NEWS: Bush: Tax Cuts Good for... Everything!!!!

Well, I assume the link is true (you know what they say about assuming!) because of the fact that I clicked it and it takes me somewhere. However, I didn't find it entirely informative, as it merely mentioned that three debates were recommended and scheduled (without the current presidents consent) and that two of those dates were agreed to, while the Tempe debate had not yet been decided upon. The quote claiming that 'two debates would be sufficient' was attributed to only one man, a campaign strategist, and, "In later calls to The Arizona Republic, Bush campaign aides asking not to be identified insisted that Reed was not speaking officially for the campaign and that no decision had been made on the debates. "

Should I be outraged?

I will watch however many debates take place. I hope there are three, honestly.

I think it's clear what you were saying but if you want to flip-flop, that's your thing. Try to pay more attention to what you reply to, it helps to read everything. Is the reply function too difficult for you to understand? You vaguely defend Harrison's tax-cut argument and back off when confronted with facts.
PS: English is a proper noun.

Double PS: Sorry I didn't meet your standard but sometimes I type a little too fast. I see you prefer well-written nonsense over substance.


[Edited on Sep 07, 2004 by Raoul_Duke]

I'm a bit perplexed by this reply. Clearly, quite a few people get into, and stay in Yale with those kind of results. To quote your own source, if I may, "His cumulative average was a gentlemen's 77... But don't laugh too hard; most students here now whine about having to carry a load of five courses half the time. Bush, a history major, took 40 credits while enrolled at Yale"

60 is considered passing. 75 is considered passing 'with quality'. (from
A Yale Book of Numbers http://www.yale.edu/oir/pierson_original.htm) 77 is above the class mean, which means nare than half of the class had lower scores. It also worth remembering that grades at that time were much more highly regarded in those days than they are now, when 91% of Harvard graduates with distinction.

You really shouldn't link to articles that do not support your own argument.

you might be outraged that our president has deigned to speak with us in the form of an unscripted press conference only eleven times (at which he spit out the catch phrases you disdain again and again and again) during his presidency. and, given that, you might be outraged that there is even a shred of possibility that there will be fewer than three debates. since bush was barely fucking elected in the first place, sheer decency would dictate that he should communicate with us a bit more.

but it's entirely up to you whether you feel outraged.

since you seem like someone who's interested in the issues, i highly recommend james fallows's cover story on bush in this month's atlantic.

bush may not be the idiot he is often caricatured as, but it is hard to come away from that piece thinking that he is anything but breathtakingly arrogant and incompetent. that's certainly the conclusion of the largely republican experts on military issues, foreign affairs, and national security who were interviewed for the article.

I'm sorry, but I never defended nor attacked Harrison's tax-cut argument. I did, in fact, attack lukie2p's blatantly incoherent response to Harrison's tax-cut argument. Therefore I had no position to back off from when confronted with 'the facts'. I have, in my last post, stated my position on the situation for the first time in hopes of starting a conversation which you have decided to ignore. As this was the first time I stated a position on the topic, it is difficult for me to 'flip-flop', so your point is invalid.

Perhaps you type fast, but that speedy typing should allow you a few extra moments to edit your writing. As we are 'talking' over the medium of the internet I have only what you write to formulate a response, which is difficult if I can't understand your post.

If the reply function were too difficult for me to comprehend, I probably wouldn't have been using it for the last twenty minutes during the course of this thread, so your argument eludes me there.

Finally, congratulations on finding an error in my writing. I am sure that the non-capitalization of the letter 'e' in English prevented you from grasping the content of my post. Please re-read it again with the word English replacing the word english and hopefully you can then respond to the things I have said.

Shit, I think I'll apply to Yale. I'm sure legacy had nothing to do with his acceptance. I must admit, it's a surprise that he was barely above the middle of his class. With that in mind I'm glad we have him as President.

What chapter and page does it list the grade averages???

[Edited on Sep 07, 2004 by Raoul_Duke]

Uh, sorry. You're not going to win this one.

(1) You engaged in the argument that tax cuts create jobs by taking the position that someone has to sell people "new company trucks" and "extra lunches," correct?

(2) The "new trucks" and "extra lunches" had been put forth earlier as examples of what rich people might spend money on instead of creating jobs at companies they own.

(3) Ergo, whether you realized it or not--did you read the thread before posting?--you were seen as taking the position of the person who had first argued "poor people don't create jobs," which

(4) TheFuckOffKid had already responded to.

Again, that may not have been your intent, but in the context of the thread, that's what you did. That's why I posted my response to you.

[Edited on Sep 07, 2004 by saucy_son]

Gee, call me old-fashioned, but I'd kinda like the guy whose tax cuts will put the deficit up to 500 billion dollars in five years to have gotten higher than a 71 in Economics (what your link says he got). Even Bush supporters would expect the dude at their local H&R Block to have gotten a better grade than that, but in their Bush-worship they've convinced themselves it's perfectly fine that the leader of the most powerful nation in the history of mankind is a slacker.

