Ron:

But the BDS on display here, that proves quite a bit more!

You know, I was thinking about what y’all call “Bush Derangement Syndrome” this very morning as it were. In reality, it is a label that Republicans slap on to any kind of dissent against the anti-Constitutional actions of Dear Leader. Stalin himself used the same technique and eventually put many of his political enemies in insane asylums. Thank goodness we have a modicum of free speech left in this country…so far.

As a leader of women’s group, she is the least like of all women.

My question therefore is again is “Where do they get these phony polls from.

First off, on the issue of the much-publicized sub-prime loans, one’s ivory tower will have to be situated under a massive rock to be so uninformed about this debacle as you are. As incredulous as it may seem, and as anti-regulation as you may profess to be, the account proffered in my posting is the unadulterated truth.

Have you never heard about the “No income verified” loans? What about the “No credit verified” loans? You have to be alone on this count. These are the kinds of packages that were offered to consumers by mortgage companies over the last few years. I hope I don’t have to further explain their meanings to you, Casey. These were the kinds of loans underpinning mortgage-backed securities. Naturally, when these hapless homeowners could no longer afford the massive adjustable interest rates and defaulted on their loans, these securities instruments became worthless, hence the sub-prime loan debacle.

Incidentally, at the time that this began to materialize as a problem, Bush appointed the billionaire owner of Ameriquest Mortgage, the chief perpetrator of this problem, as Ambassador to the Netherlands. Another “Brownie” appointment, you think?

On the issue of whether America’s allies were precluded from participating in the reconstruction of Iraq to stoke the ravenous greed of Cheney, I will present you with the following quote from the New York Times:
“The Pentagon has barred French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying it was acting to protect
‘the essential security interests of the United States.’
The directive, issued Friday by Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, represents the most substantive retaliation to date by the Bush administration against American allies who opposed its decision to go to war in Iraq.” [New York Times, 12/10/03]

So, again, you are dead wrong (prevaricating) when you asserted that, “The [staged] landing [on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln] was just an attempt to nudge some of our alleged allies into joining the hard part; rebuilding.”

What is your argument on Katrina, Casey? Do you believe that an American city submersed in water does not deserve the help of the federal government? What, then, is the purpose of FEMA – just to employ incompetent cronies like Brownie? Do you know how many Americans died in Katrina? It is safe to conjecture from your arguments that Americans left to drown in a hurricane is alright by you, but you are the same crowd that will vilify anyone who questions the wisdom of squandering $1.6 trillion in Iraq. I hope you are beginning to see how wry your thinking is, my friend.

On Kyoto, I can only surmise that you and Bush are the only two who do not believe that global warming is occurring. At this point, I am sure even Ron is wondering if you are playing with a full deck.

So Casey, when one cuts through all of your flowery words, it becomes manifestly clear that you are very uninformed on the issues. You can fool Ron all the time, but I am going to be the one holding the mirror to you Casey.

By the way Casey, you are a Republican. You see, you assign all kinds of labels to yourself – Libertarian, Big L, Small l, etc., – to consciously disavow what you truly are. But you have no control of what you are subconsciously. Trust me, you are a Republican.
No need to thank me – just holding the mirror to you as I promised.

Benn, I simply didn’t write about the Hillary piece. I would say, however, that many women who will not vote for her may nonetheless admire her for various reasons. You say I am “distorting the truth about politicians in the country” … and I didn’t write a thing about politicians in this post.

First of all, chuckles, I am neither conservative nor Republican, although I to ascribe to certain “conservative” principles such as the 2nd Amendment. It would be more proper to describe me as an independant with certain libertarian (small “L” thank you!) tendencies. But no, you ascribe to me the position “learned Republican.” As for “invective,” I do plead guilty to the use of “fatuity,” although I must also plead guilty in that case to “accurate assessment.”

