I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Sully will be sure to give the piece his "Sontag Award."
(rim shot)
Democratic hall of shame.
Now, here's the list of "Eunuch Democrats" in the Senate:
Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Cantwell, Carper, Clinton, Conrad, Corzine, Daschle, Dayton, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Inouye, Johnson, Kohl, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Mikulski, Miller, Murray, Nelson, Pryor, Reed, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Stabenow, and Wyden.
Why Senators, are you going to betray your nation, and your Party?
That's right these fine examples of the Democratic party are voting to SUPPORT the $87 billion dollars from US pockets to Halliburtons pockets.
In the House, 118 real Democrats opposed the appropriation.
The following Senate Dems are down as opposing the bill:
Kennedy, Byrd, Boxer, Edwards, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, and Sarbanes.
Corporate slop anyone?
All you ABB people, with Democratic traitors like that you may as well just hand that second term to Bush now.
POA, I think you're right Chimpy will win (for the first time). Be ready folks worse days are right around the corner.
Tristero has a link to Molly Ivins latest article Call Me a Bush-Hater. Excellent! and they can call me a Bush Hater, too! I will wear it like a badge
Gotta Be Cruel To Be Kind (Rosemary)
From the Daily Kos, "We should have faith that people will see the economy recovered in spite of, not because of, Bush's economic policy."
WHAT?!?!?!???? So then, the economy was stagnant in spite of, not because of, Bush's policies. Right? No, of course not, silly American voter that makes too much sense to be true.
More from Daily Kos, "However, the stagnant economy is genuinely hurting a great many Americans. Is it worth it, so to speak, to wish this hardship on them, even if it's with the hope of ridding America of the man who's so responsible for it? ..While I cannot ignore the perils of those who suffer, I feel that they will only continue to do so, and to possibly suffer greater hardships, if Bush is reelected. "
So, some on the Left WANT the poor and middle classes to SUFFER - actually hoping for it to further their political agenda.
That is sad. And, just a little sick.
So here is a re-cap:
The bad economy IS Bush's Fault. The economic recovery is NOT Bush's Credit. Bush is only to blame for the bad and never to take credit for the good.
Bush is Bad
P.S. They (the Left) don't really care about the poor and downtrodden. Not unless it's convenient and beneficial. And Bush is Bad.
What the fuck do you want us to do, Pissed Off Again? Take up arms against the government? Threaten the DNC that we'll turn Repug? Join the Greens?
All of these are pathetic fantasies. Whether it leads to a sweeping victory or a pitiful defeat, we don't have any other choice but to go with the Dems.
I'm tired of trying to convince regular folks that we're all being manipulated by power elites in the name of greed. They just don't get it until it's snarling right in their face, so until then, I'm going to have to fight for Dean. If we lose, I'm outta here, and you can count on that. I'll move to Paris and write like Hemmingway and Fitzgerald did.
Anon-idiot Nobody WANTS the economy to suffer. Just Bush doesn't want ordinary people to gain from it. Presidents are rarely to blame for a bad economy - and they rarely deserve credit when the economy rebounds. But when this President's political decisions result in a long-term fiscal mess that end up benefiting a rich few at the expense of the rest of the people then we should be outraged when the President tries to turn the recovery to his political advantage.
So, some on the Left WANT the poor and middle classes to SUFFER - actually hoping for it to further their political agenda.
Kind of like the "lucky duckies" BS the WSJ was pushing a short while ago: make taxes so onerous on the lower and middle class that they turn against government (and in theory turn to the Repubs).
See, the difference is that to the Right, the suffering of the poor and the middle classes IS their political agenda.
The bad economy IS Bush's Fault. The economic recovery is NOT Bush's Credit.
...
Anonymous | 11.01.03 - 6:44 pm | #
I will agree that the economic recovery IS Bush's credit, but what they are not including when they talk about it is that there is a lot of war money being used to buy a lot of these items. We have thrown a LOT of money toward the war and it is now paying off. With all the jobless people, do you actually think that this recovery is due to the poor masses running out and buying? We(the poor/middle class) didn't get a nice tax break. That was the rich folk.
Hey, I can deal in vague generalizations too:
People who post as Anonymous are fucking pussies with the brain power of a gnat.
See? That's not technically true. Some people forget to type their name in before posting and post something perfectly reasonable. But some Anonymous posters, like you, are cowards who don't know what they're talking about.
I'm a liberal. I don't want anyone to continue to suffer because of Bush's backwards ass, future blind "economic policy". On the other hand, I think the much trumpeted "recovery" is smoke and mirrors, much like a lot of Bush's "results". The fact that you can't read between the lines says a lot about the ease with which you are decieved by these bunch of carnival barkers and used car salesmen.
Go ask the new homeless and jobless how their enjoying the "economic upturn". Ask them what they did with their big tax cut. Something tells me they won't be so quick to praise Dear Leader and lick his boots like you, you fucking maggot.
POA, R Soles, POS:
Yes, my question to you is:
What's the alternative to Bush or a Democrat?
Really, you come here and rail against the two, major, monied parties.
Idealism only gets you so far. Not far enough in your case.
You know, I think Bush's economic policies are terrible, but at this point I could give two shits whether or not it turns out tax cuts for the rich help the economy.
My thing, and maybe it's silly, but here's a president who deliberately misled the public and twisted intelligence and lied and fear-mongered us into a global domino-board war of choice in which thousands of people have died unnecessarily. And somehow I just can't stomach someone like that, let alone vote for him.
So let the economy soar and let Tom DeLay and Sean Hannity crow until their throats hurt about it, I ain't voting for nobody like George W. Bush.
On Topic:
The article is quite good. But, to sum up, it's about 10 pages of everything "The Left" has been saying for several months now. All the things we tried to tell them before their adventure got going. All the warnings we offered that were ignored, derided, or held up as evidence of treason.
As much as I hoped to be wrong about how badly this would go, I don't know how much real progress we can have until the criminals who manufactured this crisis admit they were wrong.
The following Senate Dems are down as opposing the bill:
Kennedy, Byrd, Boxer, Edwards, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, and Sarbanes.
Pat's my Senator, and is one of the reasons I don't think the Dems are completely full of crap.
let the economy soar and let Tom DeLay and Sean Hannity crow until their throats hurt about it, I ain't voting for nobody like George W. Bush.
Amen.
