Printable View
From the editorial in the N'Yrker !!
Bush had short-changed the American public -- the economy, health care, the environment, social security, the judiciary, national security, foreign policy, the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism.
"In every crucial area of concern to Americans, Kerry offers a clear, corrective alternative to Bush's curious blend of smugness, radicalism, and demagoguery," it said.
Quite remarkable !!
:cool:
That's a great editorial ... http://www.newyorker.com/talk/conten...a_talk_editors
The Financial Times (pink paper, but no bunch of hippies by anyone's standard), also endorsed Kerry ...
Quote:
Over the past three years, the gap between *****ion and reality has created what could be termed a "Bush bubble". It began after September 11 when the president united a stricken nation behind the struggle against radical Islamist terrorism. Yet success bred excess. Mr Bush launched a pre-emptive war against Iraq on a false prospectus. Few would dispute that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, but the weapons of mass destruction cited as the casus belli appear a figment of the imagination. Mr Bush's vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East is a noble one, but the execution has been execrable. The occupation of Iraq looks like a rallying-point for the Islamic fundamentalists who are the real enemy.
The US needs allies in the struggle against terrorism but Mr Bush's crusading moralism has alienated the rest of the world, and a large constituency at home already fearful about the influence of the religious right. The scandal of Abu Ghraib has stained America's reputation for a generation. The administration's disdain for international law has shaken faith in American values. Overall, the US-led war on terror misreads the battle against al-Qaeda as a clash of civilisations rather than a battle within the Muslim world.
...
There are those, particularly in Europe, who would like to turn back the clock to before 9/11. They pine for the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years. Mr Bush recognised the world had changed. But he has taken the US in the wrong direction. As a candidate Mr Kerry often fails to inspire. He owes his rise more to opposition to Mr Bush than loyalty to his own cause. But on balance, he is the better, safer choice.
Hmmmm, Guiliani doesn't seem to think so.
Doesn't seem to think what?Quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Hanky
Hmmmm, Guiliani doesn't seem to think so.
Doesn't seem to think Kerry can lead this country!Quote:
Originally posted by slimdave
Doesn't seem to think what?
Then again Kerry does have the Clinton endorsement.
:rolleyes:
Giuliani's has some special insight that the rest of the world doesn't share, then?Quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Hanky
Doesn't seem to think Kerry can lead this country!
My favorite part of this "endorsement":
In other words, "we wouldn't choose him if we had any other choice".Quote:
As a candidate Mr Kerry often fails to inspire. He owes his rise more to opposition to Mr Bush than loyalty to his own cause.
Anyone other than a GOP spin doctor recognizes this for a mark of honesty in the endoresment. This isn't some blindly partisan puff-piece, it's a reasoned and well-thought out critique of the kind that the Bush administration automatically filters out and ignores. They're blind to reality and deaf to every opinion different to their own. It's a sign of their intellectual weakness and moral cowardice.Quote:
Originally posted by marist89
My favorite part of this "endorsement":
In other words, "we wouldn't choose him if we had any other choice".
I will take a candidate, like Kerry, who studies the facts and then forms an opinion over, someone like Bush who wants to change the facts to support his own beliefs.
You must be some kind of goddam atheist or something! What an outrageous suggestion, "studies the facts". :)Quote:
Originally posted by gandolf989
I will take a candidate, like Kerry, who studies the facts and then forms an opinion over, someone like Bush who wants to change the facts to support his own beliefs.
...and then changes his mind when the polling numbers come out and changes his mind again when some of his liberal wannabes put a bug in his ear and changes is mind again when the wind blows from the south...Quote:
Originally posted by gandolf989
I will take a candidate, like Kerry, who studies the facts and then forms an opinion...
Tell us, are you talking about the same John Kerry who studied the same facts as the President and determined that Sadamm was a threat? Or are you talking about the John Kerry that voted to not fund the troops after he determined that Sadamm was a threat?Quote:
Originally posted by slimdave
You must be some kind of goddam atheist or something! What an outrageous suggestion, "studies the facts". :)
This would be the John Kerry that voted against the additional funding after the GOP refused to stop cutting rich people's taxes to help pay for it.Quote:
Originally posted by marist89
Tell us, are you talking about the same John Kerry who studied the same facts as the President and determined that Sadamm was a threat? Or are you talking about the John Kerry that voted to not fund the troops after he determined that Sadamm was a threat?
I think it's your guy who had the "bug in his ear" -- it's his long-established practice.Quote:
Originally posted by marist89
...and then changes his mind when the polling numbers come out and changes his mind again when some of his liberal wannabes put a bug in his ear and changes is mind again when the wind blows from the south...
In the fantasy world that Bush lives in you must never, never change your mind about anything, right? You know when the right time is to "change your horse in midstream"? When it becomes apparant that the one you're on is so dumb that he can't tell which is the right direction.
Oh, do you mean the top 20% that pay 63% of the taxes in this country, or the bottom 40% that pay 6%? Sounds fair to me! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by slimdave
This would be the John Kerry that voted against the additional funding after the GOP refused to stop cutting rich people's taxes to help pay for it.