Something tells me that the ten Nobel Prize-winning economists who have endorsed Kerry in opposition to what they call Bush's "extreme and reckless course" would agree with me.

By the way, add the headline to the article I just linked to the Bush "flip-flop" folder:

Hey, whatever. You'll vote for him anyway, right?


[Edited on Sep 07, 2004 by saucy_son]

Well, as I have not read the Atlantic article, I can't respond to it, but if I can find it I will both read it and resond. Email me and I promise that I will do my best to find it and reply.

I am not outraged over debates that may or may not take place, I'll wait to see what happens. I think I will be a bit surprised if he was not willing to debate Kerry three times.

I personally disagree with the reluctance to do unscripted press conferences, but at 11 so far that only places him as having done half as many as clinton, which I would hardly call alarming. How many would you have had him do? Is there a number that is 'correct' or 'incorrect'. I know I don't have the answer there.

I just think it's funny that he puts Dubya on a pedestal of because he graduated from Yale. Which was also what he used to defend Bush from attacks on his intelligence.Then he calls everyone who posts here stupid. Is he relative of our favorite Alaskan?

the british system in the houses of parliament make both government and opposition constantly questionable, and forced to justify it live on television throughout the year (pretty much). it makes for a much better system, which george w. wouldn't last five minutes in. and if blair had any decent opposition, neither would he.

(of course, it has it faults, and it is questionable how much these 'debates' achieve - i realise that - but at least politicians are able to be questioned)

Just for the record, I've always voted Democrat. But I've never felt that my own personal left-leaning tendencies mean I have to check my personal convictions at the door. I have no desire to hear people use personal atttacks against a our president's intelligence in place of resoned debate, but that seems to be the best that anyone can come up with these days.

Er, less than a third of what Clinton had given. Is there a "right number"? Well, he keeps telling us that we're at the most crucial point in our history, so you tell me. He can't have it both ways. Is there really nothing to say?

I have the answer: eleven is bullshit.

i agree. bush would curl up in a ball in the corner if he were asked to do what blair has to do regularly. blair may have made mistakes, but he has to get his ass out there and defend them while our guy hides in crawford.

Please remember that Clinton was in office 8 years. I was going by a single term.

My only trip to London I watched hours. It's amazing.

The Bush intelligence thing was a joke and unless you haven't read the boards or the paper lately, it certainly isn't the best anyone can come up with. Why do you support Bush?

It is not a "personal attack" to call someone on their qualifications to do a job that they applied for. This isn't personal. He's President of the United States, yo.

And, again, it is President Bush who is hiding from reasoned debate, not me. Indeed, it is his unwillingness to articulately defend his policies on a regular basis--something every other President has done--that leads to the perception that he cannot defend them. I, for one, would like nothing more than to see him on my TV screen doing just that, every day. But I won't, either because he doesn't want to or because he can't. Either is contemptible.

This is really a simple point.

And personal attacks are far from "the best anyone can come up with"! Again, in Fallows's piece on Bush's mistakes, you get the sense that he didn't know where to begin! And then there's those ten Nobel Prize-winning economists, and . . .

Nope: Note the phrase "in a comparable period." It really is bullshit.

Gee, why did Bush senior have 71?! Now I remember. That was a different situation. He had a war going on in Iraq. Oh, wait . . .

[Edited on Sep 07, 2004 by saucy_son]

One can hope.

I didn't forget this post, but this is going to be my last for the day...

TheFuckOffKid responded with:

"This is silly. If you give a lot of poor people money back in tax cuts, and they spend most of it on consumer goods and services, that's stimulatory. And leads to job creation. (If you give to rich people, and if they stash it away, that's not.)

So yes, you can get a job from a poor person, indirectly, as long as enough poor people get enough extra money."

The argument was made that the rich boss would spend money on a car, lunches, etc. According to theoriginal fuckoffkid post, consumer goods are stimulatory, correct? If thefuckoffkid is correct, then the response by lukie2p claiming that jobs will not be created by a boss spending money on american consumer good is incorrect, follow? So did you or did you not just prove my point that the original argument by lukie2p that i responded to was flawed, looking at it from any number of contexts, even your own?

What position i was 'seen as' agreeing with is not my problem. I responded to a very specific hipocrisy within a single post, one which you just took the effort of proving for me.

Thanks, goodnight.

Bush was never better than a C student; I'm averaging A-. Yes, I am comfortable with that assertion.

I wouldn't be livid, I'd be confused. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

Hold on there, Chester. I don't "follow" Mike Moore, or any other mainstream "pundits" for that matter. If you're so fond of serious debate, shouldn't you be capable of avoiding false dilemmas?