"Fuck that liberal media"! Holly crap, I can hear those right wing nuts going off on the NYT. Reminds me of my youthful days when I got caught with my hand in the cookie jar. I would blame my parents for punishing me, although I had been warned time and time again. The bad part about this allegory is that I grew up and recognized that I was at fault, but we have a bunch of pansies that don’t have the balls to confess their mishaps. Love, Pichiflay
Kos has really gone downhill with those guest posters.
Here's Krugman's take...
Stimulating the economy in the short run is supposed to be easy, as long as you don't worry about how much debt you run up in the process.
To put it more bluntly: it would be quite a trick to run the biggest budget deficit in the history of the planet, and still end a presidential term with fewer jobs than when you started.
Or put it this way - show me the jobs!
As much as I hoped to be wrong about how badly this would go, I don't know how much real progress we can have until the criminals who manufactured this crisis admit they were wrong.
Or until they're forced to admit it.
Yeah, I can see that happening.
More on republican victory lap -
letters to NYT
Re "Economy Records Speediest Growth Since the Mid-80's" (front page, Oct. 31):
The economy may be on the upswing, but at what cost? Huge deficits for now and in the future, unaffordable health care, uncertain solvency of Medicare and Medicaid, abysmal financing for education and terrible relations abroad.
Many Americans are struggling to pay their bills and praying that they don't get hit with anything chronic or expensive healthwise and that they keep their jobs. Wall Street and the Republicans may be happy, but some of us on Main Street are not.
NANCY GERSON
Bergenfield, N.J., Oct. 31, 2003
In your Oct. 31 front-page article about the economy, the rapidly expanding gross domestic product in the third quarter is trumpeted. I'm puzzled. If in a quarter when the economy expands at a 7.2 percent annualized rate there is still a net loss of 85,000 jobs, how fast does the economy have to grow to actually create jobs?
CRAIG HORTON
Los Angeles, Oct. 31, 2003
Re "Economy Records Speediest Growth Since the Mid-80's" (front page, Oct. 31): The average person receives little stimulus from barely noticeable tax cuts, but there is abundant cash in our pockets from refinancing our mortgages. Equity can also be invested for a better return. But this is a temporary bonanza, obscuring problems of the economy that are bound to reappear.
CONNELL J. MAGUIRE
Riviera Beach, Fla., Oct. 31, 2003
Paul Krugman ("A Big Quarter," column, Oct. 31) points to the true statistic of the last quarter: increased debt. It is obvious that President Bush's tax cuts didn't give people enough money to buy cars, homes and high-priced entertainment systems. It is likely that the little cuts he did provide, when combined with the Fed's irresponsibly low interest rates, inspired more Americans to go into debt.
This shortsighted economics is enough for a myopic White House to do a victory lap, but it should not be seen as a success. Once again, Mr. Bush is postponing the problem till the next generation.
SAM BROOKS
Newark, Del., Oct. 31, 2003
The Streak is now at 11!!
just to let you know we're still keeping score. Joltin' Joe Atrios!
(btw: can anyone tell me how to make that little "TM" superscript on a Mac?)
I'll try & read the article later, but this is so much less depressing than paying attention to the substance of the posts!
m
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news.../
bush_motorcade
A woman with kids runs her car into the Building where Bush gave a speech for Haley Barbour.
This is not satire.
This is an Enron style boom folks. Bad debt and bald faced lies. It is really inept anyway. This might have helped them next September, but by then the unintended consequences of jiggering the books will become apparent.
I like Kos's guest speakers.
Anyway, here's my favorite excerpt from the NYT article--
"In contrast to their strategy in the first gulf war, American war planners had been careful not to attack Iraqi infrastructure. This was partly because of their understanding of the rules of war..."
That's about as close as the NYT will ever come to admitting that the United States violated the laws of war in 1991 by attacking civilian infrastructure. Barton Gellman had a story on this in the June 23, 1991 issue of the Washington Post, but it's pretty much gone down the memory hole. The NYT alludes to it here, but if you blink you'll miss it.
As for the present situation, the NYT article is a good summary of why we're in this quagmire, but then, as someone pointed out above, it's only a summary of what the left has been saying since before the war began. One can always count on the NYT to state the blindingly obvious, when it's become politically safe to point out the stupidity of the current Administration.
But accusing the US of committing war crimes, back in 1991 with the destruction of the infrastructure or in 2003, with an aggressive war launched on false pretenses--well, the NYT simply isn't going to go there.
Has anyone ever pointed out the irony in the Bushies ultimatum for war? "Disarm now or we will disarm you by force". Oh, you mean that wasn't the reason for the war? Never mind.
A woman with kids runs her car into the Building where Bush gave a speech for Haley Barbour.
I wonder where her husband is.
Off-topic but on-theme is this snippet of an Observer column:
Warnings on the soon-to-be-legal dope we might want to buy? 'This may cause you to want to either don a beret, read the Tibetan Book of the Dead or listen to Yes's Tales From Topographic Oceans while quite unaccountably failing to see any pressing reason to gnaw off your own foot: in unusually tragic circumstances all three.'
More from the Guardian:
Sharp disagreements are emerging between the US and the UK over the exact nature of the Iraqi resistance, amid warnings that the US is losing the intelligence war against the rebels.
After eight days in which Iraqi fighters have scored a series of major blows to the coalition and its Iraqi allies, intelligence and military officials in Iraq and on both sides of the Atlantic are at odds over whether they are fighting a Saddam-led movement or a series of disparate partisan groups. They are just as divided on finding a way to halt the escalating violence.
The latest violence comes amid increasingly bleak assessments from Washington, where the latest attacks have been compared in the media to Vietnam's 1968 Tet Offensive against US forces and described by Sandy Berger, a former National Security Adviser to President Bill Clinton, as a 'classic guerrilla war'.
The comments follow leaked assessments by both the US pro-consul in Iraq, Ambassador Paul Bremer, and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that war against the resistance was going less well than planned, with the latter describing a 'long, hard slog'.
(btw: can anyone tell me how to make that little "TM" superscript on a Mac?)
I don't know if it's different on a mac, but on a PC its ™ &-trade-; drop the -.
And as long as we're talking HTML code, I've noticed more and more people taking a pass on making links. It's {a href="link_address">printed_text.
Opps. Cut off the end. Let's try that again.
{a href="link_address"}printed_text{/a} replace { } with < >
Try this instead. Good article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/
S...1076100,00.html
Economy starts to go up ( a little) after three years of stagnation, must be because of Bush's tax cuts. All hail Bush!
