Yeah, Kerry uses a lot of big words, and many of them have more than three syllables. He may be a deuschbag, but he's much less of one than Bush is.
Even if you're a bible-thumping, inbred southern baptist, you've got to be an idiot to vote for a man who can't pronounce the word "nuclear", who's against a medical technology that promises to end an enourmous amount of suffering worldwide, and has never done a day of hard work in his life (he's an aire to an oil fortune) while claiming to be a plain-old regular guy who relates to the common man because he doesn't use big words.
But I guess bumper stickers on pickup trucks are a lot easier to read than news sources from different parts of the country and world, so the lying dummy has a lot of support from dittoheads who listen to AM radio across the nation.
If he gets re-elected, we deserve to get nuked.

Wow, Lou-Dog,,,if he gets reelected, we deserve to be nuked? How harsh.

Maybe it's the education in me that urges me to make a comment like this (and I'm not crazy about Bush's inability to speak well at times), but it would behoove one to at least know his own English skills, at least better than the one about whom he is criticizing, before he posts about Bush being an "aire" to an oil fortune, especially when "heir" isn't that uncommon of a word.

It gets boring after awhile responding to the same hackneyed, irrational mumbo-jumbo about Bush's failings.

Nice site, Rosemary.

"Entrepreneurial Democrat," I like it. Makes a twist on Charles Krauthammer's commercial republic. Of course I like it. Its the same as twisting compassionate conservative into dispassionate liberal. Ying versus yang, and you better leave my yang alone. :-)

Don't make me yang you!

Lou-Dog, I also mispronounce the word "nuclear". It's not a product of bad education or low intelligence; it's just a different accent. Seriously, if you want to hate Bush, go ahead; but give me a break, you hate him because of his accent?

Maybe you're right, and America deserves to get nuked if Bush gets reelected. But let me tell you, America will get nuked with Kerry at the helm.

Lou-Dog,

Pronouncing the word nuclear the way he and many southerners, including Carter, is a dialect issue not an intelligence one.

Vickie,

Thanks. I like it.

Arne,

I heard Kerry say it this weekend. Laughed my ass off. You know what I like? I like it when people that can't handle the discussion try and derail it and change the subject.

Subject is KERRY not Bush. Stick to it. When I want to talk about Bush -- I will.

Gee lou-dog its's been almost thress years since the stem cell research has been approved...tell me what break throughs they have come up with on the limited usuage and then lets talk about full usuage.
Let me guess Kerry will save the day and promise full usuage of stemcells!

Hokey smokes, Batman, the faux Arne has found his way here. *gag*

And John Waffles Kerry being tricky? To quote my late grandmother: "The dickens, you say!" *grin*

"Instead of being a burden to business, I think government needs to fulfill a duty to help them succeed."

Oh, wow. Just what we need. More bureaucrats " helping us succeed ".
Memo to politicians. We businessmen do not want your help, your subsidies or your ideas. In fact, we would prefer that you did not exist. Then we would have more time to work out what our customers want and how to provide it to them in the most efficient manner.
I'm willing, occasionally, to listen to a pol who has been independently successful in business, but the rest of you unemployables know nothing about it and whatever you do you'll only make it worse.

Actually, I don't think Kerry is a liberal, either. Not since the 70s, as far as I can reckon. Oh sure...between Kerry and Bush, Kerry is by far the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't make him good.

He voted for the cuurent war-for-profit, he voted for the draconian "Patriot" Act, and he plans to continue the War on Drugs. I also don't see him rushing to repeal and of the Bush Chaney Corporate Welfare giveaways.

On the other hand he won't pack the Supreme Court with anti-choice ideolouges, and he has far fewer business ties to the al Queda financiers in the Saudi royal family.

Please remember: corporations aren't the problem. UNREGULATED corporations are the problem.

We businessmen do not want your ... subsidies

Worstall, you've got to be fricken' kidding, right?

