[King Bob On The Cob]

So things Bush has done that A growing majority has done...

Intelligence offices were swamped and mostly powerless, which led to September 11th.

Bush get criticized because he didn't pay enough attention to the report that said that Al-Queda was planning on flying planes into buildings. Bush proceeds to give the intelligence community alot more free reign to try and stop future attacks.

Intelligence community tells Bush that through the best of their knowledge, Saddam Hussein has WMDs. He deliberately ignores UN orders (one of which was destroy his WMDs), won't allow WMD searchers to search everything whenever they want, and is telling his top commanders that he has WMDs. (And he has a militaristic history and has been known to fire on Israel). Saddam does not have complete control over his country and their are small scale Al-Queda training camps there, possibly with Saddam's blessing.

Bush decides that since he did not pay enough attention to intelligence earlier, it would better be safe than sorry and decides to invade Iraq. Our intelligence was wrong. We ****ed up.

Bush gets criticized for lying to get support.

All the while, North Korea continues on their plans to acquire nuclear weapons using technology we gave them. (They finally succeed via uranium enriching, which was not part of the agreement we came to with Clinton. We still have their plutonium creation under a watchful eye.)

Now people are saying Bush didn't do enough and should have intervened militarily against a foe who has China as a backing, large known quantities of WMDs within easy shooting range of a city that has 10-30 million people living in it. They also complain that Bush did not attempt enough with diplomacy with North Korea (This is a country who has blatantly ignored deals we made with it several times in the past, and China blocks any mention of it in the UN. We wouldn't go to the table with them unless China came too.)

Is it really always Bush's fault, or are some people just looking for a scapegoat when something goes wrong and an unpopular president is the easiest target?

[probablecause]

Agreed on all points. You left out the fact that Bush tried to address the Social Security disaster by proposing a very reasonable solution. Yet, he was harshly criticized for even trying to solve a major problem that almost everyone whines about.

The current President is always the easiest target of criticism sadly.

[BRussell]

He also did the right thing by cutting taxes and increasing spending, thereby massively increasing the debt. Come on, anybody would have done it! Why blame poor GW? It's not his fault!

[itai195]

I heard that his FEMA director did a heck of a job

[probablecause]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

He also did the right thing by cutting taxes and increasing spending, thereby massively increasing the debt. Come on, anybody would have done it! Why blame poor GW? It's not his fault!

Increased spending after the attacks on 9/11!? How dare he try to bolster our defenses and try to track down those responsible. What a waste! Gee wiz, how come I didn't see that.

Also, how dare he try and prop up an economy after a recession with tax cuts! How silly. He should have increased taxes and drove some major corporations out of business. That would have fixed everything.

P.S. The Dow is fairly close to hitting 12,000 BTW. Terrible economy we have here.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

P.S. The Dow is fairly close to hitting 12,000 BTW. Terrible economy we have here.

Just because I can't help myself, some fodder for discussion



Here's an even better one



And another



Yay we're back where we were in 2001!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

Increased spending after the attacks on 9/11!? How dare he try to bolster our defenses and try to track down those responsible. What a waste! Gee wiz, how come I didn't see that.

Also, how dare he try and prop up an economy after a recession with tax cuts! How silly. He should have increased taxes and drove some major corporations out of business. That would have fixed everything.

P.S. The Dow is fairly close to hitting 12,000 BTW. Terrible economy we have here.

Oh I couldn't agree more. Nothing is his fault. Not the war in Iraq, not the deficits, nothing. The Democrats made him do all of it.

[hyteckit]

If my salary was like the Dow Jones, I wouldn't brag about how great my salary is now. Yes! I'm finally earning 10% more than I did 6 years ago. Sweet!!!

[King Bob On The Cob]

Simple explanation. Dot come boom and bust. You can pretty much locate the exact instant that the investors ran screaming from the market.

[DBursey]

I'd give my opinion, but I fear my post would aid and abet America's enemies.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

Increased spending after the attacks on 9/11!? How dare he try to bolster our defenses and try to track down those responsible. What a waste! Gee wiz, how come I didn't see that.