Sun rises after 12 hours of darkness, must be because of Bush's tax cuts. All hail Bush!
God the denial on this board is really hilarious. You people crack me up. It wasn't too long ago that cutting taxes was going to destroy the economy and bring about the fiscal collapse of the U.S. government. Now that the economy is recovering (so that we grow out of deficits) Krugman's saying "well.. it would be hard for them NOT to stimulate the economy!" But, I never heard a single liberal admitting that they would! Tax cuts for the rich won't do ANYTHING for the economy is the refrain I remember. So to summarize: the economy before the best quarter in 19 years was the fault of Bush's policies, but 7.2% growth has nothing whatsoever to do with them. Somehow everything makes sense if you just agree that Bush is the bad guy. Grow up children.
Tax cuts for the rich do nothing for the poor and destroy the middle class, Homer.
How do you want your children cooked?
Hey, Homer. Go read the latest at Kos:
Swing States in the Economic Doldrums
Tax cuts. You moron.
Homer hasn't read that pesky projection from the Office of Management and Budget, or the one from the Congressional Budget Office that predict no elimination of the deficit for the length of the study.
There is "no growing out of the deficit." The Bush tax cuts ended that possibility. That's his main failure. Not the economy. I've never blaimed him for the post-tech slump, nor did I believe Clinton was responsible for the tech boom. But the fiscal health of the government, terminating structural deficits, seems to fit pretty well into the job of a head of government.
What's with the trolls? LGF forget to pay the ISP bill again?
Sorry, Homer. Not even Clinton's economy would balance the budget with today's tax structure.
Moreover, 7.2% (preliminary) growth in Q3 doesn't quite get us to 4% for the year, which won't reduce unemployment. Bush remains the first president since Hoover with net job loss in his term.
Begala and Carville on Russert's CNBC show right now, if you're interested.
Re: Homer
I see the Rovians are out in force spreading the 'good news' talking points about the manufactured GDP growth numbers (I mean, c'mon!) as well as the 'good news' quagmire in Iraq. Can we say "GDP projections were revised downward", say, on a Sunday morning?
Disclaimer: I want the economy to improve.
And when the Dems are finally buried thanks to their short-sightedness and greed and endless cozying with their GOP bunkmates, where do we turn, then? At this rate Bush in '04 is a shoe-in. Get used to it or get progressive ideologies back into politics. This generation of Democrats has failed in the face of their most clear-cut challenge ever. They do not deserve reelection. They deserve to be removed from office along with their fellow GOP country club members.
That was an absolutely fantastic article, Atrios. Thanks for the link.
People will end up voting on the jobs picture, not GDP. In reality the President can't do a whole lot about jobs. Personal income tax cuts (and estate tax cuts) won't help, and probably won't hurt either. Trade policy would make a much bigger impact on the jobs picture. But the candidates don't differ all that much on trade, especially since Clinton backed NAFTA. So now we get to hear people in middle America say, "Well, I voted for Bush in 2000, now the local factory laid off 1000 people and I don't see any chance to get a new job around here. So I'm voting for the Democrat." Or alternatively, "I voted for Gore because everybody was working around here in 2000. People lost their jobs for a couple years but now people are getting jobs again so I think I'm going to vote for Bush." None of these make any sense. To me, at least.
They deserve to be removed from office along with their fellow GOP country club members.
Oh, but putumayo, in this world, we don't always get what we deserve, huh?
If you want progressive policies, and you don't have a solid union or grange or church or similar voting block to line up behind you, you need to work with those who are there and give them a reason to support progressive policies.
Yo, Thumb,
Thanks for the html lesson. But I don't think it works in Haloscan, if there are dashes "-" in the address. I'd like to be wrong, though...
Back to your regularly scheduled programming...
As to all the comments about the GDP: it's too late. The message the GOP wanted to get out about the GDP has been delivered, and I guarantee you it's been received.
It was received with nothing more than perplexed looks amongst the people in my office, but then, I live in Chicago, which I venture to say is far more Democratic a city than, say, San Francisco.
The message was delivered, but the people who don't have jobs didn't receive it. And that won't change.
Around here, the message about the higher GDP is taken to mean that people are being worked 50-60 hours per week to make up for those who have been laid off.
I want the economy to improve also.
Of course, this regards those who haven't already been working two jobs for years.
Trolls:
Talk to me when your President (he's not mine, btw) has made up those 3 MILLION lost jobs.
Talk to me when the 3 TRILLION dollar surplus is back.
Talk to me when the numbers are consistent and not revised downward.
The tax cuts for the rich don't go into effect for YEARS, boys. There is no way they are having ANY effect on the economy now. What you're seeing is:
* Increased military spending.
* Increased homeland defense spending.
* Increased credit card debt spending.
* Increased cashout refi from desperate homeowners.
When your boy racks up a solid year of 7.2 % numbers, we can talk about what a genius he is. One quarter's numbers don't mean squat, especially in light of all the other downward indicators.
Funny, you guys almost sound desperate for good news...
What IS it with Bremer and combat boots?
Dr. Pedant:
Thanks for the html lesson. But I don't think it works in Haloscan, if there are dashes "-" in the address. I'd like to be wrong, though...
this one I know the answer to--go to http://tinyurl.com/ -- plug in the URL you want & it'll create a temporary short one without any of the characters Haloscan dislikes.
Thumb: I'm not sure I understood, but to test: tmtrade
m
OK, I don't get it. eh bien...is it an HTML tag or just a weird keyboard thing?
It's unfair to compare W with Hoover. As buffoonish as Hoover was, I think he did try to conceal his dislike for blacks and the unprivileged whites of this country. W, on the other hand, makes no such effort. The thing that's hard to grasp, though, is why those he holds in such contempt are reluctant to return the favor.
Admission: I am old enough to remember Viet Nam. We "flower children" used to do underground newspapers. Fire up that mimeograph spewing purple ink, type up the most recent tragedy or most recent lie by the Government about deaths and stand on a street corner and distribute until the police sent you on your way.
Sitting in front of our computer screens talking to the converted (except those trolls under the bridge) -- does that help? Dean is right about one thing, if you want democracy to work, get up off your backside and get involved. Run for local office, for anything, just get involved. If you want your country back from these madmen, don't talk, act. America is not hearing the truth about this government. How do we get the truth out?
We could print up this article which only the elite will read (now that includes me because Atrios linked to it) and distribute. Anywhere, everywhere.
FYI to fellow novices with HTML ambitions:
This isn't bad for a basic HTML link-making guide.
