No, it’s government control of the means of production, as I said before. A government run and operated civil service corp is a part of the means of production and competes with private firms who compete because they cannot provide things as cheaply as free labor.
Except his programs are socialistic and your example of unilateralist doesn’t even use the word Unilateralist properly.
2.5% is more decisive than like 0.0001% or whatever it was in 2000.
Less stinky than shit is not rosy-smelling. And it was actually something like -.5%. Florida was .0000057% (approximately).
That’s the point, dear. Do try to keep up.
ETA: On further reflection it appears that most common meaning for unilateralist here is not the one I know, which is this one:
Well - I think it’s because . . . . . . . . . Oh wait, I see what you did. Now I have to guess if the part I quoted is sufficiently significant enough to respond to. I’d hate to mistakenly respond to the insignificant part again. Damn - now what do I do?
Then it’s a bad example since I am using the word socialistic correctly.
Oh well I was thinking of it in terms of Bush’s unilateral foreign policy i.e. doing whatever the fuck he wants the rest of the world can go fuck themselves.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, then. However, if you asked anyone in a socialist country or even a social-democratic country if Obama has socialistic tendencies, you’d get laughed at.
And the thing those Conservatives are worried about is becoming more like Europe.
And Europeans would say we’re not like them, so what’s the problem?
Also, what the hell is so bad about Europe?
I think it wants its joke back, too.
Ummmm, people are still spouting that stuff about WMD’s aren’t they? AREN’T THEY?
During WW2 there was a “theory” about propaganda, called The Big Lie or something. The general idea was, if you repeat something often enough, it eventually will become the truth. We still have people peddling that WMD shit. You may not believe it, but there are enough who do, and they elect / re elect the sort of people who created the “cover story” to begin with. When the “goods” never materialize, they just repeat their story louder and more often. And the sheeple gobble it all up.
Here’s a clip showing Hannity as the partisan hack he is.
The parts I’m intersted are that Hannity says that the spending that Obama has made are all his, he won’t accept that they were at the very least in part reaction that stemed from issues from a previous admin. However when talking about 9/11 he doesn’t accept Bush had any responsibility whatsoever, it’s Clinton’s fault.
There is no compromise to facts here. There is just Hannity going down the party line. No reading of the situations, no understanding, no admission that his boy did any wrong whatsoever.
Olbermann is not like this. When he disagrees he says so as has been shown in this thread. He’s a US lefty of that there is no doubt but he’ll call a spade a spade.
Well stated. I’m curious if folks like SA really believe or are just participating in the Big Lie. My vote goes to the latter.
He’s an epic cock who has been given the veneer of respectability by a compliant media. Everyone know’s Hannity is a partisan prick as well but he’s not afforded the unnecessary and undeserved respect that Olbermann has been.
So what? That has nothing whatever to do with what I said to Sampiro.
This board alleges to fight ignorance, yes, no?
Sampiro wondered why, if Hussein had WMD, he didn’t use them while the U.S. was kicking his ass, killing his sons and so forth. I responded that according to my recollection, the WMD were alleged to have been smuggled out prior to the war’s beginning. Then you come charging in, claiming - as you pretty much still are - that I’m fostering "the “BIG LIE” that Hussein smuggled WMD into other countries.
If you aren’t capable of making the types of distinctions that the conversation requires you should stay out of it.
In that case your vote counts for nothing. Please see above.
Note to SteveG1: Now see what you’ve done? You’ve gone and, through either your deliberate or erroneous assertions that I’ve been promoting the BIG LIE, made poor little PlainJain think I’m a bad guy. Thus you should take back your clearly wrongful reading of my comments.
ETA: Oh, yeah! To the posters upthread quibbling over my use of ‘resounding’, this from M-W Online: [bolding mine]
*Main Entry: re·sound·ing
Pronunciation: -ˈzau̇n-diŋ also -ˈsau̇n-\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1: producing or characterized by resonant sound : resonating
2 a: impressively sonorous b: emphatic, unequivocal <a resounding success>
— re·sound·ing·ly adverb *
Note that GWB’s reelection was unequivocal, thus a resounding success.
Right now, I’m just not in the mood to take anything back. Sorry about thyat.
You apparently were going for some sort of “equivalency”, and it got my attention. Limbaugh blames all bad things on Obama and the liberals. You know, the liberal leftist conspiracy crap. No evidence, no proof, just wild accusations. As for WMD, first “they” swore up and down that they were there. Then they were hidden. Then they were somehow spirited out of the country. It’s just variations on a theme, and the theme is horse shit. Told so many times and so many ways, it has to be deliberate.
Limbaugh has no standing. He is a pompous lying windbag. Hes not that smart either. He didn’t magically become smart until he got his little radio show. If he’s so smart and so “real”, let him go to Washington and fix everything. Or anything. He won’t because he is a professional bullshit artist.
By that standard, me getting out of bed this morning was a resounding success, since I actually did it.
That’s the spirit, Capt. Carrot! Although it really should be “my getting out of bed.”
Maybe this definition captures the full meaning of the word as people actually use it and interpret it:
Also note that the M-W definition is not merely unequivocal, but also emphatic (both words are part of definition 2b). I would not characterize GWB’s 2004 win as “emphatic,” but, hey, YMMV and all that.
You do a great weasel impersonation. And I do mean that sincerely.
The “quibble” wasn’t just about your use of the word “resounding” but rather your disingenuous use of qualifiers when comparing Bush’s '04 MOV vs Obamba’s. Thus if Bush’s MOV, in your wingnut parlance, equates to “a resounding success,” you’d be hard-pressed to explain how Obama’s runaway victory could be qualified as “merely by” or “just.”
To wit:
Of course, you already knew this. But as I said, you come as close to a weasel as is humanly possible.
Kudos for that. Again.
Right. Having come to terms with the immortality of the King Crab and the mortality of my own toenails, I am now involved in the time-consuming process of re-inventing dynamite. So I offer you my profuse apologies if I don’t respond to your next [del]turd[/del] post, posthaste.
Oh and 'luc? Admit it, you’re just jealous.