The entity former called perception seems to show a profound lack of it. It is difficult to take seriously the rambling rants of one who cannot tell the difference between John Dean and Howard Dean. A heads up, Howard Dean is running for president. John Dean says Bush should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors for lying about the reasons he led the country to war. Also, the latter Dean is a Republican.
While George Bush was going AWOL from the TANG and getting arrested for being a drunk and coked up in the ?'70's Howard Dean was saving lives as a medical doctor. Given me the latter so-called "leftist" any day over a spoiled rich kid who never did anything without his daddy helping him..
You might want to attempt to explain what Dean, the Howard one that is, is doing to be called a leftist. You might also try to explain how what he is saying in his plans are demonstrably false, and 10 consecutive balanced budgets while a 5 time governor and providing health care to children under 18 years of age is Marxism in action.
BTW Paul Krugman?
Let me get this straight. Are we talking about the same Paul Krugman? The one who has been honored with the Eccles Prize for Excellence in Economic Writing, the John Bates Clark Medal, the Adam Smith Award, the Nikkei Prize (with M. Fujita and A. Venables), and the Alonso Prize? Is that the sort of limited economic background to which the perceptionless one implies?
As to one who declares someone else a Marxist, they should put up or shut up and be able to define Marxism and explain how the person he calls one is one and teaches it. I presume the fartist formally known as perception can explain Marxism and how Krugman is teaching it.
Krugman is telling the truth about the banditry perpetrated by the Bush crime family, which is also pointed out recently by a Nobel prize winner in economics.
The 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, George Akerlof, told Der Spiegel, "This is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history...This is not normal government policy." In describing the impact of the Bush policies on America's future, Akerloff added, "What we have here is a form of looting."
No doubt about it.
As to the unsupportable comment about antipathy for Howard Dean by military vets from the Gulf wars, one should note that Howard Dean supported the first Gulf war, and did not support the second one because he felt that with Bin Laden and al-Queada still on the loose the case had not been made truthfully that Iraq was a direct, imminent threat to the US. This appears to be truer each day as the corruption and lies of the Bush administration are revealed about their distortions up to the start of the war.
But about those vets: perhaps they are beginning to realize that they too are being screwed by the Bush administration:
From that bastion of ultra liberal, Marxist and Leftist thought, the US Army Times, comes the following about how Bush has screwed the fighting men and women of our military: and by the way, within days this editorial was removed from the US Army Times web site until a cacophony of protests about its disappearance resulted in the article reappearing.
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1954515.php
"Editorial
"Nothing but lip service
"In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap ?- and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
"For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary ?- including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
"Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
"Then there's military tax relief ?- or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can't seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.
"Incredibly, one of those tax provisions ?- easing residency rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains exemptions when selling a home ?- has been a homeless orphan in the corridors of power for more than five years now.
The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush's proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.
"The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.
"All of which brings us to the latest indignity ?- Bush's $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year's budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill.
But Bush's tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on across the board.
"The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military construction panel accepted Bush's proposed $1.5 billion cut, it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41 million next year.
"Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush's construction budget. He proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a year. Instead of a tax break of $88,300, they would receive $83,500.
"The Republican majority on the construction appropriations panel quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other facilities is bleak at best.
"Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale ?- especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.
"Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed a resolution in March pledging "unequivocal support" to service members and their families, puts it this way: "American military men and women don't deserve to be saluted with our words and insulted by our actions."
"Translation: Money talks ?- and we all know what walks. "
Yes, the military can spot Bush's lies, after all they have to clean up the messes his lies produce and risk their lives for the mistakes he makes.