Pam, US researchers are being left in the dust by the likes of South Korea. So smug, and yet... so wrong.

Rosemary - politicians using wishy-washy positive sounding pablum to reassure and convince... SHOCK HORROR! Stop him before he does it again!

Nice joint, btw.

It's too bad the French don't have a word for "entrepreneur".

wait..

Actually, its a very nice joint. Having checked it out with explorer. If only ya didn't have to go and screw it up by being so gosh darn wrong about everything. :-)

Well sure, if Anna Nicole Smith is an entrepreneurial ho....

yah, well... I just pushed you up from .20c to .30c on blogshares, Rosemary. You're rated "growing blog (BUY)" and "underpriced". Deanesmay.com comes in at a mighty $2000 per share. So come on people, jack that share price up!

Lou-Dog didn't mean "heir," he meant "aire-" as in "airedale." He's saying Dubya is like an airedale in the family of oil-men.

You fokks shud bee em-bare-assed of jumping two concussions about peeple's missapling of werds.

Hey Rose, if you wanted a free-for-all discussion blog, you sure got what you wished for. Good luck. You might consider getting a chair and some chains and whips with your chips and dips. What a swell party you throw.

I looked for the actual quote attributed to Kerry at the American Society of Newspaper Editors and couldn't find it in the transcript. I'm not disputing that he said it, somewhere, sometime because it is totally in keeping with his usual statements elsewhere and at the event. It may have been extemporaneous or in answer to a question because all I could find was his prepared statement.

If it means anything, "entrepeneurial Democrat" means that you can be rich and have ties to international military/industrialist organizations like the Carlyle Group just like the Bushes, and still get the democratic nomination, just like JFK. It means that (gasp) Nader is probably right.

There are quotations for Bush's appearance there earlier last week which I wrote about and I then found out that Bush is the only president in recent history not to take anything but pre-approved questions. Even JFK took on all commers there just three days after the Bay of Pigs.

Why on earth does he do that? I'm baffled. He's got to know it doesn't look good. Oops, didn't mean to change the subject. Carry on.

How cute....Arne sounds like Molly Ivins. 'gummint'. That is a knee-slapper.

Rosemary: Dubya is not a "Southerner". Born in New Haven, Connecticut, went to private schools out East, college in New England Ivy League schools, etc.

George W. Bush was 2 years old when Bush Sr. moved the family to Texas. So during the years that GWB learned to talk, he learned his dialect from Texans. Who cares where he went to school after he picked up the dialect.

He is a Southerner. Just like I am a Detroiter even though I was "born" in Dearborn. Its all about where you were raised.

how did you get trolls so fast?

I thought it was ad hominem? Unless you're sick of me already.

I don't think you're interested in civil discourse, or discussing anything. But you are boring. Like Molly Ivins.

Regrettable as you may find it, I do get to vote.

Bill,

I guess they have to go somewhere. She's crawled over from Dog Snot.

Dave,
Regrettable as you may find it, I do get to vote.

I'm damn glad of it! Arne's just mad because she's been so busy collecting master's degrees in every field, she forgets to vote. You know how those moonbats are...bitch, moan, eat tofu, smoke crack and forget to vote.

Dave, I take great exception to your ad hominem attack on Molly Ivins. She's funny, intelligent, and a terrific writer. And a real class act to boot.

Boring=Ad Hominem. Since when?

I agree with Don on the rest though. She's funny, and intelligent...just like Rush Limbaugh.

Go figure. Arne, I will send you a reminder note on Monday before election day. Or you can do that absentee thing.

Don, I've read Molly for 30+ years. Intelligent? Sure, she's a bright lady. We don't agree on much, but that doesn't make either of us stupid. Class act? Not in my world. Funny. She used to be funny, about 10 years ago. Now she's just bitter. Why? Beats me, but my theory is she dwells too much on how much she helped GWB.

And since she just rants on about the same old stuff, I find her boring. Hell she can't even work up enough energy to give Governer Perry the business anymore, and she spent decades on Texas politics. It's boring. It isn't a personal attack.

