtues of the economy of the current administration (again those are 2.2% inflation, 4.7% unemployment, low interest rates, and 5.3% annual GDP growth!!!).

Again, if you hate your own life, or despise yourself, it's not the government's fault, it's not your neighbor's fault (you know the one)...it's entirely your own fault...and the good news is that you can change all that.

Yes, you can even learn to like yourself.

Of course, it's a lot easier to like yourself if you become a Right-wing Conservative, cause it really, truly means, "never having to say you're sorry."

All you've got to do is give up such bat-shit crazy, "magical thinking," as "G W Bush stole millions of American jobs and gave them all to Pakistanis," and "G W Bush magically made gasoline more expensive."

Such "magical thinking," is really just DUMB thinking.

Such "magical thinking," is really just DUMB thinking.


P.S. Oh, and I almost forgot, don't ever make fun of my job again...or else I'll stab you with a sharpened mop handle...well, either that, or sodomize you with a plunger, whichever one I get my hands on first.

It's the one thing I'm pretty sensitive about...I take my job there very, very seriously...think that submarine chef character that Steve Seagal played in that terorist-killing flick of his.

Just lay off the job. (It) "is my job, there are many like it, but this one is MINE."

JMK, you ignorant slut, you damn damn good and well that most people are far worse off today than when Bush took office, stop living in Lushland and lay off the Hillbilly Heroin.

Good jobs have been replaced with shit jobs, and Bush wants to move Mexico in to take even the shit jobs.

Lesser skilled programmers have left the IT field to take menial jobs in idiot fields like whatever field you work in, if you work at all, which I kinda doubt.

You can repost "facts" from the Lush Limbaugh site to try and put lipstick on the pig, but in the end you are still humping a pig and yodeling Dubya's name in the moonlight.

"JMK, you ignorant slut, you damn damn good and well that most people are far worse off today than when Bush took office, stop living in Lushland and lay off the Hillbilly Heroin.

Good jobs have been replaced with shit jobs, and Bush wants to move Mexico in to take even the shit jobs."

Do you have any actual...um...verifiable statistics to back that up? You know: Facts and figures.

"Lesser skilled programmers have left the IT field to take menial jobs in idiot fields like whatever field you work in, if you work at all, which I kinda doubt."

I've always considered myself a "lesser skilled programmer" and I'm doing pretty well, so your anecdotal evidence doesn't seem to hold up.

"...in the end you are still humping a pig and yodeling Dubya's name in the moonlight."

Why didn't you just say so to begin with? Who can argue with that logic?

Actually Barely most people are a lot better off today than they were in 2000.

The Tech-bubble was a scam perpetrated by some shenanigans at Clinton's SEC (lowering IPO requirements, chanign margin rates, etc) and when the Tech Bubble burst, as it was designed to, once those old margin rates and IPO standards were put back in place, many people lost tons of money.

Of course not guys like McAuley, Clinton's DNC buddy, who made a fortune on Global Crossing stock, getting out weeks before it crashed and eventually zeroed out.

Under the previous administration the Arthur Andersons of the world made accounting legerdemain available to those who'd pay, Adelphia, Enron, Worldcom and all those other business scandals went on unabated.

The Bush administration saw those guys "smoked out and brought to justice," and for good measure, Sarbannes-Oxley was set up top ensure no such scandals ever happened again.

These are the numbers you can't argue with 2.2% inflation, 4.7% unemployment, 5.6% annual GDP growth, low interest rates...and once again, so long a syou're doing well YOU are COMMANDED to SING THE PRAISES of..."the Bush economy!"

Look Barely, it seems I've struck a nerve with the “unhappiness” chord. I wasn’t being mean and I didn’t intend insult, but I’ve thought about it and well, there’s a lot of reasons why Leftists/Liberals are generally a lot less happy, perhaps it could best be said, a lot more miserable than their more Conservative brethren, and that’s because Liberalism is based on an ENTITLEMENT ethic. The view that just for living, each of us is entitled to an equal split of the profits and proceeds produced by the society of which we are a part.

There is no factual, nor principled basis for that viewpoint.

A Bill Gates a JMK and a Barely Hanging all have differing levels of wealth accumulation, but all the wealth they’ve produced is merely a reflection of the value that society assigned to their individual achievements.

In the above comparison, you could say that Bill Gates has probably done about 500 or more years worth of work in twenty years, while JMK & Barely (being regular folks) have probably done somewhere between 15 to 30 years work over that same twenty years. All that, of course, if you're going to assign an "average amount of effort" to an "average year."

So, why should Gates’ be punished for delivering so much more value to society than either JMK or Barely?

It’s like the wait-staff at a restaurant, dividing their tips. I once worked in a restaurant (not as a cook, wait or bar staff...long story), and I saw the wait-staff divvy up their tips at the end of the night and quickly suggested to the owner that he stop that practice at once.

He, of course, asked why, and I told him.

About ten to fifteen percent of restaurant patrons don’t tip at all, another twenty to thirty percent tip the same 15% percent regardless of service, unless the service was noticeably poor, but the other fifty to sixty percent tip according to service – fifteen percent for minimal or average service, 20% for above average service and maybe a little more than that (depending on the patron) for exceptional service.

So who gets hurt when tips are divvied up?

Your best wait-staff.

And who benefits?

Your worst wait-staff.

Those who’d routinely collect 20% or more in gratuities because of their overall competence, likeability and diligence surrender the “excess” they’ve received into a pot, and ALWAYS get far LESS than they earned and put in, while the poorest wait-staff, those who’d routinely get 10% or even less for their consistently poor service ALWAYS take out more from the pot than they would otherwise earn from their own meager efforts.

