NationStates Jolt Archive

1. I can't get shopadidas.com to work correctly. The actual shop is lacking photos and the text is misaligned. I've updated Flash, tried IE & FF, tried resolution change: no dice. It works fine at school. Odd. Any ideas?

2. How ridonkulous is the word ridonkulous?

3. (realtopic) Can someone explain why as I move farther away from the Republican Party the Democratic Party ceases to do anything on note? And why is this happening?

1. I can't get shopadidas.com to work correctly. The actual shop is lacking photos and the text is misaligned. I've updated Flash, tried IE & FF, tried resolution change: no dice. It works fine at school. Odd. Any ideas?

2. How ridonkulous is the word ridonkulous?

3. (realtopic) Can someone explain why as I move farther away from the Republican Party the Democratic Party ceases to do anything on note? And why is this happening?

#1 and 2: I have no idea. :p

#3. The Democrats have the Congress now. It's easy to denounce everything in the world when you're out of power, as they were for nearly six years. Now that they're in power to some degree, the lack of credibility becomes obvious - they complained about everything under the sun (not that I mind - the party out of power has a duty to do this) but now that it's time to act, they prove themselves just another party. It's Congress, basically. :p

the dems are trying not to piss off the country at large right now, because they really want to win the white house in 08 and they don't have any really great people running yet, what they don't realize is that the republicans don't really have any barely acceptable people running yet either.

1. I can't get shopadidas.com to work correctly. The actual shop is lacking photos and the text is misaligned. I've updated Flash, tried IE & FF, tried resolution change: no dice. It works fine at school. Odd. Any ideas?

2. How ridonkulous is the word ridonkulous?

3. (realtopic) Can someone explain why as I move farther away from the Republican Party the Democratic Party ceases to do anything on note? And why is this happening?

I can answer the last two:

2. It's a twunt word. Ignore it and it will go away.

3. Contrary to what the media tells you, there are no swing voters in this country. (Or at least not enough to make any real difference). All you have is either democrats who stay at home or republicans who stay at home: the respective portions of each determine who wins any given election. The key thing is that nobody really crosses party lines ever in any real sense. They just choose not to vote, or throw it away on a stupid party. This is why you don't find the democrat party attractive, even though you are now disgusted with the republicans.

But don't worry, the vast majority of the country thinks it is all BS anyway and doesn't vote at all.

the dems are trying not to piss off the country at large right now, because they really want to win the white house in 08 and they don't have any really great people running yet, what they don't realize is that the republicans don't really have any barely acceptable people running yet either.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, Smunkee (but that's not a surprise, I think). I think the Dems ahve accomplished a lot, but it's been largely symbolic because Bush has started to veto legislation now, and because the Dems have such a small majority in the Senate, and to get any legislation through requires 60 votes there. So in the last couple of weeks, Bush had to veto a defense spending bill, and he vetoed a stem cell research bill again, and Senate Republicans have bottled up a lot of other legislation. But in all those cases, the Dems are forcing the Republicans to be obstructionist, so in 2008, when the races really heat up, the Dems will be able to say "we tried to get a minimum wage increase, but the Republicans decided Paris Hilton needed to be twice as rich when her daddy dies instead." And the best part of it is that it'll be true. They'll be able to say "if you want us to do stuff for you, you need to put more of us in office" and the landscape is very favorable for the Democrats to increase their majorities in 2008 as it stands right now.

And as for the candidates, well, I'm very pleased with three or four of the Democrats running, and would be excited to vote for any of them in the general election, even Hillary Clinton. I can't say the same for the dozen old white guys running on the Republican side.

the dems are trying not to piss off the country at large right now, because they really want to win the white house in 08 and they don't have any really great people running yet, what they don't realize is that the republicans don't really have any barely acceptable people running yet either.

The field could be much better, I agree - however, there's always Newt there on the sidelines if things look grim for the front-runners. :) When we get to the sixth inning and Rudy's thrown his hundreth ball, hopefully we can send him in. :p

The field could be much better, I agree - however, there's always Newt there on the sidelines if things look grim for the front-runners. :) When we get to the sixth inning and Rudy's thrown his hundreth ball, hopefully we can send him in. :p

Holy Crap! no way dude! Newt is teh uber evil.

not that I am a republican or anything......I mean I am registered as one, but that's to do with closed primaries.