People are often surprised to see that simpletons can read and write. You should see what I can do with a thesaurus.

Academic ratings in Texas? No, they're much better than you suggest. Kinda middle of the pack, academically speaking, but you have to watch out for the cow shit by the parking lots.

I'm actually a product of one of those universities...East Texas State. Now, there's a football powerhouse. I don't think they could beat Rhode Island U. unless those yankees were hungover.

Thanks for more exciting civil and fact-filled discourse.

Bill, isn't it ad hominem? Not nauseum (or nausuem as Arne puts it). Heck, I was sure, but I didn't take much Latin here in Boogerlump.

Arne, thanks for the clarification on gummint. Didn't know it was Pogo, it just sounded like Ivins. You know, boring? She has other cute expressions too, like "bidness".

Well that did sound different, I'll give you that, and the benefit of the doubt then.

Arne,

claiming to be me (assuming you know how to do that). Yes, I did come over from DogSnot. You laid out the welcome mat, and Gordon/Geoffrey reposted it there.

Yes, I certainly do welcome you and anyone that wants to be here. "You" Arne have insulted my intelligence more than once at Dogsnot and you have done it again here. So, I'm not going to waste my time chasing off your demons. I can tell the difference between you, it's negligible but I can see it.

I will continue to address whoever leaves a comment by the name they give. I certainly don't want to offend anyone that is trying that hard.

Arne/Alter-Arne...you would have to prove it to correct me. Whether you want me to defer or not isn't relevant. I haven't been able to see much difference, if there is one.

Or I could use Rosemary's approach and just respond to the comment by the name left. If that's not 'you', fab. 'You' can ignore it.

Rosemary, here's why I think Molly is funny and Rush is not:

Molly takes shots at the powerFUL. Rush takes shots at the powerLESS. His rants about welfare moms, minorities, and drug addicts (besides himself, that is) are just plain mean.

And I've lost track of which Arne is which, so I'll just say: Walt Kelly coined "gummint?" Certainly sounds like his work. Great, great stuff...

Arne, it's Boogerlump. Hickville is up I 35 a ways.

We weren't discussing anything, you were telling me how stupid Texans are. And as boring as it was, I did go look at the chart you googled. It's a secondary school/post HS completion ranking .. I thought you were telling me about "academic performance". This one is just "people who finish school". Kind of like the difference between hominem and nauseam.

Wouldn't we compare, oh I don't know, standardized test performance or something? Since those are still in the percolator (except for the WAIS I suppose, but that is sooo old school), maybe SAT scores?

(that oughta keep her busy for a while)

Maybe your point is we have more stupid people in Texas than everywhere else, as a percentage of the population. Move here then! It will help.

Or maybe, it was just "you're from Texas and you're disagreeing with me, and you're stupid".

All I said was you sound like Molly Ivins. But hey, I could see where that would make you mad. Heck, it sure would make me mad.

Well, probably for the best we don't have as many kids graduating from our bad schools. Besides, there's all that cowshit to go shovel up.

And talk about changing the subject! You don't get off that easily, no ma'am. You never told me if you think ETSU could beat RIU. Will you give me points?

Thanks again for some more civil and fact-filled discourse.

Geez, and I thought I was going off topic, I go to pick up the kids, get my daily dose of GOP indocrtination from Rush, and come back to find that the last thing we're talking about is what we were talking about. Oh well. Carry on.

P.S. Thanks for the Rose-Pink, Rose, this Pinko does feel right at home.

You're right Mark...now I'm boring myself.

I saw an article dated Nov 21 2003 (Tallahassee Democrat), which quoted Kerry using this expression, so I guess it's not the new image consultants, unless they like the sound of it and want him to try it again.

It is funny though - I'm an "entrepreneur". Well in the sense that I never ran my own business and married two wealthy women.

