Skip to comments.
Bushies seek to revolutionize the country the wrong way [BerkleyEast tale of Bush and the neocons]
Capital Times ^
| 2-14-06
| Ed Garvey
Posted on 02/14/2006 3:27:08 PM PST by SJackson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
1
posted on
02/14/2006 3:27:09 PM PST
by
SJackson
To: SJackson
Perhaps there is an easy way to solve our nation's economic problems. Dow hits 11,000. Unemployment @ 5.2%. And we still are in the Depression! Damn! This Meth problem is worse than I thought!
2
posted on
02/14/2006 3:29:47 PM PST
by
Bommer
(Ted Kennedy - Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life!)
To: SJackson
This
Capital Times is one of the most insane cage-liners I've seen in a very long time.
Remind me to stay the hell out of Madison until it's time for the siege.
To: SJackson
Why not make it clear that corporations should have the same First Amendment rights as other citizens to contribute to campaigns? Why not to make corporations to be the full fledged persons with all the rights and abolish the status of a person for the citizens/individual human beings? That way this process will be brought to its logical conclusion.
After all the corporations represent the most productive members of the society. The mere human beings are superfluous and parasitic relic of the past.
4
posted on
02/14/2006 3:35:09 PM PST
by
A. Pole
(In 2001 top 5% owned 60% of national wealth, while bottom 60% owned 4%)
To: A. Pole
Why not to make corporations to be the full fledged persons with all the rights and abolish the status of a person for the citizens/individual human beings? That way this process will be brought to its logical conclusion. After all the corporations represent the most productive members of the society. The mere human beings are superfluous and parasitic relic of the past. Substitute academia and government for corporations, the author would agree.
5
posted on
02/14/2006 3:36:47 PM PST
by
SJackson
(There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror, William Eaton)
To: Bommer
Dow hits 11,000. Unemployment @ 5.2%. And we still are in the Depression! It all depends how you measure the unemployment. By some measures the unemployment during the Great Depression was close to zero.
6
posted on
02/14/2006 3:37:01 PM PST
by
A. Pole
(In 2001 top 5% owned 60% of national wealth, while bottom 60% owned 4%)
To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
The writer of this article must live in some fantasy world......or he's an idiot.....probably both.
7
posted on
02/14/2006 3:41:04 PM PST
by
L98Fiero
To: SJackson
...they plan to eliminate government as we have known it since Franklin RooseveltHey Ed, you stupid git, that's a great idea!
8
posted on
02/14/2006 3:42:11 PM PST
by
clintonh8r
(If you don't support the mission you don't support the troops. Period.)
To: Bommer
Dow hits 11,000. Unemployment @ 5.2%. And we still are in the Depression! Damn! This Meth problem is worse than I thought!
Unemployment is now @4.9! (4% is considered full employment)
9
posted on
02/14/2006 3:44:47 PM PST
by
kaktuskid
To: SJackson
>>When you read the Bush budget, you must conclude that they don't want to trim the fat, they plan to eliminate government as we have known it since Franklin Roosevelt.<<
Yes! See http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm
10
posted on
02/14/2006 3:48:58 PM PST
by
kojak
To: SJackson
The author of the article seems to be blissful oblivious to the distribution of income vs percentage of total taxes paid...
What more needs to be said?
To: SJackson; Behind Liberal Lines
I thought Ithaca was Berkeley East.
12
posted on
02/14/2006 3:49:30 PM PST
by
presidio9
("Bird Flu" is the new Y2K Virus -Only without the inconvenient deadline.)
To: SJackson
Darn, till he said he wasn't serious, I was getting excited!
13
posted on
02/14/2006 3:49:33 PM PST
by
wizardoz
To: SJackson
OK, OK, I am not serious. Well, that's a relief. With these genius types it's kind of hard to tell. Glad he let us know.
But the Bush administration and the neocons are serious.
Not about that. See point one.
I do get the sense that some "progressives" are finally, at long last, sensing that progressivism has turned into pure reaction and that the most truly progressive individual in government is named Bush. "But it isn't progressivism as we define it!" Yeah, so what?
To: SJackson
15
posted on
02/14/2006 3:54:09 PM PST
by
Fintan
(Shut up. You're rude and silly. And ugly.)
To: A. Pole
By some measures the unemployment during the Great Depression was close to zero. and just how drunk did you have to get back then to see a bread line and say, "Yep, no unemployment here!" Unemployment was close to 25%.
16
posted on
02/14/2006 4:20:01 PM PST
by
Bommer
(Ted Kennedy - Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life!)
To: A. Pole
Last I heard, unemployment was 4.7%. Of course, if you just have to look for the bad side, employment is only 95.3%.
To: ozzymandus
Eliminate the income tax- great idea
Eliminate coperate tax- great idea
Protect coperations from lawsuits- bad idea, if they are at fault they are at fault. How about protect them from insane lawsuits
Repeal new deal- Great idea
privitize schools- Amazing
Sounds like this guy is the smartest person I've heard in a long time. Haha, I love how offended liberals are of conservitive ideas. BTW how is Bush's spending threatening to destroy goverment! He's making it bigger.
18
posted on
02/14/2006 4:35:35 PM PST
by
RHINO369
To: Bommer
Unemployment is actually at 4.7%, not 5.2%
19
posted on
02/14/2006 5:30:31 PM PST
by
MNJohnnie
(Conservatives...lack sufficient cynicism to properly assess the nature of their liberal opponents)
To: kaktuskid
Current Unemployment is 4.7% Full employment is considered at 5%. The only reason they say 4% is because of the last 2 years of the 1990s we got down there, however as anyone who went into a convince store in 1998-1999 could tell you, MOST of the people employed at the low end after you get under 5% are marginally employable at best.
Plus there is some question if the changes made by the Clinton Admin to calculate the Unemployment rate were as accurate as the previous method. The numbers reported after 1995 are probably underreporting the Unemployment rate due to those Clinton era changes.
20
posted on
02/14/2006 5:35:49 PM PST
by
MNJohnnie
(Conservatives...lack sufficient cynicism to properly assess the nature of their liberal opponents)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson