The real reason Dems hate Bush

[Beet]

Ok, ok, I admit it. I hate Bush because he is great. And I hate America because of its freedom! You have discovered the truth with your brilliant post.

[Beet]

Ok, ok, I admit it. I hate Bush because he is great. And I hate America because of its freedom! You have discovered the truth with your brilliant post.

I dont even think Bush is great, but you know that he will be looked upon by history as great, while Clinton will not. The last great(by popular belief) president you guys had died in 1963.

We'll let history be the judge of that. I think history will judge Clinton as it judges Eisenhower, as a good post-war consolidator.

In 1992, America was going to be bought by Japan, crime rates and other social problems were at record levels and rising, pre-1973 prosperity seemed permanently out of reach, and nowhere in their wildest dreams did economists believe that GDP growth could exceed 2.5% without debilitating inflation. The most-quoted economic statement was that "America is now the world's largest debtor nation." I was only 9 years old but I still remember how there was a sense of general malaise and fatalism back then. America was seen as a country in long-term decline, and this view was shared especially by conservatives. Clinton was the man who gave America it's confidence back.

[Beet]

My phd is in chemical physics.  I still have a tendency to think of conservative as in a conservative collision between two particles is one in which the sum of the linear momenta of the colliding particles doesn't change during the collision.  I apply that term to anti-authoritarian republicans like myself.

Huh?

[Beet]

Beet,

By the way, your comparison of Clinton to Eisenhower is somewhat amusing. About the only thing they have in common is that they both were smart enough to stay out of the way of business, hence they enjoyed solid economic times for most of their terms in office. Of course, giving Bill Clinton credit for the economic growth of the 1990's is kind of like saying Ronald McDonald is the reason your cheeseburger tasted good at lunch.

Well he passed the first two budgets of decreasing deficits in years, signed NAFTA, won another budget battle over Congressional Republicans in '95, and still signed a balanced budget in 1998. Gingrich's goal was to balance the budget by 2002 (a goal missed, thanks to GW). He and his economic team supported the bailout of Mexico, South Korea, and LTCM, saving the world financial system through its worst crisis in 97-98. Robert Rubin's strong dollar policy attracted trillions of dollars of investment into U.S. markets, leading to an increase in disposable income which is the basis of today's real estate boom. On the other hand, if you're going to give Reagan credit for the 80's, you have to accept that most of his '81 tax cuts were repealed by '84, and the biggest economic stories of that era were Volcker's interest-rate policy, the return online of Iranian oil wells, and the collapse of OPEC cohesion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not really a refutation of what I said. It's very possible that America experienced malaise in the late 70s, and the malaise went away briefly during the mid 80s but returned again by the beginning of the 90s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The consensus then was that America had expended so much energy fighting the Cold War that it was now about to be overtaken by countries that did not spend huge amounts on their militaries and instead built up efficient economies, like Germany and Japan. While the Dow grew by over 200 percent in the 80s, Japan's Nikkei 225 index grew by 900 percent. "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy predicted a Japanese eclipse of the U.S. due to this very fact, and partially it was true. The huge Reagan military buildup was coming at a huge cost because military spending is not investement spending--- the government is taking people's bond money and putting it into "broken window" military spending that cannot generate more wealth in the future. As opposed to investing it in research, payout, or infrastructure. Also, by the early 90s crime rates had returned to or exceeded their late 70s highs.

[Beet]

And I am not some feminazi, because well I'm male.
 

Well if feminazism is merely belief in social and political equality of the sexes, it's certain that men can be feminazis as well.

[Beet]

And I am not some feminazi, because well I'm male.
 

Well if feminazism is merely belief in social and political equality of the sexes, it's certain that men can be feminazis as well.

I don't think sane people can be anything that ends with nazi. Even though I'm not enitrely sure what feminazi means. I'm guessing that it's a deameaning label of radical feminism.

So if a Swedinazi is a person who considers himself Swedish, then you really are from Minnesota? Though I'm not entirely sure what Swedinazi means. I'm guessing that it's a demeaning label of radical Swedes.