Nice to see that you have your own blog. :-) I have always enjoyed your posts on Dean's World. I'll look forward to checking in on the "kingdom."

Mark,

I'm glad you feel the love. Yeah, the whole stay on topic thing went to hell about 10 seconds after I said it. C'est la vie!

Arne,

If you think talking to me in a condescending tone isn't insulting, then you're a retard. It is highly insulting and you have yet to prove me wrong, on anything. You think you have but your "proof" has been sorely lacking.

Whatever. Your attitude is the reason I stopped taking you seriously at Dog Snot, it wasn't your "impersonator".

The condescension makes it special. Although I may be guilty of the same.

Rosemary, I wonder if she appreciates the irony?

You know, I wear a Browns' jersey and an Indians' cap, but that doesn't mean I'm an athlete (just a glutton for punishment.) Kerry is quite capable of being "for" entrepeneurial enterprises without having dug dry wells with Saudi money and using his ivy league MBA to guarantee golden parachutes from bankrupt corporations.

Inherited the cash or married into it, no real difference. I think Kerry is distinguishing himself more from Nader, a self-made shaky character financially himself. I'd rather have someone who can be a fan of corporate America than someone who would abolish them like Nader. And while we're all looking at this as the usual Kerry vs. Bush fight, Ralph is getting set up for a well deserved fall.

A president, or government for that matter, should not only provide a climate hospitable to healthy commercial interaction, but it is ultimately the sole check on corporate excess. I don't believe has been a serious undertaking for any recent administration, but blatently so for the GOP. Kerry will never appeal to the vast majority of big guys, but he has a hope of turning the heads of the smaller business folks, especially those who still remember being working stiffs.

Besides, anything is better than being called the "Flipper."

If John Kerry married Tipper Gore - they could be Flipper & Tipper!

Seriously, Kerry is trying to distance himself from the word "liberal". What he should be doing is defending his liberalism. Stick up for his liberal "principles", if he can remember what they were.

There are plenty of Dems out there that will vote their conscious and not the ABB mantra. If Kerry alienates the saner part of his base, Nader will pick them up.

Bush has the same problem. He's pissed off a huge part of his base with the deficit spending and the expensive entitlements. He did that to pander left and it didn't work and it's costing him on the right.

Kerry had better define himself. He should avoid trying to move right. He's no Clinton, he won't pull it off. So far, Bush's campaign has defined him and he's starting to pay the price.

This is getting fun and it's only April. Woo Hoo!

Mark, I'm with you up to a point, particularly the responsibility of government to provide a hospitable environment for commerce. Commerce being the breadbasket of the lives of its citizens.

I mildly disagree at government being the "sole check" on corporate excess. I see this as a shared responsibility. Between ownership of the enterprise, independent accountability which must adhere to law and standards of practice, and government.

The failure of the past 10 years IMHO was that of corporate governance, and accounting firms who also had lucrative consulting contracts with the companies they were responsible for auditing.

Role of government: this cannot be allowed.

Many will struggle to recall, that Andersen used to be the gold standard when it came to audit. Investors could rely on them, and for good reason, they were damn good.

And yet what happens when interests conflict.

So my long winded point is you can't leave it in the hands of any single entity. Like our government, responsibly shared power encourages accountability.

Thankyou,thankyouverrymuch

Heh, Arne had a melt down.

Dave, if you can read this throught the sludge, the competitive nature of captialism acts as a check in and of itself. There will be cheats and those that are outed, by regulators or competitors, will pay a price. Competitors need no incentive to police each other as it is in their interest to do so. Ethical standards imposed by the marketplace are a natual phenomenon. They need no prompting or guidence to regulate the misdeeds of others, unless they have obtained monopolistic dominance.

A government, on the other hand, has clear choices in the scope and manner of enforcement of standards, within reasonably obtainable limits. One limit is that they cannot effect to any great degee the self-regulation of a particular industry, either in increasing or decreasing responsibility to peers. That partner in accountablility will coexist with the government regardless.