I'm still trying to figure out how attacking Iraq was crucial to the capture of Osama.

Originally Posted by probablecause 

He should have increased taxes and drove some major corporations out of business. That would have fixed everything.

Like who?

Originally Posted by probablecause 

P.S. The Dow is fairly close to hitting 12,000 BTW. Terrible economy we have here.

It's not great, either.

[BRussell]

The simple fact is that if Gore had been president, we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq and we wouldn't have had these deficits. If you like those deficits and that war, good for you. I think you're insane, but if that's what you like, OK.

But it's absurd to suggest that Bush isn't to blame (or credit, depending on your perspective) for his own choices. How about some personal responsibility, Republicans? These were conscious choices, not accidents.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The simple fact is that if Gore had been president, we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq and we wouldn't have had these deficits.

Speculation.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Speculation.

Yes, but I can't believe anyone really thinks Gore would have gone to war with Iraq or had Bush's tax cuts. Do you honestly think he would have done those things?

[Dark Helmet]

Here this might help:

The Blog | Cenk Uygur: George Bush Will Live in Infamy for What He Has Done to Iraq | The Huffington Post

[Doofy]

Here's the answer:

Dems don't like it when there's a Republican in office. The last time there was a Republican in office other than W, it was his daddy.

What's changed since then? That's right... ...you're looking at it. The Dems whined just the same about Bush snr, but since hardly anybody had a 'net connection back nobody heard them them doing so.

The age of global communication has allowed them Dems to acquire a better whining platform (and thus allowed them to pick up support from the sheep who previously had no thoughts on the matter), that's all.

It really is that simple.

[Kerrigan]

You have to admit tho, there is a difference in policy between H W and W. The former had James Baker working for him, who is now about to produce a report suggesting that the president adopt some more realistic solutions to Iraq.

(Disclaimer: I am biased towards George H W Bush. I think he is a prototypical country gentleman and I like his style more than his son's)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

You have to admit tho, there is a difference in policy between H W and W.

I was permanently partying during HW's term, so didn't really notice.

I'm sticking by my "Internet allows the Dem whining to be more easily noticed" theory.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

You have to admit tho, there is a difference in policy between H W and W. The former had James Baker working for him, who is now about to produce a report suggesting that the president adopt some more realistic solutions to Iraq.

(Disclaimer: I am biased towards George H W Bush. I think he is a prototypical country gentleman and I like his style more than his son's)

Yes, and members of his national security team, such as Brent Scowcroft, publicly opposed the war in Iraq.

[tie]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Bush gets criticized for lying to get support.

Exactly. We should celebrate Bush's lies rather than criticize them. Bush was lying for the common good, after all. (Does that make him a communist?)

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The age of global communication has allowed them Dems to acquire a better whining platform (and thus allowed them to pick up support from the sheep who previously had no thoughts on the matter), that's all.

Republicans are still using the net to whine about Clinton

Anyway, I actually rather liked Bush the Elder. Don't like everything he did, but I have way fewer problems with him than with his son.

[jckalen]

Dems don't like it when there's a Republican in office. The last time there was a Republican in office other than W, it was his daddy.

What's changed since then? That's right... ...you're looking at it. The Dems whined just the same about Bush snr, but since hardly anybody had a 'net connection back nobody heard them them doing so.

The age of global communication has allowed them Dems to acquire a better whining platform (and thus allowed them to pick up support from the sheep who previously had no thoughts on the matter), that's all.

It really is that simple.

How is that different from Republicans? If anything, they TAUGHT the Dems by shouting to the heavens about Bill Clinton, and even still manage to blame Carter for things... essentially placing all of the world's troubles at their feet. No responsibility is ever taken for Reagan's arming of Iran, Rummy shaking hands with Saddam and handing over dual-use fertilizers (could make food, could make bombs, but yeah, we trust you), or Bush Sr. inflaming western hatred with the Gulf War. It's just so much less complicated to blame the left, huh?