It is sad that all this will be over next Tuesday.
:(
Is that right? Wow. Look what I found at http://www.census.gov ...Quote:
Originally posted by marist89
Oh, do you mean the top 20% that pay 63% of the taxes in this country, or the bottom 40% that pay 6%? Sounds fair to me! :rolleyes:
Here's what GWB says ...PHP Code:Table IE-3. Household Shares of Aggregate Income by Fifths
of the Income Distribution: 1967 to 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Share of aggregate income
------------------------------------------------
Year Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest Top 5
fifth fifth fifth fifth fifth percent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2001 3.5 8.7 14.6 23.0 50.1 22.4
2000 30/ 3.6 8.9 14.8 23.0 49.8 22.1
2000 /29 3.6 8.9 14.9 23.0 49.6 21.9
1999 3.6 8.9 14.9 23.2 49.4 21.5
1998 3.6 9.0 15.0 23.2 49.2 21.4
1997 3.6 8.9 15.0 23.2 49.4 21.7
1996 3.7 9.0 15.1 23.3 49.0 21.4
1995 25/ 3.7 9.1 15.2 23.3 48.7 21.0
1994 24/ 3.6 8.9 15.0 23.4 49.1 21.2
1993 23/ 3.6 9.0 15.1 23.5 48.9 21.0
1992 22/ 3.8 9.4 15.8 24.2 46.9 18.6
1991 3.8 9.6 15.9 24.2 46.5 18.1
1990 3.9 9.6 15.9 24.0 46.6 18.6
1989 3.8 9.5 15.8 24.0 46.8 18.9
1988 3.8 9.6 16.0 24.3 46.3 18.3
1987 21/ 3.8 9.6 16.1 24.3 46.2 18.2
1986 3.9 9.7 16.2 24.5 45.7 17.5
1985 20/ 4.0 9.7 16.3 24.6 45.3 17.0
1984 4.1 9.9 16.4 24.7 44.9 16.5
1983 19/ 4.1 10.0 16.5 24.7 44.7 16.4
1982 4.1 10.1 16.6 24.7 44.5 16.2
1981 4.2 10.2 16.8 25.0 43.8 15.6
1980 4.3 10.3 16.9 24.9 43.7 15.8
1979 18/ 4.2 10.3 16.9 24.7 44.0 16.4
1978 4.3 10.3 16.9 24.8 43.7 16.2
1977 4.4 10.3 17.0 24.8 43.6 16.1
1976 17/ 4.4 10.4 17.1 24.8 43.3 16.0
1975 16/ 4.4 10.5 17.1 24.8 43.2 15.9
1974 16/15/ 4.4 10.6 17.1 24.7 43.1 15.9
1973 4.2 10.5 17.1 24.6 43.6 16.6
1972 14/ 4.1 10.5 17.1 24.5 43.9 17.0
1971 13/ 4.1 10.6 17.3 24.5 43.5 16.7
1970 4.1 10.8 17.4 24.5 43.3 16.6
1969 4.1 10.9 17.5 24.5 43.0 16.6
1968 4.2 11.1 17.5 24.4 42.8 16.6
1967 12/ 4.0 10.8 17.3 24.2 43.8 17.5
Changes in Shares
1967 to 1980 7.5 -4.6 -2.3 2.9 -0.2 -9.7
1980 to 1993 -11.6 -8.7 -6.5 -2.8 7.3 17.7
NOTE: Change in data collection methodology suggests pre-1993
and post-1992 estimates are not strictly comparable.
This from the New Yorker endorsement that you enjoyed ...Quote:
Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans
Really, I don't know how us high-earners manage to survive. It's a good job GWB has all those Christian ethics to guide him in helping us towards a more just and equitable society.Quote:
Citizens for Tax Justice, a Washington research group whose findings have proved highly dependable, notes that, this year, a typical person in the lowest fifth of the income distribution will get a tax cut of ninety-one dollars, a typical person in the middle fifth will pocket eight hundred and sixty-three dollars, and a typical person in the top one per cent will collect a windfall of fifty-nine thousand two hundred and ninety-two dollars.
I think we can all agree on this. I'm sitting here waiting for my SQL to finish running, and I'd be desperately bored without this.Quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Hanky
It is sad that all this will be over next Tuesday.
:(
I just had to spend my tax savings on a memory upgrade for my desktop, by the way. It's enough to make you weep.
wow, is that right. Look what I foundQuote:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...uence=1&from=0
and I bet that bottom 20 dude got a lot more enjoyment out of his $91 of cold duck than Bill Gates got out of his 59 grand.Code:Share of Total Federal Tax Liabilities
Income Category 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Lowest
Quintile 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5
Second
Quintile 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.6
Middle
Quintile 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.5 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.7 10.7
Fourth
Quintile 18.7 18.7 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.9 18.9 19.0 19.0 19.1 19.1 19.2 19.2 19.2
Highest Quintile 64.4 64.3 64.2 64.0 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.6 63.4 63.3 63.2 63.0 62.9 62.8
All Quintiles 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Top 10 Percent 49.1 48.9 48.8 48.7 48.6 48.5 48.4 48.2 48.1 48.0 47.8 47.7 47.6 47.4
Top 5 Percent 37.8 37.6 37.5 37.4 37.3 37.2 37.1 36.9 36.8 36.7 36.5 36.4 36.3 36.1
Top 1 Percent 22.2 22.1 22.0 21.9 21.8 21.7 21.5 21.4 21.3 21.2 21.1 20.9 20.8 20.7
ditto. I'm doing an exp/imp that is taking way too long... and yes, Mr. H. I'm using a parfile....Quote:
Originally posted by slimdave
I think we can all agree on this. I'm sitting here waiting for my SQL to finish running, and I'd be desperately bored without this.