The field could be much better, I agree - however, there's always Newt there on the sidelines if things look grim for the front-runners. :) When we get to the sixth inning and Rudy's thrown his hundreth ball, hopefully we can send him in. :p

Newt wants to expand the war into Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. No thanks.

Newt wants to expand the war into Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. No thanks.

Haven't heard about that yet. ;) I do watch interviews with him fairly regularly, though, so I'll keep an ear out. :p

Holy Crap! no way dude! Newt is teh uber evil.

not that I am a republican or anything......I mean I am registered as one, but that's to do with closed primaries.

He's got something of a hill to climb to woo the other side, having been the singular face of the GOP for several years, and somewhat partisan. But I think he can overcome, easier at least than some other current candidates can. :)

He's got something of a hill to climb to woo the other side, having been the singular face of the GOP for several years, and somewhat partisan. But I think he can overcome, easier at least than some other current candidates can. :)

Heh--last poll I saw, Newt had negatives in the 40% range among Republicans. He certainly isn't going to do that well among Democrats. He's like the political version of chlamydia, only not as charming.

Heh--last poll I saw, Newt had negatives in the 40% range among Republicans. He certainly isn't going to do that well among Democrats. He's like the political version of chlamydia, only not as charming.

I haven't seen those, but I suspect that at this stage in the game, everyone's got their dream candidate in mind and might be inflexible on other candidates, whereas when the field narrows and the fringe guys and the poor fundraisers get weeded out, Newt will look better and better among our options. Of course, total consensus would be much better, but you take what you can get. :)

Haven't heard about that yet. ;) I do watch interviews with him fairly regularly, though, so I'll keep an ear out. :p

It was in an article he wrote in the Wall Street Journal awhile back.

I haven't seen those, but I suspect that at this stage in the game, everyone's got their dream candidate in mind and might be inflexible on other candidates, whereas when the field narrows and the fringe guys and the poor fundraisers get weeded out, Newt will look better and better among our options. Of course, total consensus would be much better, but you take what you can get. :)

That's true. I mean, look at the Republican field right now--realistically, there are three candidates right now: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney, and I'm stretching Romney to fit him in there. McCain is falling like a rock, and everyone else was an also ran when they entered the race. Gingrich might be able to make some noise in that race, and Michael Bloomberg leaving the Republican party and the speculation of his making a 3rd party run might shake up the race some.

Here's what I mean about Bloomberg. He really is a moderate, so he could pull those business Republicans out of the primary process, which would hurt Rudy most of all. Thompson still has star appeal, so he's not as harmed, but that leaves the door open for one of the evangelicals to make some noise. If Brownback or Huckabee, for instance, were able to do better than expected in the first couple of primaries, you could see an upset as the moderates desert the Republican party for Bloomberg. I don't think it's likely, but it's possible.

By the way, all of this leaves whoever comes out of the Democratic primary cakewalking into the White House, so I hope it happens.

the dems are trying not to piss off the country at large right now, because they really want to win the white house in 08 and they don't have any really great people running yet, what they don't realize is that the republicans don't really have any barely acceptable people running yet either.

I beg to differ. Ron Paul FTW!

That's true. I mean, look at the Republican field right now--realistically, there are three candidates right now: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney, and I'm stretching Romney to fit him in there. McCain is falling like a rock, and everyone else was an also ran when they entered the race. Gingrich might be able to make some noise in that race, and Michael Bloomberg leaving the Republican party and the speculation of his making a 3rd party run might shake up the race some.

Here's what I mean about Bloomberg. He really is a moderate, so he could pull those business Republicans out of the primary process, which would hurt Rudy most of all. Thompson still has star appeal, so he's not as harmed, but that leaves the door open for one of the evangelicals to make some noise. If Brownback or Huckabee, for instance, were able to do better than expected in the first couple of primaries, you could see an upset as the moderates desert the Republican party for Bloomberg. I don't think it's likely, but it's possible.

By the way, all of this leaves whoever comes out of the Democratic primary cakewalking into the White House, so I hope it happens.

Well, obviously I would hope Bloomberg doesn't end up as a spoiler to any candidate - on the plus side, he may even add some balance to the discussion, though his manner and appearance are an uphill climb in the popular media and he'll have to fight for his venues as an independent.