(It's hard to show the basic recipe for link-making here without activating the code's effect in Haloscan and making the typed symbols disappear, so check the first link above to get the recipe.)
Next, here's a Handy Hint for Practical Purposes: Once you've got the basic formula for link-making shown in the HTML intro page above, keep it handy as a template (minus the URL for any particular link or linked text) in a word processing file. Then, when you want to make a link, just copy and paste the formula into the comments window, put the cursor between the two quote marks (as shown by Thumb or the link above) and paste in the URL you want to share. Then put the cursor between the greater-than and less-than symbols (again, see HTML intro page above) and type in the text you want to use to indicate the link.
">Voila!
off topic, but the opening skit of Saturday Night Live had a fleeting joke about us establishing a democracy in Iraq complete with touch screen voting.
It's making it into the mainstream.
Admission: I am old enough to remember Viet Nam. We "flower children" used to do underground newspapers. Fire up that mimeograph spewing purple ink, type up the most recent tragedy or most recent lie by the Government about deaths and stand on a street corner and distribute until the police sent you on your way.
Oh, YEAH! the good ol' LA Free Press. and believe it or not, Rolling Stone was once an underground rag. I used to distribute both of them on hollywood blvd back in the day. we devoured them like ambrosia to the gods....This is how we knew about J edgar, the LAPD, and the CIA infiltrating the peace organizations.
So Homer the Troll is just interested in Keynesianism by proxy. As long as Bushco borrows the money to replace the bomb inventory, and people concerned that interest rates will shoot up to Nixon/Ford/Reagan levels cash out the equity in their investments (homes) things are hunky dory.
(btw: can anyone tell me how to make that little "TM" superscript on a Mac?)
m
Michael (in DC) | Email | 11.01.03 - 7:59 pm | #
The answer is:
Option - 2 = ™
The capability of the American people in self-deception have repeatedly astounded me.
People voted in favor of tax cut after tax cut because they think they will benefit from them, even after the Democrats pointed out that the tax cuts would mainly benefit the top one percent, people were still in favor of them. From one poll 19% of the polled believed them to be in the top one percent.
(src: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/1...odaysheadlines)
That's almost one in five. Depressingly many deluded people.
People are against social programs because for some reason they believe selfishness to be some kind of virtue. They refuse to contribute to such programs as social security and medicare because they are afraid the programs would benefit others more than themselves.
Why is there a misconception that Republicans are better at maintaining the economy? Simply because they promote the views that mislead sheep into believing that they are better off than they really are, all the while stealing from their pouches as they stare starry-eyed at their imagined affluence.
The same people hate the Democrats who remind them of the reality, of their increasing debt, their emptying bank account. These people will refuse to acknowledge that they are getting poorer by the day, until they suddenly find themselves bankrupt, then blame the Liberals for wrecking the economy because they are the one's who are "promoting" poverty.
Such is the sad state of affairs, for the chains of ignorance is stronger than that of iron.
That should read Option + 2 = ™
I stopped hyperlinking articles every since haloscan chopped my first attempt. Maybe it's time I tried again.
As Michael (in DC) mentioned above, Tiny URL takes care of links (superlong URLS, or ones with hyphens, etc.) that would otherwise get screwed up by Haloscan. And actually, the site says that the links never expire.
Welcome to Hard Times. (Underline)
Soup,
thanks for posting those letters to the NYT re their front-page article on 31 October 2003. You and those letter writers have made my day and lifted my sprits somewhat! I wonder what the reader reaction to a related piece by Richard W. Stevenson was - Stevenson being a media whore par excellence.
To musing graze: thank's very much for the link. I was wondering how to do that.
My pleasure, sparrow. It's a fun tool, and easier than it looks or sounds, at first.
besides ™ there are a whole lot of usefu characters.
well since the amuricans can only handle 2 parties(getting more is not always the best answer-ie, ISREAL) I will vote ONLY democrat in the presidential race because if you do not vote for the lesser of two evils-YOU GET EVIL. and damn we sure got evil big time now didn't we greens???
no way we would be here if Gore was in. so fuck off.
PURITY will get you NOWHERE.
ABBABBABBABBABBABBABBABBA
Well then. Thanks KDR, lets try:
Blogstreak 2003™
yaaay!
Nameless:
Enfuriating, isn't it?
Those who embrace ignorance because they do not have the courage to face reality?
Too many Americans are willingly going down the path the Germans took in the first half of the last century. The path that eschews empathy. The path that finds anyone but ourselves responsible for our fate.
The path of the fratboy coward.
Of course, once I figure out the keystrokes, I fuck up the tags...I guess I need more B vitamins or something...
pansypoo:
After thinking about this I've concluded that a multiparty system does allow the people to be better represented, I mean what kind of a system gives a party all the electoral votes of a state with 50% plus one vote? But barring an entire overhaul of the electoral system, the Greens would be better off by helping the Democratic Party.
I theorize that the Green Party is actually partly responsible for the shifting of the political spectrum towards the right. My theory (feel free to critique it):
1) The purpose of political parties is to be elected to represent its constituents (moreover the direct purpose is to win and/or hold an office)
2) Third parties will take votes away from the two political parties.
3) The Democratic Party is closer ideologically to the Green Party, so the Green Party in a election will pull more Democratic votes away.
4) Because of this, the Democratic Party will be placed at a disadvantage relative to the Republican Party.
5) The Democratic Party must do something to compensate for this disadvantage (otherwise they would lose -- see statement 1)
6) Two possible alternatives:
shift left politically: take votes from Green Party
shift right politically: take "swing" voters
7) Third parties can't win a presidential election in a two-party system (Nader and some people may debate this, but historical evidence has proven this) and therefore not a direct "threat" to the presidency.
Conclusion, against the Republicans:
A "shift" left will gain votes at a rate of 1 vote per shift.
A "shift" right will gain votes at a rate of 2 votes per shift (Republicans lose 1, Democrats gain 1)
Therefore, Democratic Party will shift right on the political spectrum.
"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks -- Howard Dean
things like this are proof why democrats are smart and people like bush are evil assholes.
this article is almost EXACTLY what i was thinking BEFORE the war, and i'm a 21 year old with a head full of politics.
if i can figure that out, anyone could have.
on another note, ABB is a new phrase. what's it mean? Anti-Bush something?
Anybody But Bush
AP reports Chinook shot down in Falluja and new bomb attacks in Baghdad. Fuck.
BBC reports 20 casualties. Another bad day in the neighborhood.
why would anyone be surprised?
and i'm gonna say something that's a huge faux pas. save it for when i'm an important politico on 15-20 years and you can ruin my career.
i want the US soliders and the multinationals and the iraqi's to suffer now. i want them to suffer right up until their suffering and death runs bush out of office.
because i think that if there was a miraculous turnaround and things became hunky dory overnight in Iraq, and Bush used that stability to run in 2004 and win, the world would be worse off.
it's not something i want to see happen, and i know it's incredibly callous and someone could say "you really DO hate america!" but it's in my opinion the lesser of the two evils.
and besides, i'm at least being wholey honest.
*waits to be cruicified*
Helga, I don't take any comfort from hearing people are anxious about the future and economic security. But you're right about journalist jumping on the GDP story to beat up on democrats. On NYT online today Mr. Leonhardt wants to cook up all kinds of "ifs" to suddenly make it look like dems are squirming at the good news. As soon as I heard that 1983 reference I knew this was coming:
"But with the economy having surged this past quarter they are suddenly confronting the possibility of a far less encouraging historical comparison: that the election year economy could be more like the one Ronald Reagan ran on in 1984, when the country was coming out of a long slump.
The rapid change in the outlook — underscored by figures released on Thursday showing the fastest quarterly economic growth since 1984 — is already forcing the Democratic presidential candidates to calibrate their attack on Mr. Bush's economic record in ways they did not have to just a week ago. It has also left them in danger of looking as though they were clinging to economic gloom.
Rather than simply lamenting the economy, the Democrats now say that one good quarter does not erase three sluggish years. The growth has not caused a rebound in the job market, they note, and large budget deficits loom for years."
"But forecasters expect the Labor Department to report the second straight gain in jobs when it releases its monthly employment report on Friday."
Second straight gain, huh. I guess they call them forecasters cause they don't bother to check the actual numbers after they forecast them.
i read that too, soup.
what a load of crap.
i'm with krugman on this issue.
All of these are pathetic fantasies. Whether it leads to a sweeping victory or a pitiful defeat, we don't have any other choice but to go with the Dems.
jess
I was watching Lawrence Jacobs (sp?) on the Jesse ventura show. He claimed that Perot was beating Bush and Clinton in the summer of 92.
So, there really are other choices if you choose not to be fooled by the one party system.
Either way those Dems who stand by Bush are stabbing we the voters in the back. Clinton especially.
7) Third parties can't win a presidential election in a two-party system (Nader and some people may debate this, but historical evidence has proven this) and therefore not a direct "threat" to the presidency.
Nameless for Now
I was watching Lawrence Jacobs (sp?) on the Jesse ventura show. He claimed that Perot was beating Bush and Clinton in the summer of 92.
Looks as if you are wrong.
Thanks for pointing that out pie.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2003Oct18.html
"In 13 states, the number of voters who supported third-party candidates in statewide races last year was larger than the winning margin in the 2000 presidential election."
The danger of the Green Party to the Democratic nominee is clear. But here is the big news coming out of the 2002 statewide contests: Third parties also spell trouble for Bush. Democrat Jim Doyle broke a string of four straight Republican wins for governor in Wisconsin by a 45-to-41 percent margin over his Republican opponent, Scott McCallum, last year, and two reasons stand out: The Green Party's Jim Young drew only 3 percent of potential Democratic voters and, most impressively, the Libertarian candidate, Ed Thompson (renegade brother of the secretary of health and human services, Tommy Thompson), took a whopping 11 percent, hurting the GOP most.
The Libertarian and Independence parties are significant threats to the Republican Party in 2004. The soaring budget deficit in Washington, ballooning expenditures and an expansion of government under Republican control of the White House and Congress have not only fired up the usual inside-the-Beltway deficit hawks; they have also fueled a grass-roots protest movement. Some of those disaffected Americans won't vote at all. Some will vote Democrat. But many will go outside the box to vote for a third party.
In 15 statewide elections last year, 2 percent or more of voters cast their ballots for the Libertarian Party, which has picked up the banner of small government. Candidates running as independents, who generally promote balanced budgets, cleared the 2 percent mark in seven different states.
The Democratic Party has its own Achilles heel: an apparent collective amnesia. After the devastating impact of Ralph Nader in 2000, one would expect the Democratic leadership to be alert to a similar threat in 2004. But it appears barely to have noticed the continuing draw of Green Party candidates last year. In 2000, Gore eked out wins in Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Results in 2002 statewide elections show that the Greens haven't gone away. In three of those states, their strength either increased or stayed level. In New Mexico their vote increased by an amount significantly larger than Gore's margin of victory. Despite this signal, many Democratic officials are preoccupied with whether Howard Dean's surge in the Democratic field increases the chances of a Republican win. What they ignore is whether Dean is necessary to discourage a Green Party campaign and give the Democrats a chance at winning in 2004. The nomination of a moderate who is intent on appealing to swing voters may well provoke the Green Party to field a candidate -- again.
It is impossible to predict which third-party candidate might jump into the race in the next six months, but the potential effects are clear. A Nader candidacy would hurt the Democratic Party,
there should be a new party. the truth and honesty party.
get guys like mccain to run it. basically a party set up to provide ideas that are bereft of pork and bash the two other parties for being lying twofaced scumbags.
all republicans and democrats are allowed to join so long as they share the ideology that being honest and sticking to principles is the most important thing in public discourse.
and yes, Dean will draw the greens into the fold. they won't love all of his policies. but he's an insurgant candidate that will cut the feet out from under nader.
i HATE HATE HATE the goddamn DLC and goddamn idiots like donna brazile who ignore the core of democrats.
Third parties can gain more votes than one of the parties, but it cannot win a presidency. Especially since more often than not it is either left of the Democratic Party or right of the Republican party.
If you want a good example of a successful third party look back to 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party actually beat the Republican Party, but still lost the election.
All a third party does is shift one of the two parties significantly to the middle of the politically spectrum.
This effect may well explain the empowerment of the neo-conservatives, because their percentage and therefore their influence within the Republican Party increases as Democrats gains more moderates.
History has proven that a third party no matter how influential will always be beaten by one of the two parties.
By the way Teddy Roosevelt's 26 percent dwarves Perot's 19 percent.
I shall reiterate:
The two party system is flawed, in that it is a winner-takes-all system.