Good job, glad I can help. I hope you created a LOG as well for future reference.Quote:
Originally posted by marist89
ditto. I'm doing an exp/imp that is taking way too long... and yes, Mr. H. I'm using a parfile....
Ps..
Jeff, I am not sure if you are a Porshe guy or not but I did learn that 911 Turbo's are obscenely fast cars.
I was playing with one the other night on a local highway, he left me like I was his red headed stepchild.
Awesome car!
That's exactly the point. GWB promoted the tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy, and the way you stimulate the economy is by giving people money to spend.Quote:
Originally posted by marist89
... I bet that bottom 20 dude got a lot more enjoyment out of his $91 of cold duck than Bill Gates got out of his 59 grand.
The $91 got spent, and it stimulated the economy by $91. The $59k went straight into the bank and stimulated nothing. That's why these tax cuts are a fraud -- because they are not targeted at the people who will spend it, it's going to the people who will not.
The tax stats.
The're all misleading say Bill Gates 59G saving - what needs to be looked at is how much he or his "Class" saves by:
-Using offshore tax shelters
-Favourable accounting practises
-Outsourcing jobs offshore
All paid for by hiring the right lobbyists in Wash.
:cool:
I will take a candidate, like Kerry, who studies the facts and then forms an opinion over, someone like Bush who wants to change the facts to support his own beliefs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some fallacies of Bush's beliefs:-
Act of spreading democracy in the Middle East is a noble one - while supporting the Saudi & Jordanian Royal Monarchy ?
Battle against al-Qaeda as a clash of civilisations rather than a battle within the Muslim world - Actually it's only Osama's family feud started that way when he questioned US policy toward the Middle-East -> Support a jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviets but ignore Israels' excesses in the Middle East ? But the way it was dealt with by the Saudis and the US enabled it (Al-Q) to grow to a global phenomenon and - Now in Iraq !!
:cool:
yawn
Mr. Hanky : This might wake u up !!
On 9/11 Osama's brother Saif was sitting to the right of Carlyle' group's head Frank Carlucci at a director's meeting discussing business with G.H.W.B in attendance while Oasama's boys were piloting the planes into buildings - so it's just business and a family feud gone bad. After the attack the family members in the US were conveniently flown out from the US back to Saudi Arabia !!
:cool:
The endorsement from the Financial Times sounds sort of like this one for Bush...http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41078
Buchanan seems to excuse GWB for all his mistakes, especially the Iraq war, based on patriotism.
Here's a confusing thing ...
Aren't those supposed to be good things in the "War Against Terror"? Isn't multilateral cooperation supposed to be supported by both parties as an essential part of anti-terrorism?Quote:
(Kerry) is a globalist and a multilateralist.
"Buchanan seems to excuse GWB for all his mistakes, especially the Iraq war, based on patriotism."
In years past that could be said of Buchanan(refering to republicans), I don't think so much now. I believe he has had his fill of the typical "mantra", though I could be wrong.
:DQuote:
A presidential election is a Hatfield-McCoy thing, a tribal affair. No matter the quarrels inside the family, when the shooting starts, you come home to your own.
"A presidential election is a Hatfield-McCoy thing, a tribal affair. No matter the quarrels inside the family, when the shooting starts, you come home to your own."
For the most part gandolf989 that is true, but I think Buchanan isn't like that. I suppose his shilling for fox news would say otherwise though.
By the way, what happened to dilbert?
Yeah, this guy's too small, you can't tell who he is... (looks like elton john)Quote:
Originally posted by Alchemy
By the way, what happened to dilbert?
Since you asked, it's Dr. Strangelove. It seemed very appropriate, since all of our leaders seem to think that armegeddon is near. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by marist89
Yeah, this guy's too small, you can't tell who he is... (looks like elton john)
I wanted to make it bigger, but I can only do 50x50 pixels.
Which is insufficient.
"Yeah, this guy's too small, you can't tell who he is... (looks like elton john)"
At first I thought it was Andy Warhol, being your in Pittsburgh and all, but I didn't want to post it.
No it isn't Andy Warhol, but he would have been a good choice also.Quote:
Originally posted by Alchemy
"Yeah, this guy's too small, you can't tell who he is... (looks like elton john)"
At first I thought it was Andy Warhol, being your in Pittsburgh and all, but I didn't want to post it.
Sometimes I eat lunch at the Andy Warhol Museaum.
http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~ejohans/PAST_P...trangelove.jpg