As for the Democrats, it does seem that it's basically a Hillary/Obama fight, and although I don't see that changing soon, it's very early yet. :p

As for the Democrats, it does seem that it's basically a Hillary/Obama fight, and although I don't see that changing soon, it's very early yet. :p

Nationally, it certainly seems that way, though in Iowa and New Hampshire, John Edwards has leads and has maintained them for a while, so if the national perception is that Edwards steals a win in those two states, that could give him massive momentum going forward. But early word is that his fundraising is lagging right now, and that could hurt him badly. I hope not, even though he's not at the top of my list--I just don't want the primaries to be Clinton and the anti-Clinton. I hope for something better.

And the big Democratic wild card is Al Gore. If he gets in, there's no telling what happens.

I beg to differ. Ron Paul FTW!

I am totally loving Ron Paul, but most of the repubs don't get him, and half of the undecideds are scared of him and most of the dems really hate him.

He isn't going anywhere, sadly.

I am totally loving Ron Paul, but most of the repubs don't get him, and half of the undecideds are scared of him and most of the dems really hate him.

He isn't going anywhere, sadly.

I know, I mean they won't even let him into the Iowa debates, that is just political suicide, if Ron White would get the exposure that Rudy, Romney and Gingrich is getting, then America would love him and the Republicans would stand a better chance of winning in '08, but Nooo they're trying to hide him like a bastard child.

I am totally loving Ron Paul, but most of the repubs don't get him, and half of the undecideds are scared of him and most of the dems really hate him.

He isn't going anywhere, sadly.

Someone as pro-liberty as him could never win. The only candidates people are interested in electing are shrills for the welfare/warfare state.

Someone as pro-liberty as him could never win. The only candidates people are interested in electing are shrills for the welfare/warfare state.

You win an entire Cheese cake.

http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/Cakes/Cheesecake.jpg

I had myself a slice though.

I'd like Ron Paul better if it wasn't for the whole racism thing.

Someone as pro-liberty as him could never win. The only candidates people are interested in electing are shrills for the welfare/warfare state.

Pro-liberty if you're white, you mean. There are other problems with him, but let's get the racist bit out front and not play around on it. He spent most of the 90s courting white supremacist groups for support while building his "movement."

http://majorknitter.typepad.com/major_knitter/images/fourth_of_july_cookiesw.jpg

Aw, those look great. :p Hope my grocery store has some like that next week.

Someone as pro-liberty as him could never win. The only candidates people are interested in electing are shrills for the welfare/warfare state.

that's exactly it. *gives you a ubersad of the state of the States celebration cookie for stating the obvious*

http://majorknitter.typepad.com/major_knitter/images/fourth_of_july_cookiesw.jpg

that's exactly it. *gives you a ubersad of the state of the States celebration cookie for stating the obvious*

http://majorknitter.typepad.com/major_knitter/images/fourth_of_july_cookiesw.jpg

Yay, thanks! :)

What the fuck?

Let me dig it up. The gist of it is that back in around '98 or so, he said that black people were stupid.

Pro-liberty if you're white, you mean. There are other problems with him, but let's get the racist bit out front and not play around on it. He spent most of the 90s courting white supremacist groups for support while building his "movement."

Seriously? It wasn't mentioned in his wikipedia entry when I read it last week. :p *Kicks self for relying on wikipedia*

You win an entire Cheese cake.

http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/Cakes/Cheesecake.jpg

I had myself a slice though.

Thanks! :D

And yet, people deny we live in a dictatorship. Elections are so heavily rigged in favor of Establishment (read big government welfare/warfare state shrills) it's not even funny.

Not to mention that it's hard for third parties like Libertarians/Green/etc. to actually get their foot in the door because the two big parties have barricaded that door.

What the fuck?

Time for you to do some research on your candidate, it seems.

I'd like Ron Paul better if it wasn't for the whole racism thing.

What the fuck?

I know, I mean they won't even let him into the Iowa debates, that is just political suicide, if Ron White would get the exposure that Rudy, Romney and Gingrich is getting, then America would love him and the Republicans would stand a better chance of winning in '08, but Nooo they're trying to hide him like a bastard child.

And yet, people deny we live in a dictatorship. Elections are so heavily rigged in favor of Establishment (read big government welfare/warfare state shrills) it's not even funny.

Pro-liberty if you're white, you mean. There are other problems with him, but let's get the racist bit out front and not play around on it. He spent most of the 90s courting white supremacist groups for support while building his "movement."

Prove it.

And yet, people deny we live in a dictatorship. Elections are so heavily rigged in favor of Establishment (read big government welfare/warfare state shrills) it's not even funny.

