Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

Post Reply New Topic

Winning the Nobel Prize in Economics:
George W. Bush. T

The President captured an unprecedented second Nobel for his radical Universal Theory of Tax Cuts. Upon entering office in 2001, Bush described his massive tax cuts for the wealthy as the needed remedy for a burgeoning federal surplus. Just months later as the Bush recession deepened, tax cuts were needed to jumpstart the flagging American economy. Despite being responsible for virtually the entire annual U.S. federal budget deficit, Bush just this week claimed that the slowly shrinking deficit is attributable to his tax cuts. While denying that his unprecedented wealth transfer to the richest Americans is helping fuel the highest income inequality since the 1920's, Bush's research team next plans to test his hypothesis that tax cuts can cure erectile dysfunction.

Sinsboldly: your obsession is clear.

Why not start your own thread, where you can post non-sequiturs non-stop?

watch out beer (wonder if it's a dutch beer(=bear) or an english one?)

hm,
i've never been in a 'why don't you'-thread before,
hope it's not dangerous


i'm not an expert when it comes to our environment (i do like biking) but find not a lot information to become one here either

the only thing i know is that we have to take global warming seriously

*silently kicks herself for not watching the news enough*

But I like YOUR thread. . .

ok, this one is spot on the money. . no non sequitur here!!

The Anti-Bush
As conservative apoplexy over Al Gore's earned honors continues, there are two terrific op-eds today that explain the former Vice President's fortunes in a broader context.

First up is Jonathan Chait, who explains that the right loathes Gore, in part because he's the "anti-Bush."

You might wonder why they care so much -- Gore, after all, is obviously not going to run for president, and even some conservatives now concede that global warming is real. The answer is that Gore's triumph is a measure of George W. Bush's disrepute.

Indeed, in the political culture, Gore's role is as a negative indicator of the president's standing. For all the talk of a "new Al Gore," there's nothing new about the man. His public reputation is almost entirely a function of Bush's. [...]

The defensiveness of Gore's critics comes because he is the ultimate rebuke to Bush. Gore, obviously, is the great historic counter-factual, the man who would have been president if Florida had a functioning ballot system. More than that, he is the anti-Bush. He is intellectual and introverted, while Bush is simplistic and backslapping.


I think that's right. When Bush's popularity soared, Gore's reputation was the subject of ridicule. When Bush was exposed as a fraud and a failure, it was Gore's assessments that, upon reflection, proved to be true.

And then there's the NYT's Bob Herbert considers Bush v. Gore, redux.

Mr. Bush came to mind because, for all of the obvious vulnerabilities he exhibited in 2000, it was not him but Mr. Gore who was mocked unmercifully by the national media. And the mockery had nothing to do with the former vice president's positions on important policy issues. He was mocked because of his personality.

In the race for the highest office in the land, we showed the collective maturity of 3-year-olds.

Mr. Gore was taken to task for his taste in clothing and for such grievous offenses as sighing or, allegedly, rolling his eyes. It was a given that at a barbecue everyone would rush to be with his opponent.

We've paid a heavy price. The president who got such high marks as a barbecue companion doesn't seem to know up from down. He's hurled the nation into a ruinous war that has cost countless lives and spawned a whole new generation of terrorists. He continues to sit idly by as a historic American city, New Orleans, remains wounded and on its knees. He's blithely steered the nation into a bottomless pit of debt.


Gore told Herbert, "What politics has become requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I have found in short supply."

--Steve Benen

Haven't a clue what you're blabbering about now; the quote you placed beneath certainly isn't mine, and I don't appreciate it if you're misattributing it me!

There, there, Uncle Beer, is that all better now?

Merle

Better than....?

oh, sorry, I didn't mean to be vague. Is that better than I had it before you complained about it looking like your quote was misattributed?

Merle

Straight answer please (if at all possible): What was your intention by mentioning "my thread", then pasting in something that appears nowhere in the thread, and I've never written?

what are you talking about?

Merle

Wait, wait wait. . I just read about 50 of your posts on your profile.

1. I am not conspiring against you
2. I answered your post and posted a thought of my own.
3. At your request I made it clear the second part was not your quote.
4. I explained my actions.


I Hope that satisfies your curiosity and your wishes

Merle

Play dumb if you must. Up the page you wrote:

Meant to infer that I'd written the last.

You're a class act.

Hey!

Before you roll your eyes at me, you might want to read my post.

just because something is OBVIOUS TO YOU, it doesn't mean it is obvious to others.

so, jump to your conclusions and remember to not give someone the benefit of the doubt because you might just be wrong, you know.

sheesh, what a grouch!

Did this thread degenerate into a Bush bashing/Gore bashing fest?

you can always restore the initial subject Joybob, it might be a good idea.

(the argument is about a misunderstanding over some words, unclebeer thinks everyone is going to think that he wrote a quote that had no name added to it. and sinsboldly is trying to solve it by
explicitly indicating that he didn't. which doesn't work out so well)

other than that there are several opinions

i myself am waiting for the interesting exchange of facts and opinions and try to capter them here and there.