That said, I'll clear up the point by saying the sole effective and effectable check on corporate excess is the government. (And if "effectable" is not a real word, it is now.) And it is troublesome at best to perceive the current administration more beholden to commercial interests and more tolerant of their excesses than I would deem prudent. The "appearance" of impropriety is almost as destructive of our faith in private and public institutions as actual, convictable corruption.

Of course, it's much easier to simply state: "Bush sucks." But Rose will tell you I may be misguided in her opinion, but I'm not simple. And neither is good government.

Rosemary, what the heck? You can put up with more than me. This thread is a perfect example of why I don't have comments anymore.

Getting back on subject, why do you put so much importance in two words taken out of context, and ignore that longer quote from Kerry I provided for you?

Why? Because I found it funny. That's why. As for the longer quote, that is an easy one. The term "compassionate conservative" is code for spend money on popular entitlements. There is nothing conservative about spending money like a drunken sailor. That is one of the problems Bush is having with his base. Many conservatives are not happy about Bush's lack of fiscal restraint. Bush made certain promises when he ran for POTUS that we knew were going to be expensive. The expense wouldn't have been a big deal, if not for 9/11. Because of 9/11 and the WOT we had to spend more money than was counted on because defense had to be beefed up.

The charge of not funding No Child Left Behind is baseless. It has been funded. Bush has consistently increased spending in education, every year. He has more than doubled the amount of funding for education than Clinton spent. You can see it for yourself by going to the Department of Education's webpage and examining the numbers.

Is it somehow more suitable for you to pick and choose what suits your preconceived notions, rather than take a dispassionate look at (at least more of) the evidence?

The same can be said for you and your assessment of Bush. What preconceived notions? Tell me what they are.

Mark, I think we're talking about whether a quarter is heads or tails. You want government to be the bulldog. I say they can't be trusted alone. You make the same argument for private enterprise.

What if they both watch each other? Along with reasonable corporate governance, which should include you don't serve on 58 boards (and I think the cost of D&O insurance is taking care of that, IMHO).

Since money is the root of it, I think it will get corrected. I think you make that point. After dealing with Sarbannes-Oxley for the past few months, I'm having a tough time hearing "Bush is lax".

and now for something completely different..

Education spending. What you said Rosemary. Geez, they get enough per pupil in DC...tell me that's working.

Arne wrote: Do you care to elaborate or do you just make the same ad nausuem attacks as your friends? Just want to know.

****

Paranoia is unbecoming on a troll. Who said I was talking about you?

Hugs & Kisses ...

Rosemary:
“The expense wouldn't have been a big deal, if not for 9/11. Because of 9/11 and the WOT we had to spend more money than was counted on because defense had to be beefed up.”

He didn’t have to keep cutting taxes, though. Not only does Bush keep digging a deeper hole for our kids but also, to pick up on Mark’s idea, he continues to send a horrible message to the country about responsibility and shared sacrifice for the good of the nation. Of course, he’d could never get elected (assuming he could at all ;-) without promising the cake and the meal.

Ha!

Remember the last time a politician made a promise that he was gonna be "fiscally responsible" and raise taxes?

Mondale enjoying his retirement?

He's an entrepreneurial tax planner!

Ah, Rosemary, I remember it (and long for it) well. I understand exactly why you would forget, it seems so long ago. But it does appears that Bill Clinton is enjoying his retirement in his own inimitable fashion. After all, he earned it.

Hey shep, news flash, Clinton ran originally on a platform of "George H. W. Bush broke his "No New Taxes" pledge." He NEVER ran on a platform of raising taxes or eliminating tax cuts. He did so once in office, but since he also had not promised NOT to there was nothing to hold his feet to the fire over. As a campaign premise, though, it's a historical loser.

Oddly enough, it appears that by lowering taxes, the economy is growing because people take that money and spend it, invest it, save it in banks (who make loans based off it). Very fertile ground for the Social Security investment plans Bush spoke of in 2000.

But I guess that was too long ago for you to remember, now, wasn't it?

Thanks John.

Shep is trying really hard.

What utter horseshit.

Clinton didn't produce diddley squat. We (notice I didn't say 'he' - more horseshit), we cut defense spending, took the bucks and blew them all over the budget. And for a brief moment in the sun, enjoyed the temporary bubble of an inflated dot-com economy with nothing substantive to prop it up.

Be honest Arne, don't use the agitprop pablum. Bush's economic record is some good (cutting taxes) and some bad (overspending). Despite inheriting a recession, despite dealing with the dot-com bs, and despite the economic impact of 9/11, we still have growth, GDP uptick, low inflation, and now job growth. Bush doesn't get all the credit, but he gets some.

But all that crap about Hoover and billions to his buddies...agitpablum.

Well. I ask for honesty. We get "Peace and prosperity for 8 years". I'm all tingly.

Your grasp of economics amounts to "I love Democrats and hate Republicans". Deep.

"They say". Who is "they"? Nobody knows Senor, only they know who is them!

oooo. pay no attention to that smart person behind the curtain. the gweat and tewwible...

Sorry, you're boring me. Go stimulate yourself with M1 and M2. Shoveling cowshit is more interesting than discourse with someone who a) can't be honest about the good the bad and the ugly, b) drags up useless examples of their education to impress nobody and c) throws the endless insult as if that cemented their superiority.

Dave,

You're being way too nice. Go ahead and have at it. You were insulted and you have every right to tell the troll whatever you want.

I know Rosemary, but seriously, she's boring the hell out of me. It's all demo-pablum. I ask about things like comparative test scores, corporate governance, accounting standards, and she comes back with "I'm smart! Here's a useless and completely off the point fact - look it up!! Go shovel cow shit! Clinton prosperity! Texans are gay".

That in combination with "look at how educated I am. Just thought you should know. BOO!"

These are serious arguments? I mean, she can't even get Alamo and San Jacinto googled properly (like the Alamo would have turned out different if people of my caliber had been there).

It's not worth it. She can't debate facts. She can't refute arguments. She just throws cow doo doo. Who wants to argue with that?

I'm much more enthusiastic about your site and some meaningful and eye-opening dialogue. You have some guts throwing out abortion and the high school "vote for me cause I'm gay" topics. Rock on ma'am!

Still snowing there?

Yeah, I know.

I like the controversial stuff best. I'm glad you're enjoying it.

No more snow. It was just a flurry, not enough to be anything more than a bit annoying.

Annoying flurries? Enough to make a footprint? Hell, I bet you guys still play golf in that stuff. We go attack the grocery stores!

Don't let this one get to you. Seriously, that post on Jared Garnwell, I was like "you know, I may have some pre-conceived notions about this, but I want to hear what people say about it". Several positions I had not considered. Good stuff!

Golf won't be hampered by a little snow. Ever.

Hell, I wore shorts when I walked my kid to the bus stop at 8 am.

The troll isn't bugging me. I'm really glad that we are getting good "legit" comments. Makes things really interesting.

George Bush's daddy arranged for a business startup and for a baseball franchise. If Bush could claim, with a straight face, that he was a businessman, Kerry can claim what ever he wants.

I particularly liked:

>>>As far as the economy "growing", yeah, it's ticking up a bit from the pits that Dubya drove it into, but still far from the sustained 8 years growth under Clinton, with 22.5 million jobs added. As of right now, Dubya's still got well over a million jobs to go to keep from being the first president since Hoover to actually lose jobs during his administration.

combined with:

>>>Are you following or is this over your head? They say one does not see the economic effects of a President until 3 to 4 years after they leave office.

So which is it?

Was Clinton responsible for the 22.5 million jobs or was GHWB?

