NationStates Jolt Archive

okay, this isn't exactly loony left material... just funny that the die-hard (though reasonable) capitalists at the Economist are taking shots at Bush too... you know he's in trouble when even buisness is getting wary ;)
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/economist.jpg

When coupled with my aversion to religious influence on politics, pretty much sums up a lot of my feelings in terms of his economic policies.

Whoa, the Economist ussed to be considered "safe ground"...?!

Whoa, the Economist ussed to be considered "safe ground"...?! fake! its not real, jesus christ

Can I get that on a poster ? I love it.

Greater Valia: Actually, it is. I was surprised too, so I checked. The cover is right on the front page of their website. Look for yourself: http://www.economist.com/

fake! its not real, jesus christ
Care to place a wager?

I like it! I need to get one for my room.

fake! its not real, jesus christ
Care to place a wager?never mind, it looked sloppily photoshopped to me, oh well, that just proves the economist has fallen on some hard times. (note the irony!)

fake! its not real, jesus christ
Care to place a wager?never mind, it looked sloppily photoshopped to me, oh well, that just proves the economist has fallen on some hard times. (note the irony!)

man, as far as mainstream press goes the economist is about as legitimate as it gets. They've always been fair (albeit right-wing). Seriously, there's a lot of eroding support for bush. On the other hand, the buisness community doesn't make up much of the vote...

...Which reminds me of good ol' Doctor Kissinger.

http://www.b0g.org/wsnm/uploads/kissinger-nose.jpg

okay, this isn't exactly loony left material... just funny that the die-hard (though reasonable) capitalists at the Economist are taking shots at Bush too... you know he's in trouble when even buisness is getting wary ;)


Well, (EDIT: Bush's) protectionist schemes and willingness to use warfare are both anti-free-market and therefore anti-capitalist. Their opposition makes perfect sense. The Republicans have become nothing more than socialists for the rich, and anyone who would support free markets and capitalism are naturally opposed to such things.

Basically what seems Ironic to me is that they'll continuously defend Kerry's flip-flopping and then keep harping on Bush's pre-9/11 comments about diplomacy (no nation-building, strong but humble, ect)

Recently though the Economist hasn't had a love affair with John Kerry, but it seems clear, at least to me, who they want to win.

okay, this isn't exactly loony left material... just funny that the die-hard (though reasonable) capitalists at the Economist are taking shots at Bush too... you know he's in trouble when even buisness is getting wary ;)


Well, (EDIT: Bush's) protectionist schemes and willingness to use warfare are both anti-free-market and therefore anti-capitalist. Their opposition makes perfect sense. The Republicans have become nothing more than socialists for the rich, and anyone who would support free markets and capitalism are naturally opposed to such things.

EXACTLY. i am a fiscal conservative, and anybody who thinks Bush is one too needs to go back to Econ 101.

About amonth ago the Economist had a good leader on Bush and gay marriage, which started off to the effect that Bush has now come out in favor of big government intrusion and oppression of state/local rights. I loved that.

EXACTLY. i am a fiscal conservative, and anybody who thinks Bush is one too needs to go back to Econ 101.
Yep. Libertarian bent here. Bush has got to go. Holding my nose and voting Dem. for the first time for president. (Don*t much like a lot of Kerry*s policies, but at this point I*m voting ABB!)

Basically what seems Ironic to me is that they'll continuously defend Kerry's flip-flopping and then keep harping on Bush's pre-9/11 comments about diplomacy (no nation-building, strong but humble, ect)

Recently though the Economist hasn't had a love affair with John Kerry, but it seems clear, at least to me, who they want to win.

Enough on the "Kerry is a flip-flopper" already. (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132301)

GW has more than enough examples of the same in his four short years in Washington to match up to Kerry's record over 30.

-Z-

The point of the post was that they defend Kerry for flip-flopping and attack Bush for it.

Got a new background now :D

The point of the post was that they defend Kerry for flip-flopping and attack Bush for it.

Actually, I think both sides get a lot of flack on their records. If anything though, at least with Bush they only seem to target one or two issues. As I've noted, there is plenty to choose from where he is concerned - most of which seems to go unadressed.

-Z-

Bush isnt a conservative, he's a neo-conservative.

And conservative (as opposed to partisan republican) publications like the economist realize this.

Basically what seems Ironic to me is that they'll continuously defend Kerry's flip-flopping and then keep harping on Bush's pre-9/11 comments about diplomacy (no nation-building, strong but humble, ect)

Recently though the Economist hasn't had a love affair with John Kerry, but it seems clear, at least to me, who they want to win.

Surely you jest. You're not implying that Bush doesn't do a mean flip-flop himself are you? Because if you're.. I can provide many, many examples.. and keeping in mind.. Bush's record is no where near as long as Kerry's.. not to mention how they have been lying literally outright lying about Kerry's record.. not to mention taking some things hugely out of context.

No, like I said later in the thread... they're having double-standards when they defend Kerry's flip-flopping and attack Bush's.

Kwang, they do go after Kerry too in this issue. He just didn't make the cover. If you look carefully you can see an article listed which clearly is intended as an attack on Kerry.

Do you subscribe to the magazine? If so, I suggest you pull out last weeks issue and look at the Lexington. It goes like this :

John Kerry, flip-flopper?
Then it goes on as to why flip-flopping isn't bad. Yet now they're talking about attacking Bush on being" strong but not humble"...