***

By the way, the Diary of Anne Frank has been published in North Korea, and is being taught to North Korean schoolchildren. But it is being taught not as about Anne's suffering at the hands of Nazi Germany, but their potential suffering at the hands of Americans.

"After reading that book, I feel hate for the American Nazi Imperialists"

"We will fight with the pen in one hand and a gun in another agains the American Nazis"

Any time North Korean students refer to Americans, they are taught to refer to Americans as Nazis.

[Beet]

And I am not some feminazi, because well I'm male.
 

Well if feminazism is merely belief in social and political equality of the sexes, it's certain that men can be feminazis as well.

I don't think sane people can be anything that ends with nazi. Even though I'm not enitrely sure what feminazi means. I'm guessing that it's a deameaning label of radical feminism.

So if a Swedinazi is a person who considers himself Swedish, then you really are from Minnesota? Though I'm not entirely sure what Swedinazi means. I'm guessing that it's a demeaning label of radical Swedes.

***

By the way, the Diary of Anne Frank has been published in North Korea, and is being taught to North Korean schoolchildren. But it is being taught not as about Anne's suffering at the hands of Nazi Germany, but their potential suffering at the hands of Americans.

"After reading that book, I feel hate for the American Nazi Imperialists"

"We will fight with the pen in one hand and a gun in another agains the American Nazis"

Any time North Korean students refer to Americans, they are taught to refer to Americans as Nazis.

I've thought this problem a great deal too beet.  Check out National Geographic July '03.  This is a serious problem.  Like you, I offer no solutions or alternatives, only criticism.

Actually, I don't offer any criticism (except of the regime itself). And neither have you.

[Beet]

And another thing.  There's one socialist country left!  Okay?  All these lefties will tell you there are 3.  Wake up.  Cuba is a megalomaniacy (as was Iraq), and China has seen the g light okay?  Socialism is dead.  We are greedy materialistic pigs.  Get that.  Exploit that.  You weenies.  Get over yourselves.  If you slept through biology class you g moron liberals, it's called success, as least in Darwinist parlance.  Men want 2 things.  Sex and Food.  This is the way it is.  You cannot legislate morality.  Yes, you can exploit the minority man and the working man you shortsighted fools, but it's over.  Socialism is failed.

you motherf**ckers scare me every bit as much as John Ashcroft, and don't think he doesn't scare the sh**t out of me.

Actually communism works. If you look at the statistics, even the CIA admits that the Soviet Union had higher rates of economic growth in the 50s-70s than the U.S. That proves that communism works better than capitalism. Paul Krugman is a bunch of hogwash. If he's so hot, how come he didn't predict the stock market bubble?


 thank you nclib, that was what I was trying to say.

[Beet]

And another thing.  There's one socialist country left!  Okay?  All these lefties will tell you there are 3.  Wake up.  Cuba is a megalomaniacy (as was Iraq), and China has seen the g light okay?  Socialism is dead.  We are greedy materialistic pigs.  Get that.  Exploit that.  You weenies.  Get over yourselves.  If you slept through biology class you g moron liberals, it's called success, as least in Darwinist parlance.  Men want 2 things.  Sex and Food.  This is the way it is.  You cannot legislate morality.  Yes, you can exploit the minority man and the working man you shortsighted fools, but it's over.  Socialism is failed.

you motherf**ckers scare me every bit as much as John Ashcroft, and don't think he doesn't scare the sh**t out of me.

Actually communism works. If you look at the statistics, even the CIA admits that the Soviet Union had higher rates of economic growth in the 50s-70s than the U.S. That proves that communism works better than capitalism. Paul Krugman is a bunch of hogwash. If he's so hot, how come he didn't predict the stock market bubble?


 thank you nclib, that was what I was trying to say.

Who made these statistics, let me guess, the Soviets themselves? Everyone thought they were doing well, until reality emerged.