Of course, there's no way that most people actually don't want to live in a country in which the government has no power.

Pro-liberty if you're white, you mean. There are other problems with him, but let's get the racist bit out front and not play around on it. He spent most of the 90s courting white supremacist groups for support while building his "movement."

Uh huh, and yet, there's no mention of that in Wikipedia page, or any other reputable source. There are alot of that in the Anti-Republican, Anti-Conservative blogs though, but they're not reputable.

Try again Nazz.

Prove it.

Google is your friend (http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html).

Uh huh, and yet, there's no mention of that in Wikipedia page, or any other reputable source. There are alot of that in the Anti-Republican, Anti-Conservative blogs though, but they're not reputable.

Try again Nazz.

Well of course it won't be on the Wikipedia page--his supporters can edit that page too, can't they? But I have provided a source--and it wasn't particularly hard to find either.

Of course, there's no way that most people actually don't want to live in a country in which the government has no power.

We do not advocate a government that has no power, we (and by we I mean libertarians and let's face it, Ron Paul is a Libertarian) just support a smaller, limited, and decentralized government.

Google is your friend (http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html).

That might be the one I was looking for.

And Wikipedia is yours. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Campaign_response_to_newsletter_remarks_on_race)

Ancap, when I become President, I am picking you for Veep. :)

And Wikipedia is yours. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Campaign_response_to_newsletter_remarks_on_race)

You know that wikipedia is peer-edited (I think that's the term) though, right? I'd give the guy the benefit of the doubt for now too, but wiki is useful for its eazy interface, not its accuracy. ;)

Google is your friend (http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html).

And Wikipedia is yours. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Campaign_response_to_newsletter_remarks_on_race)

Of course, there's no way that most people actually don't want to live in a country in which the government has no power.

no power? or less power than now when they are breaking the constitution with illegal searches and such.

Of course, there's no way that most people actually don't want to live in a country in which the government has no power.

So no government is the only alternative to big government?

So no government is the only alternative to big government?

Ron Paul wants the government to have almost no power whatsoever. Also, I was directing the comment towards you, who, if you were telling the truth in another thread, are an anarchocapitalist.

no power? or less power than now when they are breaking the constitution with illegal searches and such.

Ever looked at Ron Paul's platform?

And Wikipedia is yours. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Campaign_response_to_newsletter_remarks_on_race)

Let me explain something to you about work for hire and ghostwriting. When you hire someone to write for you, you own the work--there's no discussion about royalties or authorial credit, and as a result, the price is generally higher per piece than it would be if there were royalties involved. You own it--legally, it's as though you wrote the words yourself. So only a moron would allow something to go out under their own name written by someone else and not know what it said.

So here's your choices--Paul is a racist, or he's a liar about what he knew went out in those newsletters, or he's an idiot who let someone else write racist stuff in his name. Regardless, he benefited from it politically at the time. Support him if you want, but don't put him up on a pedestal like he's any more respectable than any other pandering politician.

Ancap, when I become President, I am picking you for Veep. :)

:fluffle:

By the way, check TGs in about 20 seconds.

Ever looked at Ron Paul's platform?

yeah, I like it better than anyone else's right now.

Or his ghost writer is an asshole.

That falls under "Ron Paul is a complete idiot for not checking what was written".

Ron Paul wants the government to have almost no power whatsoever.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Also, I was directing the comment towards you, who, if you were telling the truth in another thread, are an anarchocapitalist.

I am.

Let me explain something to you about work for hire and ghostwriting. When you hire someone to write for you, you own the work--there's no discussion about royalties or authorial credit, and as a result, the price is generally higher per piece than it would be if there were royalties involved. You own it--legally, it's as though you wrote the words yourself. So only a moron would allow something to go out under their own name written by someone else and not know what it said.

So here's your choices--Paul is a racist, or he's a liar about what he knew went out in those newsletters, or he's an idiot who let someone else write racist stuff in his name. Regardless, he benefited from it politically at the time. Support him if you want, but don't put him up on a pedestal like he's any more respectable than any other pandering politician.

Or his ghost writer is an asshole.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

What I'm trying to point out is that you don't seem to understand that maybe most of the U.S. does think it's a bad thing.

Or his ghost writer is an asshole.
It doesn't matter--Paul paid him, so Paul owns the work, and Paul takes the heat for the work. What does it say about a man that he allows someone to ghostwrite that kind of crap and he not only pays for it--because this kind of stuff is almost always paid for upon completion, not up front--but he sends it out with his name on it?