The best the Green Party can achieve beat the Democratic Party. (Theoretically)
In the end, it will still spell a Republican President.
which is why those of us who voted green in 2000 are now considering ABB.
i mean, i know i'm ABB, and i was a nader voter.
(i live in MA, i vote without fear of republican's winning my state)
About the article Atrios posted: Read it and reflect. The same fuck-ups who bungled the post-war planning are still in charge.
Speaking of Greens and third parties, I mused a bit about how I think the Green Party should go about changing the country on Weds. I'd be interested in people's thoughts...
which is why those of us who voted green in 2000 are now considering ABB.
i mean, i know i'm ABB, and i was a nader voter.
(i live in MA, i vote without fear of republican's winning my state)
scott
Actually here it is ANY DEMOCRAT BUT BUSH ADBB for short.
The Dems would never accept a viable third party candidate. They are far too blinded by partisanship.
Speaking of Greens and third parties, I mused a bit about how I think the Green Party should go about changing the country on Weds. I'd be interested in people's thoughts...
NTodd
Except, how can you blame the GREENS for the SCOTUS stealing the election?
The problem is we know for a fact that was vote tampering in FLA. That there was voter disenfranchisement by the Republicans. And the SCOTUS ruled for Bush.
So, where is that the Greens fault?
If Gore would have won his home state, there would never have had been a problem.
So, how can the Greens be blamed for that?
Or for the poor campaign Gore ran?
There was an article about after the election Gore and Clinton had a bit of a dust up, each blaming the other for the loss.
Nothing about Nader or the Greens there.
You are choosing a simplistic explanation to address a complex problem.
2000 was a turning point for Dems. They should have realized they can not maintain a business as usual attitude.
Since 2000 Dems have lost on every major issue put forth. One can not blame the Greens for Arnold, or Texas redistricting.
But, people like Terry M can and should be blamed for these losses. Or their corporate fawning and desire to be Bush shadows.
Look at the Dean campaign and how well they are doing. Why is that? because he address issues that other Dems would not. Corporate Welfare and the War for example.
His campaign isn't supported by Disney, or Pharmaceutical donations, but by real live people.
This is why the Clinton DLC fear him.
Dean may wind up addressing issues that modern Democratic politicians are afraid to face. He could wind up revising the system.
And god forbid anyone do that.
i HATE HATE HATE the goddamn DLC and goddamn idiots like donna brazile who ignore the core of democrats.
scott
I don't hate her but don't really take her seriously. Gore won the vote but it wasn't because of the campaign, that was really bad. Not as bad as the one Estrich ran (that was one for the records) but it could have been better.
I do hate the DLC. Any group that advises the party to ignore African Americans, the most loyal Democrats in the country, is beneath contempt.
By the way Teddy Roosevelt's 26 percent dwarves Perot's 19 percent.
I shall reiterate:
The two party system is flawed, in that it is a winner-takes-all system.
The best the Green Party can achieve beat the Democratic Party. (Theoretically)
In the end, it will still spell a Republican President.
Nameless for Now
Except, as jacobs pointed out on the ventura program, in 92 Perot was beating Bush and Clinton into the summer.
I think that is a tad closer to our time than Roosevelt, don't you?
And, Jacobs claim was that a VIABLE third party candidate would beat BOTH parties.
So, while Greens may being taking votes from disenfranchised Democrats ( and why would that be happening anyway? Because the party is too far to the right. Arnold could just as well be a Democrat for his positions.), Libertarians are taking votes from the Republicans.
Your post seems to overlook the fact that the only reason democrats would vote Green, is disgust with the current party.
It isn't like there is some magic Green Party mojo that steals a Democrats soul just before stepping into the voting booth.
No, any Democrat voting Green has reasoned it out. They are fed up with the right wing stance and corporatism of the party.
So, really how can anyone blame Greens for individual Democrats choices?
in 92 Perot was beating Bush and Clinton into the summer.
Who the hell cares if he was winning in the summer? Polls a) are dicey indicators at best, and b) don't determine the winner in November!
in 92 Perot was beating Bush and Clinton into the summer.
Who the hell cares if he was winning in the summer? Polls a) are dicey indicators at best, and b) don't determine the winner in November!
NTodd
So, you are more informed that Jacobs?
Clearly it impressed him. So there must be something to it.
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=c...&hl=en&ie=UTF-
8
The 1996 presidential campaign may be remembered as the year of the poll. Even before the general election had begun, President Clinton and Bob Dole had spent over a million dollars each on polls; the news media curtailed their coverage of campaigns to give more time to their ever-expanding reporting of their latest poll results.
Clinton and Dole cared about the polls then.
So polls do matter.
If future historians are ever given access to Bush's files, they will probably conclude that the Iraq war was fought for no discernable reason.
There were various agendas and factors that the historians will identify, but in the end it just acquired a life of its own and "just happened".
So, you are more informed that Jacobs?
I claim no such thing. And I don't care about the attitudes Clinton and Dole had toward polls. The point is that there is no "winning" until November. Pointing to Perot's numbers in the summer is a specious argument at best.
"White folks in the South who drive pick-up trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us because their kids don't have health insurance either, and their kids need better schools too."-- Dr. Howard Dean, DNC Winter meeting, February 21, 2003
Just correcting an earlier half fact post by anon.
I claim no such thing. And I don't care about the attitudes Clinton and Dole had toward polls. The point is that there is no "winning" until November. Pointing to Perot's numbers in the summer is a specious argument at best.
NTodd
That is just plain silly. Politicians know polls reflect the attitude of the voters. Why do you think they ALL spend so much money on them?
The Perot poll shows he had a chance to win as ventura did.
But Ross went bugfuck.
Your position could carry more weight if politicians never followed polls. Polls even get cited here to support a position.
At 4:30 and 4:41, I was sleeping peacefully.
Your position could carry more weight if politicians never followed polls.
Uh, I guess I really don't understand what the hell you're trying to prove with a series of polls taken in the summer. The fact that politicians follow the polls proves that politicians follow the polls. So do I. But given that many Americans who don't actually vote, how inaccurate polling has become, and that much can change in the political climate in a few months, let alone a year, I'm not impressed with your argument.
Polls are not a determining factor in actually winning an election (which is, of course, the ultimate goal). Just look at the initial buzz Clark got when he entered the race. Does that mean he's going to win the Democratic nom? Unclear. What will tell us for sure? When voters actually cast their ballots.
What's really going to prove whether a third party candidate can win is that a third party candidate wins. Ventura proved that at the state level it is possible, although his party didn't have a good enough organization to follow through. And that's key: a flash in the pan is nothing new in politics, and we need a sustainable third party movement.
