dean looks like a nincompoop

[Steve Jaros]

.. and Harkin's a cadaver.

Harkin must feel like a fool - the "most popular iowa politician of the last
half-century" delivers 18% of the vote to his boy

[merrym8299]

Subject: dean looks like a nincompoop

All Democrats do. :-)

*****
2001 RSFC Pets.com Award Winner.

Oh Laker fans!!! Oh Laker fans!!!
3-0 Shaq Award Presenter for your World Champion Los Angeles Lakers!!!
2000 2001 2002

[Kokopeli]

Post by Steve Jaros
.. and Harkin's a cadaver.

And Kerry... damn, he looks like he could actually beat Bush.
dw

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I]

Kokopeli <***@de-l33t-me.attbi.com> wrote:
:
: "Steve Jaros" <***@covxrtyv.com> wrote in message
: news:br1Pb.350$***@lakeread05...
: > .. and Harkin's a cadaver.
:
: And Kerry... damn, he looks like he could actually beat Bush.

Any of the top 4 could beat Bush. With the money supply still
shrinking and inflation now within the margin of error of zero,
this economy is on the verge of going from boom to kaboom in a
big damb hurry. If this thing doesn't start generating megajobs,
pronto, Bush has no chance, because otherwise this "recovery" won't
last until summer.

[Bryan S. Slick]

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
[Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:40:20 GMT]

:Any of the top 4 could beat Bush.

*snicker*

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I]

Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote:
: [Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
: [Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:40:20 GMT]
:
: :Any of the top 4 could beat Bush.
:
: *snicker*

Latest CBS/NYTimes poll:

Unnamed Democrat: 47%
Bush: 45%

Bush has lost 11 points in one month. One.

And, as I said already, the economy has to really get rolling and
fast for Bush to win. I haven't found a single analyst who thinks
that's going to happen. Of course, everybody could be wrong, but
there are pretty compelling reasons to think that they're right.

[Bill Deems]

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Unnamed Democrat: 47%
Bush: 45%

This is a totally bullshit poll. Unnamed will usually do better than named
because of no negative ascribed to unnamed. I'm not saying the Dems can't beat
Bush, just that a poll like this is totally bogus.

[Bryan S. Slick]

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
[Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:12:20 GMT]

:Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote:
:: [Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
:: [Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:40:20 GMT]
::
:: :Any of the top 4 could beat Bush.
::
:: *snicker*
:
:Latest CBS/NYTimes poll:
:
:Unnamed Democrat: 47%
:Bush: 45%
:
:Bush has lost 11 points in one month. One.
:
:And, as I said already, the economy has to really get rolling and
:fast for Bush to win. I haven't found a single analyst who thinks
:that's going to happen. Of course, everybody could be wrong, but
:there are pretty compelling reasons to think that they're right.

reagan.mondale.landslide

Watch and see.

[Dennis]

Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:12:20 GMT]
:: [Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:40:20 GMT]
:: :Any of the top 4 could beat Bush.
:: *snicker*
:Unnamed Democrat: 47%
:Bush: 45%
:Bush has lost 11 points in one month. One.
:And, as I said already, the economy has to really get rolling and
:fast for Bush to win. I haven't found a single analyst who thinks
:that's going to happen. Of course, everybody could be wrong, but
:there are pretty compelling reasons to think that they're right.
reagan.mondale.landslide
Watch and see.

you know Foxnewsand the right have done a pretty good job of Deifying
him, but I don't think the Undeclareds are gonna get on that wagon as
much as you think.



"education is the progressive discovery of our own ignorance" --Will Durant
"people who read the tabloids deserve to be lied to " Jerry Seinfeld
"if we don't have a sense of humor, we can't have a sense of perspective --Wayne Thiboux

[gribbee]

Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:12:20 GMT]
:: [Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:40:20 GMT]
:: :Any of the top 4 could beat Bush.
:: *snicker*
:Unnamed Democrat: 47%
:Bush: 45%
:Bush has lost 11 points in one month. One.
:And, as I said already, the economy has to really get rolling and
:fast for Bush to win. I haven't found a single analyst who thinks
:that's going to happen. Of course, everybody could be wrong, but
:there are pretty compelling reasons to think that they're right.
reagan.mondale.landslide
Watch and see.

I donut think Bush will be beaten that badly.

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I]

Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote:
: [Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
: [Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:12:20 GMT]
:
: :Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote:
: :: [Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
: :: [Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:40:20 GMT]
: ::
: :: :Any of the top 4 could beat Bush.
: ::
: :: *snicker*
: :
: :Latest CBS/NYTimes poll:
: :
: :Unnamed Democrat: 47%
: :Bush: 45%
: :
: :Bush has lost 11 points in one month. One.
: :
: :And, as I said already, the economy has to really get rolling and
: :fast for Bush to win. I haven't found a single analyst who thinks
: :that's going to happen. Of course, everybody could be wrong, but
: :there are pretty compelling reasons to think that they're right.
:
: reagan.mondale.landslide

There will be no landslide either way this year, unless Bush's
base collapses. There are too few undecided voters in play.

[Bryan S. Slick]

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
[Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:06:34 GMT]

:: :And, as I said already, the economy has to really get rolling and
:: :fast for Bush to win. I haven't found a single analyst who thinks
:: :that's going to happen. Of course, everybody could be wrong, but
:: :there are pretty compelling reasons to think that they're right.
::
:: reagan.mondale.landslide
:
:There will be no landslide either way this year, unless Bush's
:base collapses. There are too few undecided voters in play.

I still say if it's Dean or Edwards, Bush will win at least 35 states.

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I]

Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote:
: [Czar Drooling Simpleton I (***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid)]
: [Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:06:34 GMT]
:
: :: :And, as I said already, the economy has to really get rolling and
: :: :fast for Bush to win. I haven't found a single analyst who thinks
: :: :that's going to happen. Of course, everybody could be wrong, but
: :: :there are pretty compelling reasons to think that they're right.
: ::
: :: reagan.mondale.landslide
: :
: :There will be no landslide either way this year, unless Bush's
: :base collapses. There are too few undecided voters in play.
:
: I still say if it's Dean or Edwards, Bush will win at least 35 states.

He might, but they'd be 35 mostly smallish states. The Dems are a
lock to win most of the populous ones.