Like I said, Paul is either racist or dumb--you take your pick. It doesn't matter to me because I wouldn't vote for him for King of the Herpes Parade and Formal Dinner dance.

Ron Paul wants the government to have almost no power whatsoever.

they don't need much

security
basic infrastructure
courts

and leave me alone.

they don't need much

security
basic infrastructure
courts

and leave me alone.

I'd prefer to leave those to private industry, but limiting the government to those three things is far better than what we have now.

Because most of the U.S. are too lazy and stupid to do things for themselves and want the government to do everything short of wiping their tushies for them.

Well, at least I managed to get you away from thinking that there is a massive conspiracy to prevent your viewpoint succeeding.

What I'm trying to point out is that you don't seem to understand that maybe most of the U.S. does think it's a bad thing.

Because most of the U.S. are too lazy and stupid to do things for themselves and want the government to do everything short of wiping their tushies for them.

Let me explain something to you about work for hire and ghostwriting. When you hire someone to write for you, you own the work--there's no discussion about royalties or authorial credit, and as a result, the price is generally higher per piece than it would be if there were royalties involved. You own it--legally, it's as though you wrote the words yourself. So only a moron would allow something to go out under their own name written by someone else and not know what it said.

So here's your choices--Paul is a racist, or he's a liar about what he knew went out in those newsletters, or he's an idiot who let someone else write racist stuff in his name. Regardless, he benefited from it politically at the time. Support him if you want, but don't put him up on a pedestal like he's any more respectable than any other pandering politician.

Nazz, anyone can say shit on a newspaper, or in a campaign speech, but if you really want to know where a candidate stand, you look at what he voted for.

It doesn't matter--Paul paid him, so Paul owns the work, and Paul takes the heat for the work.

He accepted full responsibility for it.

And calling him racist or dumb is the height of absurdity. He's the only member of Congress who has a brain.

they don't need much

security
basic infrastructure
courts

and leave me alone.

Smunkeeville, I shall make you Sec. of State when I become President. :)

Well, at least I managed to get you away from thinking that there is a massive conspiracy to prevent your viewpoint succeeding.

There is. Ever heard of public "education?"

What I'm trying to point out is that you don't seem to understand that maybe most of the U.S. does think it's a bad thing.

because they think government is mommy.

the good of the people is often the alibi of tyrants.

He accepted full responsibility for it.

And calling him racist or dumb is the height of absurdity. He's the only member of Congress who has a brain.

Thank you, at least Ron has the decency to accept responsibility for what is written under his name, and he explains it, instead of trying to spin it like most politicians do.

Nazz, anyone can say shit on a newspaper, or in a campaign speech, but if you really want to know where a candidate stand, you look at what he voted for.

So Paul is just another panderer then. You can't have it both ways. Either he means what he says and is a racist piece of shit, or he doesn't and he's a pandering bastard the likes of which you claim to despise. It's one or the other.

because they think government is mommy.

the good of the people is often the alibi of tyrants.

Amen.

because they think government is mommy.

the good of the people is often the alibi of tyrants.

Amen, I would rather have a small government that lets me be more responsible for myself, family and friends, than a Nanny state.

There is. Ever heard of public "education?"

Having been through both the public school system and private school systems, the private ones were far more of the "listen to the government" than the public ones.

There is. Ever heard of public "education?"

:p

No.

So you're applying a double standard. Gotcha.

It's one or the other.

No.

To be fair, Bill Clinton had a retarded guy executed because he wanted to look tough on crime, and people still love him.

To be fair, Bill Clinton had a retarded guy executed because he wanted to look tough on crime, and people still love him.

Really?

To be fair, Bill Clinton had a retarded guy executed because he wanted to look tough on crime, and people still love him.

So long as the guy was guilty, I guess. ;)

Yah, really. Tribal democrats can explain how is wasn't really his 'fault' though.

Bottom line is, retarded man on Arkansas death row. Executed while Bill Clinton was Governor. Those are the facts. (Bill Clinton informed of said retardation).

Now, back to ron paul taking responsibility......

Do you have a source, because, this sounds like one of those stories that sound true, but you just can't be sure.

Really?

Yah, really. Tribal democrats can explain how is wasn't really his 'fault' though.

Bottom line is, retarded man on Arkansas death row. Executed while Bill Clinton was Governor. Those are the facts. (Bill Clinton informed of said retardation).