As I suggest on my blog, if we want to change the current system we can't act like we can hit homers off big league pitchers. We need a farm system, and need to recognize that most runs are scored by people getting base hits.
About the article Atrios posted: Read it and reflect. The same fuck-ups who bungled the post-war planning are still in charge.
Working in the Bush administration is tantamount to being elected Pope. It's basically your job for life because in order to be fired the Almighty would have to admit he made a mistake and that aint gonna happen.
As long as we're using this thread for some fun URL/HTML tricks, here's a bonus for anyone still following:
How I can hide the fact that I have the spelling skills of a 12 year old.
For those too impatient to constantly cut/paste back and forth from wordPerfect, relief is just a right click away. And it's free.
Enjoy.
Yes's Tales From Topographic Oceans
never made me want to gnaw off my foot.
happy birthday dear magician!
Sitting in front of our computer screens talking to the converted (except those trolls under the bridge) -- does that help?
it helps. it helped me in one concrete way. it keeps me from literally getting too depressed to get up in the morning.
just knowing there are thousands, if not millions of people out there who still think everybody deserves a chance and the rich don't automatically deserve the world to answer to their beck and call, knowing there are like-minded people out there, keeps me going.
since you don't hear opposing viewpoints on the tv or in the papers, the internet keeps me sane.
I guess it is YES day. Did not realise that I missed it.
In her white lace.. you could clearly see the lady sadly looking... saying she'd take the blame for the crucifixtion of her own domain....
Jesus, they betted the hoise on Ahmad Chalabi. Congress is also pissed at him to. They concluded in a report that he lied about knowing where the WMD were. He was getting paid by the CIA, that's all he cared about. He also took the State Department for a ride back in 90's.
The Bushies are fools.
Can some US newspaper please start churning out articles like this Guardian one?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/
st...1076591,00.html
I particularly love the incoherent garbage from the free-market poverty specialist.
A mess, indeed.
I missed your Iowa coverage, but I want to ask this:
Does it bother any of you "on the Left" that, on the day after Martin Luther King, Junior's birthday, Democrats in Iowa went to the polls and 99% of them voted for a Rich White Male?
http://4rwws.blogspot.com/
2004_0...470357830742402
wants to know how to make easy my letter to give my employee an appoibntment letter.
I cannot believe the utter ignorance displayed throughout this sight.
It's scary
Furniture:
We have searched the internet for the best Furniture and we hope you will be enjoy what you find!
Furniture is extension of your personality and what makes your House a Home.
Only on our site you will discover the latest novelties in the furniture industry!
We update our links often so feel free to visit us again if you want more Furniture.
If You have interested - visit OUR SITE ( http://www.allforniturehere.com ) and You will
not leave disappointed, it we to You guarantee!
Jewelry:
We have searched the internet for the best Jewelry and we hope you will be enjoy what you find!
AllJewelryhere.com is the gateway to the world of jewelry!
For us, and only for us You will discover the most beautiful and original Jewelry, which
one perfectly will approach as well as for customary wearing, and for noisy parties or smart
occurrings top-level!
We update our links often so feel free to visit us again if you want more Jewelry.
If You have interested - visit OUR SITE ( http://www.alljewelryhere.com ) and You will
not leave disappointed, it we to You guarantee!
Shoes:
We have searched the internet for the best Shoes and we hope you will be enjoy what you find!
Click on one of our links below and enjoy!
Only for us You will discover the wide range a modern Shoes, and who is not important You the
child, the man or woman, sportsman or customary office employee - for us is footwear for all!
The latest models from such known corporations as Addidas, Air Jordan, Athletic, Nike and others!
Also for us all links very conveniently are placed on groups, that is invoked to facilitate Your
looking up of the necessary Shoes!
We update our links often so feel free to visit us again if you want more Shoes.
If You have interested - visit OUR SITE ( http://www.allshoeshere.com ) and You will
not leave disappointed, it we to You guarantee!
The real news requires a credit card, but the lies are for free!
CHING KAO ELECTRONICAL PRODUCTION
We sell all kind of brand new Tv set, Ipod, DVD player, Laptops. at a very cheaper price and makers like panasonic, samsung, sony,sharp,mintek,toshiba,and many more available in store.
if you are interested, contact us now by E-mail:- chingkaoproduction@yahoo.com
DVD
Panasonic DVD-LS5 DVD Player...$150USD
Mintek MDP-5860 DVD Player.....$90USD
Panasonic DMR-E50S DVD Recorder...$190USD
Samsung DVD-L200 DVD Player..... $150USD
and many more.........................
IPOD
Apple iPod nano 2GB Black MP3 Player....$100USD
Apple iPod Video 30GB Black MP3 Player...$1oousd
Apple iPod Video 30GB Black MP3 Player...$150usd
Apple iPod Mini 4GB 18hour battery - Pink MP3 Player...$120usd
Apple iPod nano 4GB Black MP3 Player....$150usd
and many more.................
TELEVISION
Panasonic TH-42PD50U Television.....$600USD
Panasonic TH-42PX50U Television.....$1000USD
Panasonic TH-50PX50U Television.....$1500USD
Panasonic TH-42PWD6UY Television....$500USD
Panasonic TH-42PD25U/P Television...$400USD
Panasonic TH-42PHD8UK Television....$450USD
Panasonic TH-65PHD7UY Television....$2500USD
Pioneer PDP-5050HD Television.......$1000USD
Panasonic TH-37PX50U Television....$500USD
Panasonic TH-42PX500U Television...$800USD
Sony KLV-32M1 Television.........$400USD
Sony PFM-42V1/S Television.........$500USD
Sony KDE-61XBR950 Television......$5000USD
Sony KDE-42XBR950 Television......$1000USD
Sony PFM-42X1/S Television.......$500USD
Sony KDE-42XS955 Television......$550USD
Sony FWD-50PX1/S Television.....$1200USD
Samsung HP-R4252 Television........$500USD
Samsung LN-R328W - LCD TV - 32....$500usd
Samsung LN-R408D - LCD TV - 40....$800usd
Samsung LT-P326W - LCD TV - 32....$650usd
Samsung LTM 225W - LCD TV - 22....$500usd
Samsung PPM63H3-plasma panel 63...$2000usd
Samsung HP-P5071 50-inch 1366X768 HD Plasma TV Ref.....$800usd
Samsung HPP5031 - plasma panel - 50...$1000usd
Pioneer PDP-5050HD Television.......$1000USD
Sharp 32" Aquos HD-Ready LCD TV....$500usd.
and many more...............