[Ike]

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: [Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:06:34 GMT]
: :: :And, as I said already, the economy has to really get rolling and
: :: :fast for Bush to win. I haven't found a single analyst who thinks
: :: :that's going to happen. Of course, everybody could be wrong, but
: :: :there are pretty compelling reasons to think that they're right.
: :: reagan.mondale.landslide
: :There will be no landslide either way this year, unless Bush's
: :base collapses. There are too few undecided voters in play.
: I still say if it's Dean or Edwards, Bush will win at least 35 states.
He might, but they'd be 35 mostly smallish states. The Dems are a
lock to win most of the populous ones.

Hell, they could nominate PeeWee Herman, and Philly and Pittsburgh would
carry Pennsyltucky for 'em.
--
Yrs.,

Ike

********************************************************

WE ARE PENN STATE!

********************************************************

[DL]

Post by Ike

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I

Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:06:34 GMT]

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I

Post by Bryan S. Slick

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
And, as I said already, the economy has to really get rolling and
fast for Bush to win. I haven't found a single analyst who
thinks that's going to happen. Of course, everybody could be
wrong, but there are pretty compelling reasons to think that
they're right.

reagan.mondale.landslide

There will be no landslide either way this year, unless Bush's
base collapses. There are too few undecided voters in play.

I still say if it's Dean or Edwards, Bush will win at least 35 states.

He might, but they'd be 35 mostly smallish states. The Dems are a
lock to win most of the populous ones.

Hell, they could nominate PeeWee Herman, and Philly and Pittsburgh
would carry Pennsyltucky for 'em.

Arnold or no, I doubt very seriously that W carries California in
November, and CA has a fifth of the electoral votes needed for election.

The "49-state landslide" talking point is nothing but a Republican wet
dream.


--

DL

Always be excellent.

[Ike]

Post by DL

Hell, they* could nominate PeeWee Herman, and Philly and Pittsburgh
would carry Pennsyltucky for 'em.

Arnold or no, I doubt very seriously that W carries California in
November, and CA has a fifth of the electoral votes needed for election.
The "49-state landslide" talking point is nothing but a Republican wet
dream.

* "They" being, of course, the democrats.
--
Yrs.,

Ike

********************************************************

WE ARE PENN STATE!

********************************************************

[DL]

Post by Ike

Post by DL

Hell, they* could nominate PeeWee Herman, and Philly and Pittsburgh
would carry Pennsyltucky for 'em.

Arnold or no, I doubt very seriously that W carries California in
November, and CA has a fifth of the electoral votes needed for election.
The "49-state landslide" talking point is nothing but a Republican
wet dream.

* "They" being, of course, the democrats.

I got that, Captain Obvious. I was agreeing with your point.


--

DL

Always be excellent.

[Ike]

Post by DL

Post by Ike

Post by DL

Hell, they* could nominate PeeWee Herman, and Philly and Pittsburgh
would carry Pennsyltucky for 'em.

Arnold or no, I doubt very seriously that W carries California in
November, and CA has a fifth of the electoral votes needed for election.
The "49-state landslide" talking point is nothing but a Republican
wet dream.

* "They" being, of course, the democrats.

I got that, Captain Obvious. I was agreeing with your point.

With all these paper feelings and po'd old timers wandering around, I
didn't want any misunderstandings.
--
Yrs.,

Ike

********************************************************

WE ARE PENN STATE!

********************************************************

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:36:38 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: [Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:06:34 GMT]
: :: :And, as I said already, the economy has to really get rolling and
: :: :fast for Bush to win. I haven't found a single analyst who thinks
: :: :that's going to happen. Of course, everybody could be wrong, but
: :: :there are pretty compelling reasons to think that they're right.
: :: reagan.mondale.landslide
: :There will be no landslide either way this year, unless Bush's
: :base collapses. There are too few undecided voters in play.
: I still say if it's Dean or Edwards, Bush will win at least 35 states.
He might, but they'd be 35 mostly smallish states. The Dems are a
lock to win most of the populous ones.

Like Texas and Florida?

And, let's not even mention the fact that New York and California have
Republican Governators...

Oops. I mentioned it, didn't I?

[Randolph M. Jones]

Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:12:20 GMT]
:: [Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:40:20 GMT]
:: :Any of the top 4 could beat Bush.
:: *snicker*
:Unnamed Democrat: 47%
:Bush: 45%
:Bush has lost 11 points in one month. One.
:And, as I said already, the economy has to really get rolling and
:fast for Bush to win. I haven't found a single analyst who thinks
:that's going to happen. Of course, everybody could be wrong, but
:there are pretty compelling reasons to think that they're right.
reagan.mondale.landslide
Watch and see.

Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?

[Bryan S. Slick]

[Randolph M. Jones (***@colby.edu)]
[20 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800]

:Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
:Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?

No, not remotely. However.. at least two of the guys in the top four of
the Dem Pole right now will so alienate the American people between the
DNC and the election..

..in my opinion, unless the voters are a lot less aware than I'm
thinking they are (should be).

[Randolph M. Jones]

Post by Bryan S. Slick
[20 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800]
:Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
:Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?
No, not remotely. However.. at least two of the guys in the top four of
the Dem Pole right now will so alienate the American people between the
DNC and the election..
..in my opinion, unless the voters are a lot less aware than I'm
thinking they are (should be).

I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
reasons.

[Bryan S. Slick]

[Randolph M. Jones (***@colby.edu)]
[21 Jan 2004 00:33:57 -0800]

:Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote in message news:<***@news-40.giganews.com>...
:> [Randolph M. Jones (***@colby.edu)]
:> [20 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800]
:>
:> :Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
:> :Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?
:>
:> No, not remotely. However.. at least two of the guys in the top four of
:> the Dem Pole right now will so alienate the American people between the
:> DNC and the election..
:>
:> ..in my opinion, unless the voters are a lot less aware than I'm
:> thinking they are (should be).
:
:I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
:much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
:reasons.

I would have agreed with this a lot more before the Iowans abandoned
Dean basically (from all appearances) because he's an asshole.

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I]

Randolph M. Jones <***@colby.edu> wrote:
: Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote in message news:<***@news-40.giganews.com>...
: > [Randolph M. Jones (***@colby.edu)]
: > [20 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800]
: >
: > :Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
: > :Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?
: >
: > No, not remotely. However.. at least two of the guys in the top four of
: > the Dem Pole right now will so alienate the American people between the
: > DNC and the election..
: >
: > ..in my opinion, unless the voters are a lot less aware than I'm
: > thinking they are (should be).
:
: I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
: much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
: reasons.

The voters are polarized because the economy is polarized. It's
a classic collision of haves and have-nots. The moderate middle
class is evaporating after 23 years of Reaganism.

[Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:52:33 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > [20 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800]
: >
: > :Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
: > :Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?
: >
: > No, not remotely. However.. at least two of the guys in the top four of
: > the Dem Pole right now will so alienate the American people between the
: > DNC and the election..
: >
: > ..in my opinion, unless the voters are a lot less aware than I'm
: > thinking they are (should be).
: I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
: much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
: reasons.
The voters are polarized because the economy is polarized. It's
a classic collision of haves and have-nots. The moderate middle
class is evaporating after 23 years of Reaganism.

This theory seems good on its face, but many of the people doing the
worst under Reaganism are the most likely to vote Republican.

---
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
***@drczar.com or same ID at io dot idot dot com

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I]

Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist <***@drczar.com> wrote:
: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:52:33 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >Randolph M. Jones <***@colby.edu> wrote:
: >: Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote in message news:<***@news-40.giganews.com>...
: >: > [Randolph M. Jones (***@colby.edu)]
: >: > [20 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800]
: >: >
: >: > :Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
: >: > :Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?
: >: >
: >: > No, not remotely. However.. at least two of the guys in the top four of
: >: > the Dem Pole right now will so alienate the American people between the
: >: > DNC and the election..
: >: >
: >: > ..in my opinion, unless the voters are a lot less aware than I'm
: >: > thinking they are (should be).
: >:
: >: I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
: >: much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
: >: reasons.
: >
: >The voters are polarized because the economy is polarized. It's
: >a classic collision of haves and have-nots. The moderate middle
: >class is evaporating after 23 years of Reaganism.
:
: This theory seems good on its face, but many of the people doing the
: worst under Reaganism are the most likely to vote Republican.

These are the people who haven't put 2 and 2 together yet. They
typically are social conservatives with comparatively little regard
for economic issues.

[Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:25:03 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:52:33 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >: > [20 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800]
: >: >
: >: > :Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
: >: > :Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?
: >: >
: >: > No, not remotely. However.. at least two of the guys in the top four of
: >: > the Dem Pole right now will so alienate the American people between the
: >: > DNC and the election..
: >: >
: >: > ..in my opinion, unless the voters are a lot less aware than I'm
: >: > thinking they are (should be).
: >: I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
: >: much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
: >: reasons.
: >
: >The voters are polarized because the economy is polarized. It's
: >a classic collision of haves and have-nots. The moderate middle
: >class is evaporating after 23 years of Reaganism.
: This theory seems good on its face, but many of the people doing the
: worst under Reaganism are the most likely to vote Republican.
These are the people who haven't put 2 and 2 together yet. They
typically are social conservatives with comparatively little regard
for economic issues.

Do you think they are going to be able to put 2 and 2 together now? I
see it being even less likely, with the fact that these people only
watch FoxNews and listen to Limbaugh.

Best you can hope for is a lack of enthusiasm resulting in lower voter
turnout.

BTW, Gore was a stronger candidate than Dean will be <- YAAARGH!!!

---
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
***@drczar.com or same ID at io dot idot dot com

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I]

Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist <***@drczar.com> wrote:
: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:25:03 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist <***@drczar.com> wrote:
: >: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:52:33 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >:
: >: >Randolph M. Jones <***@colby.edu> wrote:
: >: >: Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote in message news:<***@news-40.giganews.com>...
: >: >: > [Randolph M. Jones (***@colby.edu)]
: >: >: > [20 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800]
: >: >: >
: >: >: > :Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
: >: >: > :Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?
: >: >: >
: >: >: > No, not remotely. However.. at least two of the guys in the top four of
: >: >: > the Dem Pole right now will so alienate the American people between the
: >: >: > DNC and the election..
: >: >: >
: >: >: > ..in my opinion, unless the voters are a lot less aware than I'm
: >: >: > thinking they are (should be).
: >: >:
: >: >: I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
: >: >: much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
: >: >: reasons.
: >: >
: >: >The voters are polarized because the economy is polarized. It's
: >: >a classic collision of haves and have-nots. The moderate middle
: >: >class is evaporating after 23 years of Reaganism.
: >:
: >: This theory seems good on its face, but many of the people doing the
: >: worst under Reaganism are the most likely to vote Republican.
: >
: >These are the people who haven't put 2 and 2 together yet. They
: >typically are social conservatives with comparatively little regard
: >for economic issues.
:
: Do you think they are going to be able to put 2 and 2 together now? I
: see it being even less likely, with the fact that these people only
: watch FoxNews and listen to Limbaugh.

I don't see it happening this year, which is why Bush will maintain
his base of red states from 2000.

Over the next 10 years, though, I think that events will dictate a
realignment of these voters.

[Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:44:07 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:25:03 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:52:33 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >: >: > [20 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800]
: >: >: >
: >: >: > :Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
: >: >: > :Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?
: >: >: >
: >: >: > No, not remotely. However.. at least two of the guys in the top four of
: >: >: > the Dem Pole right now will so alienate the American people between the
: >: >: > DNC and the election..
: >: >: >
: >: >: > ..in my opinion, unless the voters are a lot less aware than I'm
: >: >: > thinking they are (should be).
: >: >: I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
: >: >: much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
: >: >: reasons.
: >: >
: >: >The voters are polarized because the economy is polarized. It's
: >: >a classic collision of haves and have-nots. The moderate middle
: >: >class is evaporating after 23 years of Reaganism.
: >: This theory seems good on its face, but many of the people doing the
: >: worst under Reaganism are the most likely to vote Republican.
: >
: >These are the people who haven't put 2 and 2 together yet. They
: >typically are social conservatives with comparatively little regard
: >for economic issues.
: Do you think they are going to be able to put 2 and 2 together now? I
: see it being even less likely, with the fact that these people only
: watch FoxNews and listen to Limbaugh.
I don't see it happening this year, which is why Bush will maintain
his base of red states from 2000.
Over the next 10 years, though, I think that events will dictate a
realignment of these voters.

Why, are the Democrats going to become racists again?