I would respectfully submit to Koiquoe (Ok, gotta ask: that sounds very nearly Inuit; where did you get that?) that he did not read my reply very carefully if he insists upon carrying the “most admired man in America” theme when I never even mentioned it? In fact, I agree with Ara that it’s a fairly non-newsworthy event, especially if the analysis revealed here is correct that Bush only accrued about 10% of the potential vote. Ron got a fairly cute “whaaat?” post out of it, and that’s that. For those who actually read my reply, I took issue with other statements previously made.

I made my statements about the loan situation from general reading, and I will admit I have no specific cites to hand. On the other hand, when I encounter someone who relentlessly rants about “deregulation,” my suspicions are raised. On the other hand, I hold to the same level of scepticism to those who are overly fond of no regulation at all. Ayn Rand aside, minarchists are as far off the mark as are mid-20th-century big government regulationists.

The very fact that you have to label me as a “right-wing zealot” illuminates your ignorance. Ask Ara; while we can (and have) vehemently disagree on various topics, he can tell you that I am very much not a “right-wing” anything.

BTW, just in case you ever try to develop any economic common sense: credit agencies generally try to loan money to parties who are statistically likely to pay said money back. It’s called “probability theory.” You might want to study it sometime as I have. Otherwise you wouldn’t try to sell the idea that loan companies would deliberately loan money to people who are unlikely to pay it back. Whoops, silly me! They are going to sell those loans to people who are presumably too stupid to perform a simple credit check on the debtors before buying the debts. Oh, those crafty loan companies!!

After that you fail to address my contention that so many on your side of the fence blame Bush for, well, everything. No refutations with respect to Katrina, Kyoto, or the loan situation. I’m sorry, you did posit that loan companies are somehow able to dump bad debts on companies/investors who are incapable of performing a simple credit check…

I’ve already addressed the “right-wing zealot” fatuity, so I’ll roll right along to your claim about Cheney. Sorry, I’ll have to ask for a reference for that very specific claim of fact, especially considering that most of Europe did in fact eventually contribute to Iraq’s reconstruction later on. “The fact” as you say isn’t very persuasive if it isn’t (in fact) a fact.

And you’ve used the word “prevarication” twice, now. For the slow of mind (whoopsie, an actual, real-live insult this time! Dearie me) the word “prevarication” defines either a deliberate ambiguity (something you are required to demonstrate) or a deliberate lie (something else you are required to demonstrate). So you need to retract that term, or demonstrate a deliberate ambiguity on my part, or a deliberate lie. Good luck on that.

Which reminds me; back off on the “invective” crap too, bunky, as I haven’t engaged in any. Yet.

You have in fact also completely ignored the fact that I also criticized unthinking conservatives in my last reply, as well as unthinking liberals.

Whoopsie, there’s another idiot claim(ok, two examples of invective; “Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…”; I listen to neither Rush, Hannity, nor Coulter, nor do I extend to them any respect for their points of view. Are you still talking to the voices in your head?

You have demonstrated (by your explicit need to label me some sort of “right-wing zealot” who mindlessly follows the standard conservative/Republican cant) that you don’t have a clue about my actual political position. Try asking Ara, he has a clue. You have also demonstrated your own fatuity by claiming I used “invective” when this was not the case in my original reply. Sarcasm and skepticsm, yes; but no invective. Finally you completely ignored the specifics of my last reply and instead replied to the voice in your own head. I never said anything about that absurd poll, and I never indicated I “love” or in any way mindlessly follow George W. Bush.

Myself, I have more than a few criticisms of the current administration, and they frequently run crossways to popular lament. Alas, you chose to listen to the voices instead of what I had to say.

I repeat: ask Ara. He’s known me (electronically) for a fair number of years, and although we disagree on various specifics we still manage to retain a level of mutual respect. I suspect the reason is that neither of us are dogmatic True Believers.

Ron: sorry if this dis-railed the original thread, but I couldn’t resist. Besides, I tend to agree with Ara that this survey doesn’t “prove” much; what’s the percentage in being the top 10% of the other 30% who didn’t vote for someone else?

It does make for a lovely little snark, though… Heh.