LAPTOPS
Dell Latitude C640 1.8GHz P4 Laptop w/CD-RW......$350USD
Dell Inspiron XPS M140 Notebook Computer for Home.....$480USD
Sony VAIO FS540P - Pentium M 730 1.6 GHz - 15.4" TFT...$500USD
Sony Intel Pentium M 100GB Notebook Computer with DVD+/-R/RW Drive...$550USD
ThinkPad G40 2389 - C 2.5 GHz - 14.1" TFT IBM.....$580USD
Panasonic Toughbook 18 Touchscre......$500USD
HP Compaq Business Notebook nc8230 - Pentium M 760 2 GHz - 15.4" TFT...$950USD
HP Compaq Mobile Workstation nw8240 - Pentium M 760 2 GHz - 15.4" TFT...$780USD
and many more..............
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
PLV-80 16:9 Widescreen WXGA Home Theater Multimedia Projector....$10,000usd
magicolor 2430DL Color Laser Printer (20 PPM, 2400x600 DPI, Color, 32MB, PC/Mac)...$150usd
Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV - film scanner (35 mm).....$100usd
EP7120 DLP Projector (1024x768, 1600:1)......$400usd
Optoma H 31 - DLP projector..$400usd
CHING KAO ELECTRONICAL PRODUCTION
We sell all kind of brand new Tv set, Ipod, DVD player, Laptops. at a very cheaper price and makers like panasonic, samsung, sony,sharp,mintek,toshiba,and many more available in store.
if you are interested, contact us now by E-mail:- chingkaoproduction@yahoo.com
DVD
Panasonic DVD-LS5 DVD Player...$150USD
Mintek MDP-5860 DVD Player.....$90USD
Panasonic DMR-E50S DVD Recorder...$190USD
Samsung DVD-L200 DVD Player..... $150USD
and many more.........................
IPOD
Apple iPod nano 2GB Black MP3 Player....$100USD
Apple iPod Video 30GB Black MP3 Player...$1oousd
Apple iPod Video 30GB Black MP3 Player...$150usd
Apple iPod Mini 4GB 18hour battery - Pink MP3 Player...$120usd
Apple iPod nano 4GB Black MP3 Player....$150usd
and many more.................
TELEVISION
Panasonic TH-42PD50U Television.....$600USD
Panasonic TH-42PX50U Television.....$1000USD
Panasonic TH-50PX50U Television.....$1500USD
Panasonic TH-42PWD6UY Television....$500USD
Panasonic TH-42PD25U/P Television...$400USD
Panasonic TH-42PHD8UK Television....$450USD
Panasonic TH-65PHD7UY Television....$2500USD
Pioneer PDP-5050HD Television.......$1000USD
Panasonic TH-37PX50U Television....$500USD
Panasonic TH-42PX500U Television...$800USD
Sony KLV-32M1 Television.........$400USD
Sony PFM-42V1/S Television.........$500USD
Sony KDE-61XBR950 Television......$5000USD
Sony KDE-42XBR950 Television......$1000USD
Sony PFM-42X1/S Television.......$500USD
Sony KDE-42XS955 Television......$550USD
Sony FWD-50PX1/S Television.....$1200USD
Samsung HP-R4252 Television........$500USD
Samsung LN-R328W - LCD TV - 32....$500usd
Samsung LN-R408D - LCD TV - 40....$800usd
Samsung LT-P326W - LCD TV - 32....$650usd
Samsung LTM 225W - LCD TV - 22....$500usd
Samsung PPM63H3-plasma panel 63...$2000usd
Samsung HP-P5071 50-inch 1366X768 HD Plasma TV Ref.....$800usd
Samsung HPP5031 - plasma panel - 50...$1000usd
Pioneer PDP-5050HD Television.......$1000USD
Sharp 32" Aquos HD-Ready LCD TV....$500usd.
and many more...............
LAPTOPS
Dell Latitude C640 1.8GHz P4 Laptop w/CD-RW......$350USD
Dell Inspiron XPS M140 Notebook Computer for Home.....$480USD
Sony VAIO FS540P - Pentium M 730 1.6 GHz - 15.4" TFT...$500USD
Sony Intel Pentium M 100GB Notebook Computer with DVD+/-R/RW Drive...$550USD
ThinkPad G40 2389 - C 2.5 GHz - 14.1" TFT IBM.....$580USD
Panasonic Toughbook 18 Touchscre......$500USD
HP Compaq Business Notebook nc8230 - Pentium M 760 2 GHz - 15.4" TFT...$950USD
HP Compaq Mobile Workstation nw8240 - Pentium M 760 2 GHz - 15.4" TFT...$780USD
and many more..............
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
PLV-80 16:9 Widescreen WXGA Home Theater Multimedia Projector....$10,000usd
magicolor 2430DL Color Laser Printer (20 PPM, 2400x600 DPI, Color, 32MB, PC/Mac)...$150usd
Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV - film scanner (35 mm).....$100usd
EP7120 DLP Projector (1024x768, 1600:1)......$400usd
Optoma H 31 - DLP projector....$400usd
http://www.exportersinfo.com
Methods of transfer include a product or good being mailed,
hand-delivered or downloaded from an internet site.
It can be sent in the form of a facsimile, email or during
a telephone conversation.
http://www.skincareinfo.us
most people don't think twice about consulting with a doctor
and making an appointment or even about going through the process
of the surgery itself, the status of the patient's skin after the
fact is often not taken into account
http://www.health.ind.in
Health is the functional and/or metabolic efficiency of an organism,
at any moment in time, at both the cellular and global levels.
All individual organisms, from the simplest to the most complex,
vary between optimum health and zero health
http://www.voip-world.us
Incoming phone calls can be automatically routed to your VoIP phone, regardless of where you are connected to the network.
Take your VoIP phone with you on a trip, and wherever you connect to the Internet, you can receive incoming calls.
Free phone numbers for use with VoIP are available in the USA, UK and other countries from organizations such as VoIP User.
Call center agents using VoIP phones can work from anywhere with a sufficiently fast and stable Internet connection.
http://www.freeastrology.us
A study of the positions and relationships of the sun, moon,
stars, and planets in order to judge their influence on human
actions.it consists of interpreting the influence of stars and
planets on earthly affairs and human destinies
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