[ironknee]

i don't think even nixon would go into iraq...this is george's war, george's legacy

[itai195]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i don't think even nixon would go into iraq...this is george's war, george's legacy

I blame God for Iraq... I mean, he created it, right? That was even before Clinton I think

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by tie 

Exactly. We should celebrate Bush's lies rather than criticize them. Bush was lying for the common good, after all. (Does that make him a communist?)

Definitely makes him a communist. Communism is about the common good.

[subego]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Bush decides that since he did not pay enough attention to intelligence earlier, it would better be safe than sorry and decides to invade Iraq. Our intelligence was wrong. We ****ed up.

Over the last year, evidence (which I present here, among other places) has come to light that capturing WMDs was given minimal priority as an objective. In fact, if Saddam did have WMDs, our overall strategy would have placed us in one of the worst possible positions in terms of recovering them.

Prior to this, all the left has had was an instinct that things were "fishy" coupled with a massive amount of ambiguous circumstantial evidence. This ultimately translated into the hypothesis that Bush knew there weren't any WMDs. From the moment I first heard this argument, in addition to disagreeing with it, I've said that trying to prove what someone believed is a pointless exercise. I was in agreement however that something was definitely "fishy".

I would say the evidence I provide is a far more direct indictment. Even if you don't agree with my analysis, it should give you pause for thought. Though the arguments "Bush knew there weren't WMDs", and "Bush did not make WMDs an operational objective" are vastly different in content, the conclusion is the same: we've been sold a bill of goods.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by jckalen 

How is that different from Republicans? If anything, they TAUGHT the Dems by shouting to the heavens about Bill Clinton, and even still manage to blame Carter for things... essentially placing all of the world's troubles at their feet. No responsibility is ever taken for Reagan's arming of Iran, Rummy shaking hands with Saddam and handing over dual-use fertilizers (could make food, could make bombs, but yeah, we trust you), or Bush Sr. inflaming western hatred with the Gulf War. It's just so much less complicated to blame the left, huh?

You appear to be forgetting that I'm looking from the outside in. Nobody from my country whines about Clinton - absolutely nobody, not even me. I'm not quite sure why the most powerful man in the world would want to go at it with a fat chick, but that's about it.

But for some reason, everyone seems to whine about Bush. That's what I'm on about when I mention the "sheeple with no previous views" being picked up by the general "Dem whine swarm*". In fact, a lot of them whine about Bush more than they do about Blair - and Bush has no impact on this country whatsoever. Unlike Blair, who's running it into the ground, taxing everyone to high heaven and installing spy-cams in your toilet to check if you're managing your waste properly.

The whole "whine about Bush" thing is just another cultural export. Like Baywatch. But without the bouncing. It's quite amusing.


(* Yes, I've been fiddling around with some new BitTorrent apps since I grabbed Java R4 over the weekend. "Swarm" seemed like an appropriate word.)

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego 

Though the arguments "Bush knew there weren't WMDs", and "Bush did not make WMDs an operational objective" are vastly different in content, the conclusion is the same: we've been sold a bill of goods.

I hate to get into this again (OK, I don't hate it ), but I don't think anyone on the left believes that "Bush knew there were no WMDs." I'm sure he believed, just like many others, that Saddam had WMDs. The argument is that he made specific claims of evidence in order to build his case for war, and those specific claims were, in many cases, verifiably false. Those specific claims were lies. Not his belief - a belief can't be a lie. A claim can be a lie, however.

[ironknee]

"it's not a lie if you believe it."

george costanza

[Spliffdaddy]

Since the Dems don't have any ideas or solutions their only hope is to say the other side is wrong.

So tell me, what is the Democrat's solution to the war on terror?

What is the Democrat's solution to the war in Iraq?

How will the Democrats maintain the current *good* economy?

I named the 3 most important things to voters. And the Democrats have no answers to any of them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I hate to get into this again (OK, I don't hate it ), but I don't think anyone on the left believes that "Bush knew there were no WMDs."

This just isn't true. I've heard plenty of people say this. Here on this board too. I bet I can dig up a dozen examples.