I agree with Angus that there are no Communist countries in the world, and only one Stalinist one, North Korea. But Al's right, it should be communist, not socialist, it isn't the same thing.

Well I was joking but the statistics are CIA estimates.

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/gif/pd32299.gif

The huge slowdown in the 70s and 80s, according to Krugman, can be explained by diminishing returns to capital. In a 1994 article, he points out similarities between contemporary western euphoria about East Asia's growth prospects and the anxiety in the 1950s and 1960s about the Soviet Union's apparently looming economic pre-eminence.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/myth.html

He argued that the parallels are not accidental: in both cases economic growth was based on the mobilisation of resources rather than on increases in efficiency. Three years later, the Asian financial crisis occured. Of course this does not explain why Soviet total factor productivity also slowed down over time, whereas it was always low in East Asia. But the empirical evidence is indisputable.

[Beet]

I thought only 144,000 are going to be in heaven during the second coming of Christ, where the rest of humanity will basically be engulfed in a storm of fire and destruction.

[Beet]

Thank you mort.  Outstanding.  I've been having to bite my lip every time I surf into this thread.  I'd also like to have a moment to reflect on the fact that in a year during which women served this country as never before, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, the women that got on television are the Dixie Chicks.  Egalitarianism will not be won by bigots.

The Chicks got on television because of the conservative backlash, thats all. Jessica Lynch got on television more than they did.

Also mort, check out these-

FMF:

http://www.feminist.org/afghan/intro.asp

http://capwiz.com/fmf1/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=5037156

NOW:

http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-2003/afghaniraq.html

http://www.now.org/issues/global/taliban-action.html
(criticism of Taliban BEFORE 9/11!)

[Beet]

Heil Hitler! Down with the anti-Nazi Republican dogs! We HAAAAAAAAAAATE them. Up with the swastika!

(this message has been brought to you by Hate Peddlers United, Inc.)

[Beet]

Heil Hitler! Down with the anti-Nazi Republican dogs! We HAAAAAAAAAAATE them. Up with the swastika!

(this message has been brought to you by Hate Peddlers United, Inc.)

Finally a democrat who isnt ashamed of his parties ideals

Yeah, now if only we could find a Republican of similiar mindedness

[Beet]

yeah, okay.  sorry, I've calmed down and had a cup of tea, sobered up, and generally mellowed out ,
Now, let's get down to business.  The real reason.  Tell us, your avatar is red.  Outside the exaggerated misunderstandings, what it is.  Will you?

I'll suggest the desire of their own party's failure to define itself, resulting in the success of the GOP.

I'm not officially registered as either party, but the reason for my avatar comes from the days of Newt Gingrich. The Republican party seemed like the party that (1) didn't care about people, and (2) worshipped some nonexistent utopia of the 'conservative' past. So far they haven't really overcome this image in my mind. That said, some Gingrich reforms, like welfare reform, were probably a good idea.

[Beet]

that was unclear.  

the failure of the DNC to develop what StevieNick99, wiseman, would call a "coherent political philosophy" in another reference.  What say you?

Well, can't speak for the DNC, but I suggest a four-pronged political philosophy

(1) non-Hobbesian statecraft... the collective action problem exists for states, too. Let's build leadership by working within an international system.
(2) pragmatism in economic policy... rigid adherence to Keynesian, free-market, or socialist dogma should be avoided. Do whatever works best! In the 30s it was government intervention... in the 90s it was the free market (though it could have been better regulated) also...economic special interests stink. In the 1970s in Britain it was the unions, in the 2000s America it is large companies. End corporate welfare unless it genuinely benefits the entire nation. Restrict media consolidation to ensure a diversity of sources.
(3) libertarian social policy... if it doesn't hurt somebody else, or deprive the actor of free will, it should be a freedom for people to enjoy. separation of church and state.
(4) concern for the poor and disadvantaged. equal opportunity should be a goal of a just society. apply the veil of ignorance test. absolute equal opportunity cant be achieved, but absolute happiness cant either.