Brainwashing Propaganda, or Morality Lesson?

[kandrathe]

LOL!

And? Your contribution to conversation is...? Glee?

Weren't conservatives saying that a quick withdrawal, what they called "cut and run", would destroy any positive influence that has been made? True enough. But please don't try to have it both ways. It's very unbecoming. Very aholish, in fact.

How long is your quick withdrawal? 4 years? 6 years? Eight years?

Weren't conservatives complaining about how quickly he put out several Executive Orders in the first couple weeks? Congress is designed to take longer, and it is. "He hasn't done anything" vs. "he's trying to shove stuff through". Both ways again.

No. Get stuff done means you work it out, not shove them out of the way, or sneak stuff through before people can read it. You seem to be confusing me with a Republican. I'm talking about press coverage, and accountability, or the lack of it. Not, the perennial battle between the D's and the R's.

I've heard some other whining about "all these czars make us sound so socialist!" Heh -- well who killed the Czar and his family? But here in <strike>Amerika</strike> America, the first czar was the "energy czar", appointed by ... (drum roll) ... Richard Nixon.

Good role model. He wasn't power hungry now was he?

But yes, unemployment has many factors, and many of them had nothing to do with Bush. I'd go more with Gingrich tops, Reagan next, and shortsighted corporations and shoppers third.

And, the logic here is...? Because Newt's influence from a decade ago when he was in Congress had such persistence? You might as well blame the Beatles while you are at it. Then Reagan... Yes, everything was peachy (Georgian in fact) until Reagan screwed it all up back in the 80's? It must have been the "Just say no" thing that totally screwed up the economy. We lost out on 30 years of weed taxes.

He must have read the Wall Street Journal, which I've heard today (yesterday?) printed that the stimulus is working. Of course, I'm sure the WSJ is too liberal for you to consider it a credible source.

No, the WSJ is usually not liberal, but Deborah Solomon usually is.

Yes, but even many conservatives said that spending that money was more prudent than having another depression.

They too have sold out future generations for fluffy pillows and re-election coffers. Both ways... No. Weak? No. The real leader would have told people straight up that the government screwed up by A) letting the housing bubble get out of control, B) pressuring banks to offer sub-prime lending, C) engaging in endless frivolous unproductive spending, weak trade negotiations, repressive regulations, and anti-business legislation sapping their nations competitiveness, driving the bulk of industry off shore, and D) not paying down the deficit while the sun was shining. I think real leaders grab the bull by the horns, and face the situation head on. Everything that has been done so far is only temporary. Unemployment figures look good, because they don't measure half the unemployed. Home sales look good, because 30% of them are foreclosures being sold at rock bottom price. The stock market has bounced up and down, because there are still mutual funds that the sharks have not fully chewed up yet. This forecast hits the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned. The past 10 years or so of "productivity" in the US economy were due to first the illusory tech bubble, and then the illusory derivatives bubble due to housing. Real growth can only come when we transform from being consumption driven, to being production driven. And, if you are truly "GREEN", then you wouldn't want to push consumption as the economic engine either.

Maybe we could ask China to forgive our debt. All they could do is say no, right? And take all our stuff, and our land, and our political offices that seem to be for sale most of the time...

Or, do what we usually do, start another war.