It is also important to note that this is often what gets argued against, even if that is not what is being presented. While a certain amount of this can be attributed to obstinance, and it is indeed excruciating when it happens, I don't think all the blame lies there.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I'm sure he believed, just like many others, that Saddam had WMDs. The argument is that he made specific claims of evidence in order to build his case for war, and those specific claims were, in many cases, verifiably false. Those specific claims were lies. Not his belief - a belief can't be a lie. A claim can be a lie, however.

This is much more easily proven, and I'm inclined to believe that it is likely. I feel that there still may be some ambiguities which I touched on when we discussed this last (and would enjoy to continue discussing) but let me approach the issues I have with this argument from a different direction. It's based on how the opposition would likely interpret the evidence you give.

If a person accepts the premise that WMDs are an enormous threat that must be dealt with (which I would say was a central tenet to the administration's case for war), I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that person to come to the conclusion that the enormity of the threat may require playing a little fast and loose with the truth. If things had pointed to Bush being genuinely concerned about WMDs, this would be exactly the argument I'd be giving you now. Though you may not agree with my opinion, I'm pretty sure I could convince you that I'm not being unreasonable for having it.

The reason I am being so irritatingly single minded about spreading my analysis around is that it can't be justified by the enormity of the threat of WMDs since it almost irrefutably calls into question the administration's claim they considered WMDs to be an enormous threat in the first place.

To put it in a less tortured way, I'm insistent with my argument because I don't know how anyone who is honestly looking at it can justify the administration's behavior. I believe your argument as to the wrongs that have been committed can be honestly (if not unequivocally) justified.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Since the Dems don't have any ideas or solutions their only hope is to say the other side is wrong.

So tell me, what is the Democrat's solution to the war on terror?

Redouble in Afghanistan and catch Osama.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

What is the Democrat's solution to the war in Iraq?

Leave.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

How will the Democrats maintain the current *good* economy?

Haven't been listening too closely, but I'd imagine it to be along the lines of "what Clinton did".

[Spliffdaddy]

so we just catch Osama and our troubles are over? Woo Hoo!

Cut & Run from Iraq? Sounds like a liberal philosophy.

The same thing Clinton did?

You mean have a Republican Congress ?

Looks like the Democrats have no clue how to handle the top 3 issues on the minds of American voters.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Since the Dems don't have any ideas or solutions their only hope is to say the other side is wrong.

So tell me, what is the Democrat's solution to the war on terror?

What is the Democrat's solution to the war in Iraq?

How will the Democrats maintain the current *good* economy?

I named the 3 most important things to voters. And the Democrats have no answers to any of them.

You forgot to say that, more importantly, the Republicans do have answers to all these questions, answers which are short and easy to understand:

1. Forget about terrorism since we are too tied up in Iraq. (Not a good answer, I admit, but it gets better.) Also, since we are too tied up in Iraq, leave Iran to Europe, and N. Korea to the UN. That'll work, the UN is always so effective.

2. Stay the course, indefinitely. Make no corrections. Leave proven incompetents and liars in charge.

3. Spend spend spend. Cut taxes for the rich. And eat up those free golfing trips.

[Spliffdaddy]

That didn't answer the original questions.

Tell me, what do the Democrats plan to do about those things?

*crickets chirp*

You have no idea. Because they haven't said.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Looks like the Democrats have no clue how to handle the top 3 issues on the minds of American voters.

Oh I see. You don't like my answers so there are no answers.

I'm beginning to see how you maintain this "accuracy" you're always on about.

[paul w]

1. Focus more on Afghanistan and Israel & Palestine, to name a couple. Get our allies involved in the process.

2. Well the choices are either: stay the course no matter what, leave or revise our strategy. There isn't a simple solution, though. However it would certainly make things easier if we weren't essentially going it alone. Problem is the Bush administration burned a lot of diplomatic bridges on what was a gamble. It would certainly help our cause in Iraq to have those relations repaired and more multilateral support in Iraq.

3. Actually I dunno if the economy can be maintained or not - it's debatable how much one president can influence the economy. But I'd like to see our government address the growing national debt. That and a longterm energy policy that doesn't involve a reliance on foreign oil.

