We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The biggest problem we have in dealing with all this automation and technology is American innumeracy. Like not being able to count to eight.

Deserved. Touche.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Deserved. Touche.

On a serious note, isn't there a difference between the "Bush bashing" that as I remember it focused heavily on Iraq (I mean, people were camped outside his ranch focusing on that issue for literally years, weren't they?) and the Obama stuff, focusing on things like his birth certificate?

We SHOULD always have passionate debate on issues. I encourage large boisterous rallies over wars, abortion, guns, etc. But there is no equivalent in the Bush bashing to the birther/tea party BS or to Fox/Breitbart.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

On a serious note, isn't there a difference between the "Bush bashing" that as I remember it focused heavily on Iraq (I mean, people were camped outside his ranch focusing on that issue for literally years, weren't they?) and the Obama stuff, focusing on things like his birth certificate?

We SHOULD always have passionate debate on issues. I encourage large boisterous rallies over wars, abortion, guns, etc. But there is no equivalent in the Bush bashing to the birther/tea party BS or to Fox/Breitbart.

Yes. Bush bashing was justified as it applied to Iraq. It was shrill when, even after 2004, people were still complaining about the 2000 election.

Obama birtherism was never justified to any extent. It was complete and utter nonsense and a national embarrassment.

Benghazi was another embarrassment.

Clinton's impeachment was one, too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

On a serious note, isn't there a difference between the "Bush bashing" that as I remember it focused heavily on Iraq (I mean, people were camped outside his ranch focusing on that issue for literally years, weren't they?) and the Obama stuff, focusing on things like his birth certificate?

We SHOULD always have passionate debate on issues. I encourage large boisterous rallies over wars, abortion, guns, etc. But there is no equivalent in the Bush bashing to the birther/tea party BS or to Fox/Breitbart.

When Sebby calls critics of Trump "shrill," he is intentionally or unintentionally alluding to the way that Paul Krugman was dismissed early in the Bush years for not going along with the parade. As we all now know, Krugman was mostly right.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When Sebby calls critics of Trump "shrill," he is intentionally or unintentionally alluding to the way that Paul Krugman was dismissed early in the Bush years for not going along with the parade. As we all now know, Krugman was mostly right.

You have it backwards. Krugman was spot-on in criticizing Bush's election and Iraq. After Bush won in 2004, credibly, his continued screaming about the 2000 election was shrill. His continued screaming about Iraq was not.

And I say this as someone who puts an asterisk next to "President Bush." I am not sure 2000 was valid.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You have it backwards. Krugman was spot-on in criticizing Bush's election and Iraq. After Bush won in 2004, credibly, his continued screaming about the 2000 election was shrill. His continued screaming about Iraq was not.

You can say that now, but that's not when and why people called him shrill. And, please find me just one example of Paul Krugman "screaming about the 2000 election" from after November 2004. Just one.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You can say that now, but that's not when and why people called him shrill. And, please find me just one example of Paul Krugman "screaming about the 2000 election" from after November 2004. Just one.

This took about 30 seconds. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/o...last-fall.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This took about 30 seconds. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/o...last-fall.html

OK, nicely done. I admit that Paul Krugman wrote a column in 2005 in which he referred to the 2000 election.

Did you read what I linked to? Do you see that your recollection of when and why he was called "shrill" was off?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Marco Rubio describes Sebby's swing voters, the one who are actually conservatives:

Many Republicans won’t criticize Trump even when they don’t agree with him b/c it means siding with a media that nevers cuts him a break,turns even little things he does into an act of evil,are also unfair to them & in the end will still attack you anyway