Now, back to ron paul taking responsibility......

Do you have a source, because, this sounds like one of those stories that sound true, but you just can't be sure.

Rickey Ray Rector. Google it.

I don't think he was retarded when he did the crime, but he was when they put him down. Everything that the left is against apparently. Until they are not.

By the way, all of this leaves whoever comes out of the Democratic primary cakewalking into the White House, so I hope it happens.

Ha! Can you imagine a cornbread banquet waiting for Hillary as she Cha-cha's over the Whitehouse threshold.

YouTube anyone?

ooooh!

Yah, really. Tribal democrats can explain how is wasn't really his 'fault' though.

Bottom line is, retarded man on Arkansas death row. Executed while Bill Clinton was Governor. Those are the facts. (Bill Clinton informed of said retardation).

Now, back to ron paul taking responsibility......

Oh yeah. I remember that story because it happened during the primaries--he left the campaign trail to sign the death warrant and caught a lot of hell from part of the electorate for it.

Rickey Ray Rector. Google it.

I don't think he was retarded when he did the crime, but he was when they put him down. Everything that the left is against apparently. Until they are not.

Hold on a second--the left, such as it is in this country, is no great fan of Bill Clinton. We often refer to him as the best Republican president of the last sixty years, in fact, because he was no great friend to us. I mean, saying that Clinton was a better option for the left than Poppy Bush and Bob Dole was no great compliment.

Hold on a second--the left, such as it is in this country, is no great fan of Bill Clinton. We often refer to him as the best Republican president of the last sixty years, in fact, because he was no great friend to us. I mean, saying that Clinton was a better option for the left than Poppy Bush and Bob Dole was no great compliment.

There's been a lot of Clinton/Bush comparison recently, especially during election '04. Clinton's approval rating may not be that high (between 50 and 60 I think - not unanimous approval anyway) but the constant comparison of the Bush economy, foreign policy, etc. to Clinton probably feeds into it.

Hold on a second--the left, such as it is in this country, is no great fan of Bill Clinton. We often refer to him as the best Republican president of the last sixty years, in fact, because he was no great friend to us. I mean, saying that Clinton was a better option for the left than Poppy Bush and Bob Dole was no great compliment.

No. Fair point. But you are talking about the real principled left - who I have very little problem with per se - and I am talking about the tribal democrats who style themselves as left. And I understand the frustration with Clinton from a leftist position because he basically got into office, and then he and his wife proceeded to take a massive shit all over the actual left. (Promises about health care, cleaning up the SEC, &c).

For the life of me, I don't understand why people defend him so much.

Anyhoo, my point was, you can easily smear somebody with things that are kind of truthy.

There's been a lot of Clinton/Bush comparison recently, especially during election '04. Clinton's approval rating may not be that high (between 50 and 60 I think - not unanimous approval anyway) but the constant comparison of the Bush economy, foreign policy, etc. to Clinton probably feeds into it.
Well, right now Nixon is competitive with Dubya, and Jimmy Carter looks like a resounding success poll-wise. To the left, though, Clinton was a big disappointment. We'd had 12 years of Reagan-Bush, 12 years of supply-side economics crap, and while Clinton changed things by reintroducing fiscal responsibility, he also sold us out by not fighting harder for issues we cared about, like universal health care, gay rights, and trade agreements. He pissed off a lot of lefties with NAFTA, remember. And there were other things--welfare reform, DOMA, the list goes on and on. And yet, in a lot of ways, Clinton was a rousing success, especially in the overall economy. But he was no leftist, not by a long shot.

Well, right now Nixon is competitive with Dubya, and Jimmy Carter looks like a resounding success poll-wise. To the left, though, Clinton was a big disappointment. We'd had 12 years of Reagan-Bush, 12 years of supply-side economics crap, and while Clinton changed things by reintroducing fiscal responsibility, he also sold us out by not fighting harder for issues we cared about, like universal health care, gay rights, and trade agreements. He pissed off a lot of lefties with NAFTA, remember. And there were other things--welfare reform, DOMA, the list goes on and on. And yet, in a lot of ways, Clinton was a rousing success, especially in the overall economy. But he was no leftist, not by a long shot.


:mad: There has only been 4 years at most of supply side economics in this country. Don't mislabel a perfectly reasonable thing with american asshattery.

It's basically all been wall street voodoonomics for the past twenty plus years.