And yes the democrats have adressed these issues. Heck even republicans have criticized the administration on these points. But apparently in some people's eyes criticism=liberal≠patriotism.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Since the Dems don't have any ideas or solutions their only hope is to say the other side is wrong.

So tell me, what is the Democrat's solution to the war on terror?

What is the Democrat's solution to the war in Iraq?

How will the Democrats maintain the current *good* economy?

I named the 3 most important things to voters. And the Democrats have no answers to any of them.

1. War on terror? Is that like "war on drugs", "war on world hunger", "war on poverty'?

2. War in Iraq? Bring back our troops. War is done. It's a civil war now cause by the US Iraq War.

3. Good economy? We had a good economy during the Clinton years. It's massive deficit currently.

[Spliffdaddy]

The Democrats have no solutions. They have no decent presidential candidate. They have the best opportunity for success in the upcoming election - yet appear to only be in a position to maybe win 3 of the 15 seats they need to become a majority in the House.

It's a failure of policy. A failure of ideas.

Hell, I'd bet Dubya would win re-election in 2008 if he could run. Sure 50+% of Americans disapprove of his job, but not enough to vote for a Democrat.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Since the Dems don't have any ideas or solutions their only hope is to say the other side is wrong.

So tell me, what is the Democrat's solution to the war on terror?

What is the Democrat's solution to the war in Iraq?

How will the Democrats maintain the current *good* economy?

I named the 3 most important things to voters. And the Democrats have no answers to any of them.

The answer to the War on Terror was NOT to have a WoT but rather go after those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11. The answer involved getting ALL of the Taleban in Afghanistan killed by carpet-bombing the whole place, bringing Osama bin Laden to trial--if he wasn't among those killed--and forcing him to spend the rest of his life in an American military prison suffering because he couldn't die a martyr.
(He could be like Charles Manson, trotted out every couple of years to the press to show that he is still a menace to humanity and that he needs to continue his incarceration until he dies an old, bent, twisted husk of a person.)

The answer also involved a complete re-building of Afghanistan after we decimated it--both during the Soviet-Afghan war and the post-9/11 attacks, thus earning us good will in the Arab Street. The answer also involved massive changes in American policy to wean us off of ME oil such that we could abandon our interests in that god-forsaken place for the next 200 years or so. (Saddam's power came from his oil wealth. If we got the world--except for the French, Russian, and Chinese--to stop buying his oil that would have done more to bring about his downfall, and would have saved the lives of over 2700 US service-members, than any overt military action.)

Finally, the answer involves not assuming we are the world's arbiter of Good and Evil and casting about those terms against entire nations in some bizarre act of political theatre. We eliminate those who attacked us, help those we hurt in the process, and go on about our lives not constantly looking over our shoulder for some illusory boogey-man waiting to harm us.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

3. Good economy? We had a good economy during the Clinton years.

No you didn't. You had the illusion of a good economy, in much the same manner that the UK has at the moment.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No you didn't. You had the illusion of a good economy, in much the same manner that the UK has at the moment.

Want to clarify that?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Want to clarify that?

What usually tends to happen is that conservatives build a strong economy, which the libs then inherit. Then the libs tend to run that economy into the ground, leaving the conservatives with an inherited bad economy which they have to set about fixing.

This generally occurs because conservative politicians tend to come from a business background, whereas lib politicians tend to come from a sitting around on a bean bags background (that's how it works here, anyways).

However, the libs usually hide the figures using smoke and mirrors so that the average joe who doesn't know what he's looking at tends to think he's in a good economy. For example, in the UK the government constantly bangs on about low inflation rates (and a lot of people believe them), something like 3-4%. However, they conveniently leave certain items out of the equation (for example, housing which is running at 10% and utilities which generally run around 20-25%). That's just one example. There's all sorts of ways they hide the true figures - way too numerous to mention here.

We also have to analyse what exactly a "good" economy is. Lib governments tend to work in the here and now rather than on building any foundation for the future. A lot of the time, they'll attempt to postpone inevitable dips in the economic cycle just to try to look good in the moment. And one consequence of postponing the dips is that when they eventually do come, they're much harder and much faster than if they'd been allowed to run their natural course. It's like water pressure building up in a blocked pipe - sooner or later it's gonna burst.
To me, a "good" economy looks to the future and allows the peaks and dips to develop naturally - which should lead to a gradual upwards trend.

