Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Yes indeed, that is silly. What is sillier is that it is erxactly that sort of stuff which forms the keel of The Opposition's Boat of Hope. No wonder it doesn't float.

0 Replies

I think they are building a U-boat. (With a screen door.) :wink:

0 Replies

yeah, I hate humour too.

0 Replies

Dys - I think Timber's point isn't that there's anything wrong with humor, it's that it seems that some on the left think photo arrays comparing Bush to a chimp amount to valuable political discourse. I've seen lots of clever stuff lampooning Hillary and other Dems. You see me offer any of it in these discussions? No, because they offer nothing substantive to the discussion.

Don't get me wrong, if PD and others want to amuse themselves that's fine with me. Cool

0 Replies

I would guess that the political humour is generated pretty much equally on both sides of the aisle and can on occassion be funny but mostly offers little if any positve value other that to provoke the other side. But then everyone knows I lack any sense of humour to begin with.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I would guess that the political humour is generated pretty much equally on both sides of the aisle and can on occassion be funny but mostly offers little if any positve value other that to provoke the other side. But then everyone knows I lack any sense of humour to begin with.

It may be generated (created) with equal frequency on both sides, but it is posted within these discussions almost exclusively by those on the left.

0 Replies

democrats

liberals

etc
I would also venture that there currently is far more "humour" generated about/against republicans simply because the sitting president is a republican just as there is far more "humour" generated against democrats when the sitting president is a democrat. Lets just say that it's topical to do so.

0 Replies

Now it has really gotten silly.....................

My dongs bigger than your dong silly Shocked

0 Replies

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW12-03-03.gif

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

It may be generated (created) with equal frequency on both sides, but it is posted within these discussions almost exclusively by those on the left.

Why don't you go invite your friends here and try and get even? :wink: Cool

0 Replies

I think it would be difficult to attract many thoughtful people to a thread which has so degenerated to a mere clipboard for essays, cartoons and related stuff, generally all with the same rather narrow political focus. Perhaps a good sandbox fin which like minded critics can reassure and entertain each other (other verbs come to mind as well), but not a place for the exchange and consideration of differing views.

0 Replies

George - If your goal is to discuss and debate politics with other people who have different points of view, cartoons don't tend to come to mind, but when your primary interest is in garnering virtual high-fives from others who see things as you do, then I imagine they come to mind quite often.

0 Replies

The New York Times wrote:

In a significant reversal, President Bush today rescinded the tariffs he imposed last year on imported steel, thereby averting a threatened trade retaliation from Europe but risking a political backlash in key steel-making states.

Dubya just kissed off Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and probably Ohio.

The New York Times, further, wrote:

As President Bush pondered his decision, he faced not only the European threat but two intense lobbying efforts within the United States.

On one side were the American steel industry and politicians for steel-producing states like Pennsylvania and West Virginia, who said they needed the tariff protection to continue for the additional 16 months, as originally planned.

On the other were domestic consumers of steel, many of them smaller manufacturers in Midwestern states also vital to Mr. Bush's political fortunes, who said that higher steel prices were hurting the economy more than steel makers were being helped.

Bush is toast. Cool

0 Replies

The steel industry needs to go ahead and kiss off. It's like the airlines, they use poor business practices and decision making, in steel it's the unions hurting them, then they want the gov't to protect them. The steel workers wanted those tariffs which they thought would save jobs but conversely lost 200,000.

Sounds like they want it both ways, and both ways are wrong.

0 Replies

not only was the steel industry wrong, Bush made it worse by first approving the tariff in the first place

0 Replies

He caved to 'I gotta have votes' syndrome. He's damned if he do and damned if he don't in this case.

0 Replies

Bush waited to announce the decision until after a Pittsburgh fundraiser co-hosted by the CEO of U.S. Steel at which he raked in about $850,000. At the fundraiser he avoided any mention of his impending announcement about dropping the tariffs. According to Republican Congressman Tim Murphy:

Quote:

...Mr. Bush had told him during the ride from the airport to the Westin Convention Center Hotel that his speech would not make mention of the tariffs.

"He said he was going to focus on what's right in America," Mr. Murphy said. "He said, 'I'm just telling you, I'm not making decisions based on politics.'"

He doesn't make decisions based on politics?

Feel free to take a moment to stop laughing and regain your composure.

The truth is, this decision was always about politics, but as with so much of the administration's policy-making, the policy was so bad that it was bound to muck up the politics.

By lifting the tariffs Bush avoided retaliatory tariffs by the European Union, and steel producers may benefit more from the falling dollar than they would have from keeping the tariffs.

But the perception among voters in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio is likely to be that Bush promised to protect their jobs, but in the end he sold them out.

*Sigh* What's a hypocrite to do? :wink:

0 Replies

As unhappy as I am about the Bush tarriffs, and as happy as I'd be to see Bush go -- I think it is worth remembering that when Bush introduced the tarrifs, the Democrats' criticism was that they were too low, not that mercantilism is a bad policy. You can replace George Bush, but apparently Americans don't have the option of replacing this particular aspect of his policy. The Democrats' anti-NAFTA rhetoric makes me very pessimistic about the prospects of free trade, and of America honoring its contracts with other nations again.

0 Replies

The recently elected leader of Australia's major opposition party, and hence the alternative Prime Minister of this country, described George Bush as the most incompetent and dangerous person ever to hold the office of President of the United States. Makes me think there's hope for Australia after all.

0 Replies

Regarding the steel tarriffs, people seem to forget that while it may protect steel industry jobs in the US, it puts at risk steel consumption jobs. Because they're stuck paying higher prices than they should have to.

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know