Do you subscribe to the magazine? If so, I suggest you pull out last weeks issue and look at the Lexington. It goes like this :

John Kerry, flip-flopper?
Then it goes on as to why flip-flopping isn't bad. Yet now they're talking about attacking Bush on being" strong but not humble"...

So how is this having a double standard exactly?

They're defending John Kerry's flip flopping while going after George Bush's.

They're defending John Kerry's flip flopping while going after George Bush's.

no, I think they don't think flip-flopping is bad in and of itself, they just don't like the WAYS in which Bush is flip-flopping, free trade for example. Besides 'Strong but not Humble' implies the opposite of flip flopping.

But Bush made the speech/comment that they commonly refer to where he said the USA would have strong but humble foriegn policy. Now of course thats different, which is what the jibe is about, at least in my eyes.

But Bush made the speech/comment that they commonly refer to where he said the USA would have strong but humble foriegn policy. Now of course thats different, which is what the jibe is about, at least in my eyes.

I don't think that's about flip flopping so much as he HASN'T been strong but humble. The point isn't that he flip flopped, so much as he's doing a bad job (in the opinion of the writers).

:lol: I like bush I'd rather have him than a democrat. I often agree with him. He does spend way to much for sure. And he hasn't done much to cut spending or government size. And his stance on israel palestine is annoying he needs to take more of a stand on the issue, I can agree with this.

But Bush made the speech/comment that they commonly refer to where he said the USA would have strong but humble foriegn policy. Now of course thats different, which is what the jibe is about, at least in my eyes.

I don't think that's about flip flopping so much as he HASN'T been strong but humble. The point isn't that he flip flopped, so much as he's doing a bad job (in the opinion of the writers).

Well then clearly its just a case of the two of us perceiving the cover differently.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

If I were an American, I'd likely vote Democrat most times but I'd vote Republican if the policies were right.
However, forget Democrats v Republicans. They are, broadly speaking, both parties for the people but with differing emphasis on how to best protect their citizens and grow the economy.
The Bush regime is neither of these. This administration is the most far-right wing the US has ever had. It decrys government 'interference' yet has eroded civil liberties like no other government before. It uses social engineering to invoke fear and hatred in its population, to enhance its power and influence over the people. George Bush and that small clique that dictate 21st century US policy have reduced the worlds respect for America in the most dramatic fashion.
11th September 2001; a shocking and disgusting attack on the US in particular, and the west in general. Most of the world was appalled and horrified and the people of America had the worlds sympathy and respect as never before.
Never.
President Bush has squandered that love. In just a few years he and his pals have turned an opportunity for America and all her allies into a farce of pain and hate.

I just used this in another post but I guess it applies here as well.

http://www.centex.net/~elliott/1959/troll_doll_1959_pants.gif

This administration is the most far-right wing the US has ever had.
How so? Bush's increased social spending on things like education more than any other President, IIRC. He hasn't vetoed any spending bill, period, while Reagan vetoed every additional non-military spending bill in his first term. Tax Cuts? Happened before multiple times, in the last 50 years Kennedy and Reagan both did them.

It decrys government 'interference' yet has eroded civil liberties like no other government before.
Assuming you mean American government (because otherwise it would be a *really* silly comment), I suggest you take a look at the Alien and Sedition acts under John Adams. Or Abe Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus. Or any other of the Presidents that have made civil liberties worse then when they came into office. That won't stop people from believing that the Patriot act means John Ashcroft is spying on everyone's moves, but hey you can think what you want. The President could essentially make this country a dictatorship - he's had the techical power since the 70's, IIRC. That dosent' mean it *is* happening.

How so? Bush's increased social spending on things like education more than any other President, IIRC. He hasn't vetoed any spending bill, period, while Reagan vetoed every additional non-military spending bill in his first term. Tax Cuts? Happened before multiple times, in the last 50 years Kennedy and Reagan both did them.

Which shows that Bush is a horrible president.

Assuming you mean American government (because otherwise it would be a *really* silly comment), I suggest you take a look at the Alien and Sedition acts under John Adams.

Which led to Hamilton trying to amass an army to stage a coup and take over Congress, and seriously jeopardized the very existence of the American Republic. The anti-Adams faction won a considerable victory in 1800, and the said acts were quickly repealed.

Or Abe Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus.

Historians agree it wasn't one of his shining moments.

Or any other of the Presidents that have made civil liberties worse then when they came into office. That won't stop people from believing that the Patriot act means John Ashcroft is spying on everyone's moves, but hey you can think what you want. The President could essentially make this country a dictatorship - he's had the techical power since the 70's, IIRC.

He shouldn't though.

That dosent' mean it *is* happening.

So why take the risk? Oppressive government is a worse harm than just about anything else you can get save anarchy--which has historically been largely the result and precursor to oppressive government.

GM, does that make him the most right-wing President ever, or the one that took away civil liberties more than any other US Government before? Or just in your opinion a bad President?

[quote="Kwangistar"]but hey you can think what you want. quote]

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Well thank you for your condescending permission. I don't recall criticising any other poster here. I have a legitimate view of Bush and his minders and if it's alright with you, I'll speak my mind...........just like you. That alright? By the way, I didn't think it had to be said but; hey, you can think what you like too.

...Which reminds me of good ol' Doctor Kissinger.

http://www.b0g.org/wsnm/uploads/kissinger-nose.jpg

http://www.gwbush.com/multimedia/gwtv/nosepick/bushpick.mov