---
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
***@drczar.com or same ID at io dot idot dot com

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I]

Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist <***@drczar.com> wrote:
: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:44:07 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist <***@drczar.com> wrote:
: >: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:25:03 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >:
: >: >Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist <***@drczar.com> wrote:
: >: >: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:52:33 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >: >: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >: >:
: >: >: >Randolph M. Jones <***@colby.edu> wrote:
: >: >: >: Bryan S. Slick <***@slick-family.not> wrote in message news:<***@news-40.giganews.com>...
: >: >: >: > [Randolph M. Jones (***@colby.edu)]
: >: >: >: > [20 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800]
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: > :Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
: >: >: >: > :Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: > No, not remotely. However.. at least two of the guys in the top four of
: >: >: >: > the Dem Pole right now will so alienate the American people between the
: >: >: >: > DNC and the election..
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: > ..in my opinion, unless the voters are a lot less aware than I'm
: >: >: >: > thinking they are (should be).
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
: >: >: >: much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
: >: >: >: reasons.
: >: >: >
: >: >: >The voters are polarized because the economy is polarized. It's
: >: >: >a classic collision of haves and have-nots. The moderate middle
: >: >: >class is evaporating after 23 years of Reaganism.
: >: >:
: >: >: This theory seems good on its face, but many of the people doing the
: >: >: worst under Reaganism are the most likely to vote Republican.
: >: >
: >: >These are the people who haven't put 2 and 2 together yet. They
: >: >typically are social conservatives with comparatively little regard
: >: >for economic issues.
: >:
: >: Do you think they are going to be able to put 2 and 2 together now? I
: >: see it being even less likely, with the fact that these people only
: >: watch FoxNews and listen to Limbaugh.
: >
: >I don't see it happening this year, which is why Bush will maintain
: >his base of red states from 2000.
: >
: >Over the next 10 years, though, I think that events will dictate a
: >realignment of these voters.
:
: Why, are the Democrats going to become racists again?

I think that race will cease to be as strong a polarizing issue
in the face of severe economic crisis.

[Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:29:08 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:44:07 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:25:03 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >: >: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:52:33 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >: >: >: > [20 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800]
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: > :Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
: >: >: >: > :Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: > No, not remotely. However.. at least two of the guys in the top four of
: >: >: >: > the Dem Pole right now will so alienate the American people between the
: >: >: >: > DNC and the election..
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: > ..in my opinion, unless the voters are a lot less aware than I'm
: >: >: >: > thinking they are (should be).
: >: >: >: I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
: >: >: >: much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
: >: >: >: reasons.
: >: >: >
: >: >: >The voters are polarized because the economy is polarized. It's
: >: >: >a classic collision of haves and have-nots. The moderate middle
: >: >: >class is evaporating after 23 years of Reaganism.
: >: >: This theory seems good on its face, but many of the people doing the
: >: >: worst under Reaganism are the most likely to vote Republican.
: >: >
: >: >These are the people who haven't put 2 and 2 together yet. They
: >: >typically are social conservatives with comparatively little regard
: >: >for economic issues.
: >: Do you think they are going to be able to put 2 and 2 together now? I
: >: see it being even less likely, with the fact that these people only
: >: watch FoxNews and listen to Limbaugh.
: >
: >I don't see it happening this year, which is why Bush will maintain
: >his base of red states from 2000.
: >
: >Over the next 10 years, though, I think that events will dictate a
: >realignment of these voters.
: Why, are the Democrats going to become racists again?
I think that race will cease to be as strong a polarizing issue
in the face of severe economic crisis.

It hasn't worked so far. All the Republicans have to do is have their
media arm talk about taxes in any way, shape, or form.

---
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
***@drczar.com or same ID at io dot idot dot com

[Doug Sorensen]

In article <***@4ax.com>, Paranoid Dehumanized
Narcissist says...

Post by Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:44:07 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:25:03 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:52:33 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >: >: > [20 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800]
: >: >: >
: >: >: > :Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
: >: >: > :Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?
: >: >: >
: >: >: > No, not remotely. However.. at least two of the guys in the top four of
: >: >: > the Dem Pole right now will so alienate the American people between the
: >: >: > DNC and the election..
: >: >: >
: >: >: > ..in my opinion, unless the voters are a lot less aware than I'm
: >: >: > thinking they are (should be).
: >: >: I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
: >: >: much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
: >: >: reasons.
: >: >
: >: >The voters are polarized because the economy is polarized. It's
: >: >a classic collision of haves and have-nots. The moderate middle
: >: >class is evaporating after 23 years of Reaganism.
: >: This theory seems good on its face, but many of the people doing the
: >: worst under Reaganism are the most likely to vote Republican.
: >
: >These are the people who haven't put 2 and 2 together yet. They
: >typically are social conservatives with comparatively little regard
: >for economic issues.
: Do you think they are going to be able to put 2 and 2 together now? I
: see it being even less likely, with the fact that these people only
: watch FoxNews and listen to Limbaugh.
I don't see it happening this year, which is why Bush will maintain
his base of red states from 2000.
Over the next 10 years, though, I think that events will dictate a
realignment of these voters.

Why, are the Democrats going to become racists again?

When did they stop?

Doug

"Good judgement comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
judgement."
Will Rogers

[Dennis]

Post by Doug Sorensen

Post by Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: Do you think they are going to be able to put 2 and 2 together now? I
: see it being even less likely, with the fact that these people only
: watch FoxNews and listen to Limbaugh.
I don't see it happening this year, which is why Bush will maintain
his base of red states from 2000.
Over the next 10 years, though, I think that events will dictate a
realignment of these voters.

Why, are the Democrats going to become racists again?

When did they stop?

about the same time the Republicans did...




"education is the progressive discovery of our own ignorance" --Will Durant
"people who read the tabloids deserve to be lied to " Jerry Seinfeld
"if we don't have a sense of humor, we can't have a sense of perspective --Wayne Thiboux

[dna batter]

Post by Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:25:03 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:52:33 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >: > [20 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800]
: >: >
: >: > :Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
: >: > :Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?
: >: >
: >: > No, not remotely. However.. at least two of the guys in the top four of
: >: > the Dem Pole right now will so alienate the American people between the
: >: > DNC and the election..
: >: >
: >: > ..in my opinion, unless the voters are a lot less aware than I'm
: >: > thinking they are (should be).
: >: I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
: >: much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
: >: reasons.
: >
: >The voters are polarized because the economy is polarized. It's
: >a classic collision of haves and have-nots. The moderate middle
: >class is evaporating after 23 years of Reaganism.
: This theory seems good on its face, but many of the people doing the
: worst under Reaganism are the most likely to vote Republican.
These are the people who haven't put 2 and 2 together yet. They
typically are social conservatives with comparatively little regard
for economic issues.

Do you think they are going to be able to put 2 and 2 together now? I
see it being even less likely, with the fact that these people only
watch FoxNews and listen to Limbaugh.

You forgot to write: "They get their news from Toby Keith."