George the father's tax policy, including breaking his pledge so he could try to deal with Reagan/Bush deficits did help lay the groundwork for 1) the end of the recession under his watch and 2) the Clinton boom. Fortunately, George HW wasn't a neo-conservative ideologue and actually understood something about fiscal policy. So did Clinton, which is why we continued to prosper until Shrub took over and trashed what had been built over the Clinton’s two terms – the second after raising the top bracket.

You see, contrary to right-wing propaganda, Clinton’s tax structure was clearly not a drag on the economy and everyone prospers under responsible economic stewardship. That sort of leader can get elected without pandering with tax cuts. Unfortunately, only for two terms.

Nice job, Arne. Drove 'em right into weather-talk. Without the snow job, they got nothing.

Oh please Shep. The 90s economic bubble of prosperity was built on two things. Huge cuts defense spending (remember the "peace dividend"?), and lies about the value of dot-com companies. It could not sustain itself, and was already taking before GWB arrived.

And the states - hooo boy when the good times were rollin, they started spending. Look at ANY state's budget from 1990-2000 (adjusted for inflation, which won't be hard) and see how quickly they got used to the increased revenues. But when they went away, we were still spending the money as if we had it!

Clinton doesn't get all the blame for that, and doesn't deserve all the credit for it either.

Depends on how old you are, the last best example I can recall of this was the S&L bailout. Same problem there, massive real-estate fraud, ridiculously overvalued properties, all propped up with questionable risk capital. It came crashing down too (just like blowme.com), and the economy and the taxpayer had to make all those investors whole to avoid widespread panic and recession.

Instead of talking about why tax cuts are bad, why don't you help me understand why higher taxes are good? Make a point - none of this "he's giving money to the rich" bullshit...what needs tax money that's starving for it now? Let's make choices, shall we?

Deficits are fixed proactively in one of two ways. You either raise taxes, or cut spending. Find me a dollar that needs to be spent, and I'll find you one we can move there. but please, be serious, ok?

You be serious, Dave. "Higher taxes" is a such moronic characterization of sound fiscal policy that doesn't lead to crippling structural deficits it shows, once again, that you're unable discuss the subject rationally, based upon the facts.

You're right that presidents don't deserve all the credit or the blame for the business cycle and Congress shoulders the blame for the failure to regulate that brought us the S&L crisis (along with actual players like Neil Bush) and the more recent accounting scandals. But that has nothing to do with Clinton-like stewardship that gives confidence to markets, leaves money available for private lending, avoids unsustainable US debt to other nations, allows us to pay at least some of the cost for our wars and helps us weather inevitable downturns versus Bush's fraudulent, reckless, ideologically-driven "policies" that undermine the whole system and foist massive debt on our kids.

Lots of hyperbole Shep. No facts.

I'll ask again, what is screaming for attention that isn't getting any? I've already admitted I am no fan of deficits, but neither am I ready to shoulder the tax burden that you suggest will cure them.

Higher taxes doesn't describe it well enough for you? Fine, describe it. Use something besides "Clinton-like stewardship". Give me a for instance. What. would. you. do?

There isn't any capital available? Um, nope, there is. Unsustainable debts to other nations? Huh? To whom? It's t-bills Shep.

I never said the S&L crisis was Congress' fault. It was the fault of a bunch of crooks who went to jail.

But no, your serious dialogue is "Bush's fraudulent, reckless ideologically-driven policies are the problem". What the fuck are you even talking about? Name one fraudulent policy.

And while we're at it and you're checking your bullshit quotient, who on the planet makes a decision that isn't driven by their ideology? You make it sound like an STD. Come on.

Wasn't speaking to you Arne. But I'd rather have deficits than malignant carcinoma. Deficits are much less harmful.

Nice example though. Well, not really.

Unless,

unless you mean, irresponsible tax cuts are going to kill children!! That's it! I remember this one now! "Reagan wants to starve old people and children!!! Run away"!!

Ohhh man! Good times indeed.

You lefties crack me up. But you do need new material.

I didn't say it was difficult dear, I said it sucked.