Not only is it theft, in the form of a transfer from the best wait-staff to the worst, it rewards the very thing that would harm your business the most – POOR SERVICE.

He was a wise fellow and DID put an end to that practice immediately.

The basis for the innate unhappiness of the “entitlement mentality” can be found in every day life. Person A lives to 55 years of age, not smoking, trying to eat right and taking vitamins and is still diagnosed with cancer at his annual physical.

If person A is one who subscribes to the entitlement view, his/her reaction is most likely going to be, “Why MEEEEE?!”

Wrong question!

It’s NOT “Why me,” but ALWAYS “Why NOT me?”

A cursory look around a child cancer ward would tell this person all they need to know about life.

What did that eight year old do to “deserve” cancer? What could that four year old possibly have done wrong?

What that shows, in stark detail, is that we’re NOT each promised “75 good years,” no matter what the actuarial tables say.

None of us were promised ANY time here at all.

We certainly not promised any amount of health or success, nor even a moment’s happiness.

And we were certainly not promised that life would be at all “fair.”

Life is what it is and reality is pretty much “what you can get away with.” You get what you get.

That whiner who got fifty-five good years is extremely lucky compared to that cancer stricken four year old. You get what you get.

The guy who makes $250K/year but envies the man with Billions, is far luckier than the guy who makes just $50K/year. Again, you get what you get based on (A) effort, assisted by education, connections, etc and (B) the value society assigns to your efforts.

In fact, everything about Liberalism/Leftism/Progressivism is wrapped up in money. The “rich” having “too much,” the redistribution of it (the way some dopey wait-staffs do), basically the control over every one around them.

That’s the essence of the Leftist/Liberal, he/she is a control freak, which is only interesting in that Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and most other tyrants (and their supporters) were also CONTROL FREAKS.

That’s also probably why the attempts to “make things fair,” to redistribute the inevitable inequitable distribution of wealth that is based in GREED/ENVY and equivalent to THEFT – certainly the control freaks never complain about equalizing the distribution of effort, or value delivered. It is never proffered that only 100,000 of Steven King’s books can be sold, only 1 million of Gates’ MS products, so that the wealth & effort these people generate is minimized, so that they’re less harmed by the redistribution the control freaks call for.

It’s the very nitwits who claim “people shouldn’t be so wrapped up in money,” who are all about money themselves – who’s got how much, who has too much and how can we divvy up the money that exists more equitably.

That is why the Conservative has the saner, more rational, more balanced worldview.

Death is an inevitable part of life, we’re not promised a second’s time or a moment’s happiness, so we cherish what we get. We don’t worry about what other people have, we work to hone our own efforts and accept that different skill-sets are rewarded differently and that differing levels of effort are also rewarded differently. In short, you get what you get and since you were promised nothing, anything is more than what you were promised.

Liberty is grand because it pits everyone into the same economic free-for-all, the highly skilled and the unskilled, the educated and connected and those uneducated, with no connections, the ambitious and avaricious and the lackadaisical.

Slaves are all equal, free men are free to achieve and free to fail, even to starve and who wouldn’t be happier as a free man perched always on the edge of uncertainty, rather than a slave to some monolithic state that takes care of one’s every want?

In short, if you wouldn’t choose FREEDOM/LIBERTY, then you shouldn’t choose America.

Take this quote from a famous Leftist, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Those words were said by Adolph Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306) and to me, they are the MOST DESPICABLE words he ever spoke – a whiney “I hate my boss” screed that is tha hallmark of the disgruntled coward. In those sentiments are the essence of why I despise Hitler – he was an out-and-out enemy of Capitalism. For me, all his other sins, just as all of Stalin’s other sins, pale in comparison to their hatred of Capitalism/economic Liberty and their embracing universal slavery to the State.

The mass murders? They came as an inevitable result of their hating Capitalism/Economic Liberty.

JMK, you are a Liberal. You don't believe in the free market, instead, you think the government is right to step in and flood a high paying job market with cheap foreign workers instead of letting allowing the market to balance itself. You think the government funded schools should use out taxpayer money to help Corporate America avoid paying the going Supply and Demand rate for programmers by flooding the market instead of simply allowing natural market forces to work.

I am a Conservative. I believe in free markets. In time, America would have produced plenty of programmers and not only would Corporate America's needs have been met, but America would be much stronger. Instead, because of short-sighted liberal jackasses like you, America is weaker, and India is stronger.

Liberal.

The JOB market BELONGS to the CONSUMER - THAT'S what Capitalism dictates.

You must've skipped over, or misread that part.

Workers DO NOT own the fields they work in, thus no mere employee has the right to even attempt to limit access to the field in which they work. NOT in a "free market"/Capitalist system they don't.

"Workers owning their fields ("the means of production") is a TENET of SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM and Hitler himself extolled that when he said, "We are enemies of today's Capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance...", THOSE are horrific sentiments and evidence that he, like ALL Leftists despise Capitalism becomes it is a sytem within which the CUSTOMER is KING, and workers are mere sellers of a commodity (labor).

Anyone who feels that workers already established in various fields SHOULD be able to limit access to others seeking to compete for jobs in that field ARE SOCIALISTS and Hitler, with his above quote, would obviously AGREE with those Socialists.

Stop calling yourself a "Capitalist," or "free marketeer," you're a Socialist and a Leftist, now admit it.

First- (and last-) time visitor here. Because if you 1) actually cast a ballot for the Boy Prince after he'd spent four years botching everything he touched, and 2) are only now aware that you might have made the wrong choice, you're just too dim to bother with.

It's about time....