Dan

[Randolph M. Jones]

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > [20 Jan 2004 11:24:33 -0800]
: >
: > :Remember that happened four years after the reagan.carter.landslide.
: > :Do you think Bush has as broad appeal as Reagan did?
: >
: > No, not remotely. However.. at least two of the guys in the top four of
: > the Dem Pole right now will so alienate the American people between the
: > DNC and the election..
: >
: > ..in my opinion, unless the voters are a lot less aware than I'm
: > thinking they are (should be).
: I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
: much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
: reasons.
The voters are polarized because the economy is polarized. It's
a classic collision of haves and have-nots. The moderate middle
class is evaporating after 23 years of Reaganism.

And the moderate middle class are the people who gave Reagan his
landslide victories.

[Ralph Kennedy]

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
: much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
: reasons.
The voters are polarized because the economy is polarized. It's
a classic collision of haves and have-nots. The moderate middle
class is evaporating after 23 years of Reaganism.

Kinda gives new meaning to the term "trickle-down effect."

--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: ***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu

[Dennis]

Post by Ralph Kennedy

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
: much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
: reasons.
The voters are polarized because the economy is polarized. It's
a classic collision of haves and have-nots. The moderate middle
class is evaporating after 23 years of Reaganism.

Kinda gives new meaning to the term "trickle-down effect."

yeah the have nots are the sheets, the haves are the chyck that just
got knocked up...




"education is the progressive discovery of our own ignorance" --Will Durant
"people who read the tabloids deserve to be lied to " Jerry Seinfeld
"if we don't have a sense of humor, we can't have a sense of perspective --Wayne Thiboux

[Randolph M. Jones]

Post by Dennis

Post by Ralph Kennedy

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: I don't know if it's a question of awareness. I think the voters are
: much more polarized than they were 20 years ago, for a variety of
: reasons.
The voters are polarized because the economy is polarized. It's
a classic collision of haves and have-nots. The moderate middle
class is evaporating after 23 years of Reaganism.

Kinda gives new meaning to the term "trickle-down effect."

yeah the have nots are the sheets, the haves are the chyck that just
got knocked up...

Dude, you might want to consider backing away from the keyboard for a few days.

[Glenn Tanner]

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
And, as I said already, the economy has to really get rolling and
fast for Bush to win. I haven't found a single analyst who thinks
that's going to happen.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3927519/

[Daryl D. Spillmann]

Post by Glenn Tanner

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
And, as I said already, the economy has to really get rolling and
fast for Bush to win. I haven't found a single analyst who thinks
that's going to happen.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3927519/

Is the author a journalist, an analyst, or an expret.

journalist - liberal pinko
expret - someone who pontificates on RSFC
analyst - someone who agrees with CZAR on economics.

[Tom Enright]

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Unnamed Democrat: 47%
Bush: 45%
Bush has lost 11 points in one month. One.
And, as I said already, the economy has to really get rolling and
fast for Bush to win. I haven't found a single analyst who thinks
that's going to happen. Of course, everybody could be wrong, but
there are pretty compelling reasons to think that they're right.

As far as I know, Bush won't be running against an "unamed Democrat."

-TOE

"Not in a Dutch prison. Chris, they're under water, they're damp, they're
cold, they're really miserable."

-Wesley Clark on whether or not OBL should be tried by the US or
the ICC.

[Lone Victor]

Post by Tom Enright

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Unnamed Democrat: 47%
Bush: 45%

As far as I know, Bush won't be running against an "unamed Democrat."

That would be a good trick, and I wouldn't put it past them.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Dennis]

Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:40:20 GMT]
:Any of the top 4 could beat Bush.
*snicker*

wow deja vu 1992 all over again.. first we get the Manning thread...
now the Bush thread parallels it...



"education is the progressive discovery of our own ignorance" --Will Durant
"people who read the tabloids deserve to be lied to " Jerry Seinfeld
"if we don't have a sense of humor, we can't have a sense of perspective --Wayne Thiboux

[Doug Sorensen]

In article <***@redshark.goodshow.net>, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
says...

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > .. and Harkin's a cadaver.
: And Kerry... damn, he looks like he could actually beat Bush.
Any of the top 4 could beat Bush. With the money supply still
shrinking and inflation now within the margin of error of zero,
this economy is on the verge of going from boom to kaboom in a
big damb hurry. If this thing doesn't start generating megajobs,
pronto, Bush has no chance, because otherwise this "recovery" won't
last until summer.

Dream on. The two best indicators of future economic activity, the Index of
Leading Indicators and the stock market, have been rising for a year.

Doug

"Good judgement comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
judgement."
Will Rogers

[Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist]

On 20 Jan 2004 08:07:19 -0800, Doug Sorensen

Post by Doug Sorensen
says...

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > .. and Harkin's a cadaver.
: And Kerry... damn, he looks like he could actually beat Bush.
Any of the top 4 could beat Bush. With the money supply still
shrinking and inflation now within the margin of error of zero,
this economy is on the verge of going from boom to kaboom in a
big damb hurry. If this thing doesn't start generating megajobs,
pronto, Bush has no chance, because otherwise this "recovery" won't
last until summer.

Dream on. The two best indicators of future economic activity, the Index of
Leading Indicators and the stock market, have been rising for a year.

While I don't agree, it's clear that the Czar is pointing out that
we're on a deflationary path, before which it is quite reasonable to
have those indiactors doing what they're doing (i.e. 1929) and thus
you're not refuting his point at all.

---
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
***@drczar.com or same ID at io dot idot dot com

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I]

Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist <***@drczar.com> wrote:
: On 20 Jan 2004 08:07:19 -0800, Doug Sorensen
: <***@attbi.com> wrote:
:
: >In article <***@redshark.goodshow.net>, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: >says...
: >>
: >>Kokopeli <***@de-l33t-me.attbi.com> wrote:
: >>:
: >>: "Steve Jaros" <***@covxrtyv.com> wrote in message
: >>: news:br1Pb.350$***@lakeread05...
: >>: > .. and Harkin's a cadaver.
: >>:
: >>: And Kerry... damn, he looks like he could actually beat Bush.
: >>
: >>Any of the top 4 could beat Bush. With the money supply still
: >>shrinking and inflation now within the margin of error of zero,
: >>this economy is on the verge of going from boom to kaboom in a
: >>big damb hurry. If this thing doesn't start generating megajobs,
: >>pronto, Bush has no chance, because otherwise this "recovery" won't
: >>last until summer.
: >>
: >
: >Dream on. The two best indicators of future economic activity, the Index of
: >Leading Indicators and the stock market, have been rising for a year.
:
: While I don't agree, it's clear that the Czar is pointing out that
: we're on a deflationary path, before which it is quite reasonable to
: have those indiactors doing what they're doing (i.e. 1929) and thus
: you're not refuting his point at all.

