WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Really? Do you have citation for these "large stores"?

parados, Maybe ican is confused about the large amounts of manure fertilizer.

Pseudology (i.e., falsity or lies ... while all lies are falsities, not all falsities are lies).

I didn't lose the election. I neither ran for office or aided anyone run for office.

Bush is not my king! Neither is he anyone's king. Bush is simply an elected president with limited capability.

You, on the otherhand, are "much ado about nothing."

And where has "Krugman in particular" been guilty of these sins?

Krugman is a Jew.

The slander implied was meant to be obvious as false. You are playing a rhetorical game which has as little regard for evidence and facts which sit in contradiction to your theses.

Iraq strategy is not the only facet of U.S. foreign policy to be affected by the Democrats' takeover of Congress last week. While the setback for President Bush could embolden U.S. adversaries and present new challenges, the Democrats' control over purse strings and oversight functions will give them substantial influence, or at least a soapbox, in setting U.S. priorities. Here the [Chicago] Tribune's foreign correspondents discuss the issues to watch:

Worldview shifts after U.S. turns

He didn't say Krugman was "guilty of these sins". He said Krugman has accused the Republicans/conservatives of these sins. There is a fine distinction there.

This is a typical example, Foxfyre, of how you selectively read threads to make your political friends look good, ignoring any context that conflicts with your predetermined opinions. Let me restore the context for you.






Yes, there is a fine distinction, but it's your distinction, not Ican's. Ican, contrary to what you assert, did say Krugman was guilty of these sins. Nuff said.

Where?

First quote. I can lead you to the trove, but I can't make you eat. So if you can't find it, I will make no more effort to point it out to you.

um

sheesh



Thomas, you couldn't have had your point about 'selective reading' proven any better. I congradulate you!

Cycloptichorn

But you can't spell.

Okay Thomas, I concede. I was going by the last page and missed the first post. So I'll let Ican address the question.

I see your reading skills are perfectly fine when directed towards others...

And you're right, I mis-spelled Congratulate.

Cycloptichorn

Uh-huh . . . and what is the putative word "blaimed" supposed to mean?

The path of good intentions
By Suzanne Fields
November 13, 2006




An important senator is hit by a truck and dies on the street. He arrives at the pearly gates and is greeted by St. Peter.
"Well," says St. Peter, "We seldom see a member of Congress up here, and we've decided that you must spend one day in hell and one in heaven and then choose where to spend eternity."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator to hell. When the doors open below, he finds himself on a cool, green golf course. (It looks a lot like St. Andrew's in Scotland.) His friends and old colleagues greet him with warmth and bonhomie, eager to reminisce about the good times they had getting rich at taxpayer expense and fattening their pet pigs. After a round of golf and a massage they dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Satan turns out to be a very friendly fellow, with laughter and jokes.
Soon the 24 hours pass and the senator returns to heaven, where he spends another amiable 24 hours, playing the harp, floating from cloud to cloud, admiring angels who look a lot like Marilyn Monroe, singing all the many verses of "Amazing Grace," and enjoying the pleasures of discipline and restraint. St. Peter finally tells him it's time to choose.
"Well," the senator says, "heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell. They're my kind of people."
St. Peter escorts him to the elevator for his final descent into hell. When the doors open this time, he finds himself in a barren land of waste, rubble and garbage. His friends, in rags, are picking up garbage, stuffing it into ever bigger bags as rubbish continually falls from above.
"I don't understand," the frightened senator stammers. "Yesterday there was a golf course, a clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar and drank champagne at restaurants that looked a lot like the Palm and Charlie Palmer's, and had a high old time. Now there's nothing but garbage and my friends look miserable."
"Ah," says Satan, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today, you voted."
No matter which party governs it can always expect to be aggressively pursued by bribery, debauchery and corruption. Temptation trumps good intentions when the elected become more concerned with holding on to power than pleasing to the people who put them in office.
It's remarkable how many Republicans and conservative friends of Republicans are not only not wasting time on regrets about how the elections turned out, but are actually satisfied with what happened. A lot of the people who put the Republicans in power think the party had a hard lesson coming.
They observed the sleaziness at the center of congressional perks and power, the indulgent scandals of sex and money. Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, concedes that corruption was the most costly issue. A lot of congressmen forgot why they were sent here. "It ought not to be continuing your power in office," he told an interviewer on the morning after, "but what you are trying to accomplish and what you are trying to reform." (Now he tells us.)
Many conservatives believe Iraq is better for being free of the brutality and lethal mischief of Saddam Hussein, and the prospect of the trouble he could have made for the West, but they're unhappy about how the Republicans, beginning with the president, are prosecuting the war. They have their fingers crossed that exchanging Donald Rumsfeld for Robert Gates will be more than merely a change of shirts. Conservatives are happy that Joe Lieberman defeated the "What? Me worry?" candidate in Connecticut and are counting on him to persuade some of his Democratic colleagues to begin worrying about the consequences of writing off Iraq and the Middle East.
Now the Democrats have to be responsible. They won with an anything-but-Bush agenda, and that only works during a campaign. That some of the newly minted Democratic congressmen are moderate-to-conservative is a cause for hope. They promised fiscal responsibility and restraint, but so had the Republicans who were thrown out last Tuesday. Rep. Nancy Pelosi promises bipartisanship without rancor. Easier said than done; the Republicans didn't deliver on that, either.
But change offers fresh faces and fresh opportunities. Will the new Congress set higher standards for itself? Or will the lure of luxurious golf courses, long lunches at pricey watering holes and the high life on the taxpayer's dime corrupt them with the accoutrements of power? Anyone who has been in Washington very long understands that betting on a politician is, like second marriages, a triumph of hope over experience. But we must hope.

Thanks for admitting your mistake.

You're welcome. But, you could have quoted it you know instead of playing 'gotcha' and then dismissing me (again) as unworthy to engage in debate. But I forgive you. Only because I like you no matter how weird you get sometimes.

And look who's talking about "weird?" LOL

True. Some of you are more weird than THomas, C.I.