As far as I can tell, all of your current problems in the car industry, for example, aren't a result of the current handling of the economy. They're a problem because ten years ago someone artificially blocked the cycle. And that, to my uneducated eyes, is how it seems to work - whether an economy is good or bad can only really be judged by the fruits it produces a decade later.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What usually tends to happen is that conservatives build a strong economy, which the libs then inherit. Then the libs tend to run that economy into the ground, leaving the conservatives with an inherited bad economy which they have to set about fixing.

I seem to recall Clinton getting elected in large part due to the tanking economy under Bush.

For example, in the UK the government constantly bangs on about low inflation rates (and a lot of people believe them), something like 3-4%. However, they conveniently leave certain items out of the equation (for example, housing which is running at 10% and utilities which generally run around 20-25%). That's just one example. There's all sorts of ways they hide the true figures - way too numerous to mention here.

Now we know where the Bush administration got it from, as they do the same thing.

[Spliffdaddy]

such a predictible response.

When you get your ass handed to you in a discussion forum: blame Bush

You also seem to forget the 104th Congress and Newt Gingrich, and the "contract with America" - during the Clinton administration. The Republicans promised to accomplish a list of items that included welfare reform and other good stuff. They are responsible for the great economy you keep mentioning. Clinton tried his best to derail all the efforts of the 104th Congress. The successes you brag about happened in spite of Clinton's efforts to stop them. Remember the 'government shutdown'? Clinton wanted to spend more money than the Republicans would allow him to.

Every congress should pledge to accomplish certain items. To have their own "contract with America". Of all the things promised by the 104th Congress only one was not fulfilled. Limiting campaign donations. They tried, but met fierce resistance from Democrats and Republicans. However...they did change welfare as we know it. You have to be nearly dead before you aren't required to get a job in order to receive welfare benefits. More than 94% of welfare recipients found a job.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What usually tends to happen is that conservatives build a strong economy, which the libs then inherit. Then the libs tend to run that economy into the ground, leaving the conservatives with an inherited bad economy which they have to set about fixing.

This generally occurs because conservative politicians tend to come from a business background, whereas lib politicians tend to come from a sitting around on a bean bags background (that's how it works here, anyways).

So 8 years of Reaganomics of nothing but borrowed money and driving up deficit, then Pres. Bush Sr. inherit the strong economy?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

You also seem to forget the 104th Congress and Newt Gingrich, and the "contract with America" - during the Clinton administration. The Republicans promised to accomplish a list of items that included welfare reform and other good stuff. They are responsible for the great economy you keep mentioning.

It's getting truly difficult to take you seriously. Everything bad is Democrats' fault, everything good is done by Republicans.

BTW you are straying from the party line. I thought we only had the illusion of a great economy?

Remember the 'government shutdown'? Clinton wanted to spend more money than the Republicans would allow him to.

This is spin. They disagreed on how to balance the budget, not that the budget should be balanced.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What usually tends to happen is that conservatives build a strong economy, which the libs then inherit. Then the libs tend to run that economy into the ground, leaving the conservatives with an inherited bad economy which they have to set about fixing.

Yep, how bout that great economy. Clearly the Commerce Department has been paid off by pinko liberals and released this information at this time so they could influence the election.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itai195 

Yep, how bout that great economy. Clearly the Commerce Department has been paid off by pinko liberals and released this information at this time so they could influence the election.

Depends what you mean by "great economy". IMO, growth isn't a pre-requisite for a good economy. See, the thing about growth is that sooner or later you end up with nothing to grow into. Stability is much more important.

For example, Gordon Brown keeps banging on about "growth" all the time, yet we now have a totally screwed economy (only noticeable if you dig) where millions of people can't afford to live.

It's all smoke and mirrors I tell ya.

[ironknee]

it's like if a wallmart moves in and hires a lot of staff...but low pay and no health