Wage pressures are still down, real interest rates are hovering
just above zero, and the CPI is now within the margin of error of
zero. Further, the money supply continues to shrink -- another
deflationary omen. (How the money supply shrinks while our
government deficit spends by $500+ billion a year is a matter
that both makes my brane hurt and scares the bejeezus out of me.)
If the trend of the last few years continues into 2004, debt will
start becoming more expensive despite the low interest rates, money
will of course become harder to come by, borrowing will plunge, and
loan defaults will skyrocket. Bank failures and soup lines may be
the backdrop for Election Day.

And that's just if the trend of the last few years continues
unchanged. It could worsen much faster than that. We seriously
are on the brink RIGHT NOW. One bad day on Wall Street, and we're
there.

http://www.comstockfunds.com/index.cfm?act=Newsletter.cfm&category=Market%20Commentary&MenuGroup=Home&NewsLetterID=1060

(Yes, I know this is from a bear fund. That doesn't mean that
they don't have a point.)

[Doug Sorensen]

In article <***@redshark.goodshow.net>, Czar Drooling Simpleton I
says...

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: On 20 Jan 2004 08:07:19 -0800, Doug Sorensen
: >says...
: >>
: >>: > .. and Harkin's a cadaver.
: >>: And Kerry... damn, he looks like he could actually beat Bush.
: >>
: >>Any of the top 4 could beat Bush. With the money supply still
: >>shrinking and inflation now within the margin of error of zero,
: >>this economy is on the verge of going from boom to kaboom in a
: >>big damb hurry. If this thing doesn't start generating megajobs,
: >>pronto, Bush has no chance, because otherwise this "recovery" won't
: >>last until summer.
: >>
: >
: >Dream on. The two best indicators of future economic activity, the Index of
: >Leading Indicators and the stock market, have been rising for a year.
: While I don't agree, it's clear that the Czar is pointing out that
: we're on a deflationary path, before which it is quite reasonable to
: have those indiactors doing what they're doing (i.e. 1929) and thus
: you're not refuting his point at all.
Wage pressures are still down, real interest rates are hovering
just above zero

Rates are very low, but every sign has them moving up and they are not
ridiculous given low inflation.

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
, and the CPI is now within the margin of error of
zero.

Actually, current CPI is running at what used to be called normal.

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Further, the money supply continues to shrink -- another
deflationary omen. (How the money supply shrinks while our
government deficit spends by $500+ billion a year is a matter
that both makes my brane hurt and scares the bejeezus out of me.)

Personal opinion, a lot of foreigners are moving their deposit accounts to
another currency.

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
If the trend of the last few years continues into 2004, debt will
start becoming more expensive despite the low interest rates, money
will of course become harder to come by, borrowing will plunge, and
loan defaults will skyrocket. Bank failures and soup lines may be
the backdrop for Election Day.
And that's just if the trend of the last few years continues
unchanged. It could worsen much faster than that. We seriously
are on the brink RIGHT NOW. One bad day on Wall Street, and we're
there.
http://www.comstockfunds.com/index.cfm?act=Newsletter.cfm&category=Market%20Commentary&MenuGroup=Home&NewsLetterID=1060
(Yes, I know this is from a bear fund. That doesn't mean that
they don't have a point.)

Real disposable income is up 6.3% and corporate profits are up 24.9%. No doubt,
a hunk of those profits come from reducing costs (i.e. shedding jobs). However,
strong profits and rising incomes are inconsistent with a continuing
deflationary cycle. You can find statistics and pundits for almost any economic
opinion. However, the bulk of the data points to a very good 2004.

Doug

"Good judgement comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
judgement."
Will Rogers

[Lone Victor]

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Wage pressures are still down, real interest rates are hovering
just above zero, and the CPI is now within the margin of error of
zero.

This is *very* misleading -- not by you, but the idea of the CPI
itself. If you look at the numbers, you find that expensive consumer
goods are getting cheaper, and better for the same price. (e.g.
wide-screen TVs, luxury cars, etc.)

Those are going down; but gasoline, natural gas, electricity, heating
oil are all going up. When you add everything together you might get
zero, but if you're poor, your expenses are rising while your pay is
shrinking.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I]

Lone Victor <***@victor.com> wrote:
: Czar Drooling Simpleton I <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >Wage pressures are still down, real interest rates are hovering
: >just above zero, and the CPI is now within the margin of error of
: >zero.
:
: This is *very* misleading -- not by you, but the idea of the CPI
: itself. If you look at the numbers, you find that expensive consumer
: goods are getting cheaper, and better for the same price. (e.g.
: wide-screen TVs, luxury cars, etc.)

That always has been true.

: Those are going down; but gasoline, natural gas, electricity, heating
: oil are all going up. When you add everything together you might get
: zero, but if you're poor, your expenses are rising while your pay is
: shrinking.

It's that downward wage pressure that's the root of deflation.

[Lone Victor]

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
It's that downward wage pressure that's the root of deflation.

No, I don't think so. Global competition amongst OEMs has more to do
with it.

For example: it used to be that Sony could invent some new gadget, or
even just a new feature on an old gadget like a TV. And that feature
would be *theirs* for years. If you wanted "extravavision" you had to
buy a Sony.

Today, Sony doesn't manufacture their own electronics. If you buy a
Sony CD-RW drive, you'll find it's manufactured by Lite-on, just like
the HP drive. And Lite-on also sells their own brand in Best Buy,
right next to Sony and HP. So for how long do you think Sony can get
$179.95 for their drive when the Lite-on costs $59?

I'm looking to buy a DVD burner. Most current models are 4x, and you
have to choose between DVD-RW and DVD+RW. The very newest drives are
8x, and/or you can get a dual-format DVD+-RW. In the past, you would
only be able to get those features in high-end brand-name drives. But
today, everyone buys their components from the same manufacturers. So
I can get those features in off-brand low-price drives.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Jeffrey Davis]

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > .. and Harkin's a cadaver.
: And Kerry... damn, he looks like he could actually beat Bush.
Any of the top 4 could beat Bush. With the money supply still
shrinking and inflation now within the margin of error of zero,
this economy is on the verge of going from boom to kaboom in a
big damb hurry. If this thing doesn't start generating megajobs,
pronto, Bush has no chance, because otherwise this "recovery" won't
last until summer.

A "recovery" fueled by one time events like tax rebate checks and the
refinancing of mortgages isn't a house built on rock. At some point,
even Republicans have to start wondering. (One would think.) Even the
ultra-modern Stepford Republicans. Bush, throughout his career, has
always been a Midas-in-Reverse: he turns to gold while what he touches
turns to poop.

One of the things that Economics is built upon is the belief that
economic decisions trump all others, that people don't cut off their
Economic noses to spite their Rest of Human Concern faces. Bush and
Bush's ideas just aren't clicking. They haven't clicked. And won't
clicked. 3 years is an awful long lead time for economic turnarounds.
Look at China, frgridsake. Despite a generation of crippling
communism, they (at least in the cities) are absolutely thriving under
ordinary no-frills capitalism. Not so America. As my daughter used to
say when "reading" her Madeline books "Something is not wrong." What's
refreshingly wrong, I think, is the Republic's displacement of
economics for ordinary human vanity. Bush and Bush's ideas are pooh,
but so many people have their vanity tied up in them being gold. (The
return to aristocracy is just around the corner!) Like I said, the
piquancy of that rejection of common economic sense is refreshing. I
hate any form of reductionism, and Economics (like Freudianism) is
pure reductionism.

[Lone Victor]

Post by Jeffrey Davis
A "recovery" fueled by one time events like tax rebate checks and the
refinancing of mortgages isn't a house built on rock.

Those one-time events are intended to "prime" or "spark" a recovery,
not be its foundation.

Post by Jeffrey Davis
3 years is an awful long lead time for economic turnarounds.

Look at all the money that was squandered in the .com boom. That
fantasy wasted several years worth of savings in worthless
"investments". The .com'ers took that money and spent it on dancing
monkey adds during the Super Bowl, bragging about how they just wasted
another million.

That money, and the confidence to invest it, are going to take a long
time to recover.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Jeffrey Davis]

Post by Lone Victor

Post by Jeffrey Davis
A "recovery" fueled by one time events like tax rebate checks and the
refinancing of mortgages isn't a house built on rock.

Those one-time events are intended to "prime" or "spark" a recovery,
not be its foundation.

Post by Jeffrey Davis
3 years is an awful long lead time for economic turnarounds.

Look at all the money that was squandered in the .com boom. That
fantasy wasted several years worth of savings in worthless
"investments". The .com'ers took that money and spent it on dancing
monkey adds during the Super Bowl, bragging about how they just wasted
another million.
That money, and the confidence to invest it, are going to take a long
time to recover.

Glad to see your spirited defense. Even the worst recession since the
30s, though, only took 2 years to bounce back from. Bush recessions just
go on and on and on. 3 years and NO job growth. That's economics just
like grandma used to make. (Grandma was in and out of homes for most of
her adult life.) But like the bulk of my post had it: good to see the
reductionism of economics taking a beating by your spirited defense of
idiocy.

[Lone Victor]

Post by Jeffrey Davis

Post by Lone Victor

Post by Jeffrey Davis
A "recovery" fueled by one time events like tax rebate checks and the
refinancing of mortgages isn't a house built on rock.

Those one-time events are intended to "prime" or "spark" a recovery,
not be its foundation.

Post by Jeffrey Davis
3 years is an awful long lead time for economic turnarounds.

Look at all the money that was squandered in the .com boom. That
fantasy wasted several years worth of savings in worthless
"investments". The .com'ers took that money and spent it on dancing
monkey adds during the Super Bowl, bragging about how they just wasted
another million.
That money, and the confidence to invest it, are going to take a long
time to recover.

Glad to see your spirited defense. Even the worst recession since the
30s, though, only took 2 years to bounce back from. Bush recessions just
go on and on and on. 3 years and NO job growth. That's economics just
like grandma used to make. (Grandma was in and out of homes for most of
her adult life.) But like the bulk of my post had it: good to see the
reductionism of economics taking a beating by your spirited defense of
idiocy.

Nice non-responsive response. Which of those 2-year recessions had a
stock market crash starting them off?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Vijay Ramanujan]

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Any of the top 4 could beat Bush. With the money supply still
shrinking and inflation now within the margin of error of zero,
this economy is on the verge of going from boom to kaboom in a
big damb hurry. If this thing doesn't start generating megajobs,
pronto, Bush has no chance, because otherwise this "recovery" won't
last until summer.

Phuck the economy. It will be in that middle ground where each
candidate can pull out some fact or figure to show the people that the
economy is headed in the (right / wrong) direction. Most people
(myself included) just aren't well informed enough about federal
fiscal policy and the impact of short vs. long-term tax policy changes
to know up from down and we'll trust the side we were going to vote
for anyway.

In other words, even if the economy is about to head south again, Bush
won't have any problem convincing borderline voters that it's doing
fine. No problem whatsoever.

Barring catastrophic economic news (a wall street collapse, for
example), the Democrats will not win on economic issues.

The Democrats have not even touched what ought to be Bush's biggest
weakness, and that is his selection of allies and enemies in his
foreign policy. The Democrat should get up there and force Bush to
explain why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are still allies and why we
pulled troops out of Afghanistan (home of Al Queda - remember them?)
and sent them to Iraq.

If the Democratic candidate can make that an issue, he can win.
Otherwise, no way.

Vijay R.

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I]

Vijay Ramanujan <***@cybernex.net> wrote:
: Czar Drooling Simpleton I <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message news:<***@redshark.goodshow.net>...
:
: > Any of the top 4 could beat Bush. With the money supply still
: > shrinking and inflation now within the margin of error of zero,
: > this economy is on the verge of going from boom to kaboom in a
: > big damb hurry. If this thing doesn't start generating megajobs,
: > pronto, Bush has no chance, because otherwise this "recovery" won't
: > last until summer.
:
: Phuck the economy. It will be in that middle ground where each
: candidate can pull out some fact or figure to show the people that the
: economy is headed in the (right / wrong) direction. Most people
: (myself included) just aren't well informed enough about federal
: fiscal policy and the impact of short vs. long-term tax policy changes
: to know up from down and we'll trust the side we were going to vote
: for anyway.
:
: In other words, even if the economy is about to head south again, Bush
: won't have any problem convincing borderline voters that it's doing
: fine. No problem whatsoever.
:
: Barring catastrophic economic news (a wall street collapse, for
: example), the Democrats will not win on economic issues.

You don't think that a sudden spike in bank failures would do
the trick?

Of course, actual measured currency deflation would cause the
new bubble to break on Wall Street anyway.

[Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:54:07 GMT, Czar Drooling Simpleton I

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
: > Any of the top 4 could beat Bush. With the money supply still
: > shrinking and inflation now within the margin of error of zero,
: > this economy is on the verge of going from boom to kaboom in a
: > big damb hurry. If this thing doesn't start generating megajobs,
: > pronto, Bush has no chance, because otherwise this "recovery" won't
: > last until summer.
: Phuck the economy. It will be in that middle ground where each
: candidate can pull out some fact or figure to show the people that the
: economy is headed in the (right / wrong) direction. Most people
: (myself included) just aren't well informed enough about federal
: fiscal policy and the impact of short vs. long-term tax policy changes
: to know up from down and we'll trust the side we were going to vote
: for anyway.
: In other words, even if the economy is about to head south again, Bush
: won't have any problem convincing borderline voters that it's doing
: fine. No problem whatsoever.
: Barring catastrophic economic news (a wall street collapse, for
: example), the Democrats will not win on economic issues.
You don't think that a sudden spike in bank failures would do
the trick?
Of course, actual measured currency deflation would cause the
new bubble to break on Wall Street anyway.

No, at this point, the only economic news which could get Dean or
Kerry in the White House would be runaway _in_flation.

---
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
***@drczar.com or same ID at io dot idot dot com

[Vijay Ramanujan]

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
You don't think that a sudden spike in bank failures would do
the trick?

I don't think a significant run of bank failures is a likely enough
proposition to even spend 5 minutes thinking about what effect it
would have.

Vijay R.

[Czar Drooling Simpleton I]

Vijay Ramanujan <***@cybernex.net> wrote:
: Czar Drooling Simpleton I <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message news:<***@redshark.goodshow.net>...
:
: > You don't think that a sudden spike in bank failures would do
: > the trick?
:
: I don't think a significant run of bank failures is a likely enough
: proposition to even spend 5 minutes thinking about what effect it
: would have.

With debt, personal and otherwise, at a record level; and with
deflation possibly quite imminent; you might want to reconsider.

That's not to say that it's inevitable or even necessarily
probable. But to think that its likelihood is very remote
is an exercise in denial, IMO.

[Ralph Kennedy]

Post by Vijay Ramanujan

Post by Czar Drooling Simpleton I
Any of the top 4 could beat Bush. With the money supply still
shrinking and inflation now within the margin of error of zero,
this economy is on the verge of going from boom to kaboom in a
big damb hurry. If this thing doesn't start generating megajobs,
pronto, Bush has no chance, because otherwise this "recovery" won't
last until summer.

Phuck the economy. It will be in that middle ground where each
candidate can pull out some fact or figure to show the people that the
economy is headed in the (right / wrong) direction. Most people
(myself included) just aren't well informed enough about federal
fiscal policy and the impact of short vs. long-term tax policy changes
to know up from down and we'll trust the side we were going to vote
for anyway.
In other words, even if the economy is about to head south again, Bush
won't have any problem convincing borderline voters that it's doing
fine. No problem whatsoever.
Barring catastrophic economic news (a wall street collapse, for
example), the Democrats will not win on economic issues.
The Democrats have not even touched what ought to be Bush's biggest
weakness, and that is his selection of allies and enemies in his
foreign policy. The Democrat should get up there and force Bush to
explain why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are still allies and why we
pulled troops out of Afghanistan (home of Al Queda - remember them?)
and sent them to Iraq.
If the Democratic candidate can make that an issue, he can win.
Otherwise, no way.

So here we are full circle right back to
Howard Dean again.

--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: ***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu

[Jon Enslin]

Post by Kokopeli

Post by Steve Jaros
.. and Harkin's a cadaver.

And Kerry... damn, he looks like he could actually beat Bush.

Kerry is extremely intelligent, has a great background, and is the Rasputin
of politics.

Jon

[Charles Beauchamp]

Post by Jon Enslin

Post by Kokopeli

Post by Steve Jaros
.. and Harkin's a cadaver.

And Kerry... damn, he looks like he could actually beat Bush.

Kerry is extremely intelligent, has a great background, and is the Rasputin
of politics.
Jon

Kerry has two mouths, Ted Kennedy and his wife's money. He has no shot.

v/r Beau

[Dennis]

Post by Kokopeli

Post by Steve Jaros
.. and Harkin's a cadaver.

And Kerry... damn, he looks like he could actually beat Bush.
dw

I'd Beat Bush, he needs some pummeling... that is if the Secret
service would let me pimp slap him a couple times...



"education is the progressive discovery of our own ignorance" --Will Durant
"people who read the tabloids deserve to be lied to " Jerry Seinfeld
"if we don't have a sense of humor, we can't have a sense of perspective --Wayne Thiboux

[Buster Brown]

.. and Harkin's a cadaver.
And Kerry... damn, he looks like he could
actually beat Bush.
dw

Looks like he's been spooked to me.
either spent the night in a graveyard or
stuck his finger in an electric light socket.

[andrew smith]

Post by Steve Jaros
.. and Harkin's a cadaver.
Harkin must feel like a fool - the "most popular iowa politician of the last
half-century" delivers 18% of the vote to his boy

Last night on Colin Quinn-or-Ferrell-can't-remember-which-is-which's show,
one of the guests, when looking at a picture of all four said, "These guys
look like more like a Supertramp reunion than presidential candidates."

a.

[Jeffrey Davis]

Post by andrew smith

Post by Steve Jaros
.. and Harkin's a cadaver.
Harkin must feel like a fool - the "most popular iowa politician of the

last

Post by Steve Jaros
half-century" delivers 18% of the vote to his boy

Last night on Colin Quinn-or-Ferrell-can't-remember-which-is-which's show,
one of the guests, when looking at a picture of all four said, "These guys
look like more like a Supertramp reunion than presidential candidates."

That kind of cynicism is idiotic. Bush looks like Alfred E. Newman/The
Yellow Kid, but to make that comparison is tired and bites the hand of
the maker since Bush is in fact prez. Whatever humor such comparisons
have comes from how exotic the comparison might be. That one's almost
zero. I've never seen a picture of Supertramp. None of the candidates
look vaguely like rockers. To me Dean looks like an aging jock who
learned what looked preppy in 1964 and then quit paying attention to
such things. He's the Demo equivalent in that regard to W and Dan
Quayle. Kerry looks vaguely professorial. Gephardt looks like a
minister-undertaker. Edwards looks (unsurprisingly) like a lawyer.

[Doug Sorensen]

looks?

Doug

"Good judgement comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
judgement."
Will Rogers

[Ralph Kennedy]

Post by Doug Sorensen
looks?

Another brilliant contribution from the
R3PUBLICAN DEBA1T TE3M!!@!!@!!!!.

--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: ***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu