Raimi and Bush

email this story
read comments (141)
post a comment

Sam Raimi's two political donations to George Bush in '04 only amounted to $900, according to Newsmeat.com. The Spider-Man helmer gave $300 to the Bush campaign on 1.14.04, and then another $600 on 7.8.04. Raimi also gave $450 to Senator Arlen Specter, apparently to support his campaign for the '96 Republican Presidential nomination.

And yet Raimi isn't a total Republican -- he also gave $1000 to Barbara Boxer's U.S. Senate campaign in '02. He also donated $1200 to the Political Action Committee of the Directors Guild of America in '05.

I like conservatives personally -- they talk in a plainer, more straight-from-the- shoulder way than a lot of liberals I know -- and I certainly understand the plight of filmmakers who support Republican or conservative causes. I got into this when I wrote a big piece for Los Angeles magazine in early '95 called "Right Face," about how it was easier in the liberal Hollywood culture of the mid '90s to say you're gay than confess to being a rightie, which could put you on what Lionel Chetwynd called a "white list."

I'm not trying to slam or pigeonhole Raimi for having conservative values, but my God...he supported Bush in '04? He either believed or rationalized the WMD bullshit about why we went into Iraq, supported Bush's anti-conservationist leanings and all the dozens of other bone-headed policies? Raimi's $900 Dubya donation is offensive to me. It really is. We live in a free society and by all means let's keep electing right-wing assholes and hasten the global-warming process as much as possible, but Spider-Man 3 ticket-buyers should know, I feel, where a small portion of their ticket money is likely to end up. Pointing this out is fair, surely.

Curtis and the rope<< previous | next >>Lucas on re-working stuff

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on April 25, 2007 at 10:01 AM

comment #1

count.olaf says ...

OF course it's fair...if it's the beginning. If you want to continue pointing out where directors spend their money then it will be fair. But if you single one out, it cannot be described as fair.
By all means, continue

Posted by count.olaf at April 25, 2007 10:51 AM

comment #2

jeffmcm says ...

I want to know what Lee Tamahori spend his hooker earnings on. (He has a movie out in two days!)

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 10:53 AM

comment #3

christian says ...

depressing but not unsurprising...raimi has a core midwestern american innocence thing...except when it comes to tree rape....

Posted by christian at April 25, 2007 10:59 AM

comment #4

admiralmpj says ...

I know you want to derail me and the rest of America from seeing Spiderman 3, but...dangit, this might actually do it. Next time you interview him, I'd hit him with some basic questions. "Do you support the surge??", "What about Yellowcake claims in Nigeria? Did you believe them??" Just run down the basic questions to see if he's a part of the 33% crowd. Or worse, if he's a a part of the 9% crowd that still supports Dick Cheney.

Posted by admiralmpj at April 25, 2007 10:59 AM

comment #5

CambridgeCat says ...

Well, fuck Sam Raimi then.

Posted by CambridgeCat at April 25, 2007 11:06 AM

comment #6

Craig Kennedy says ...

Supporting Bush '00 I could swallow, but '04? Still, if I start factoring politics into my entertainment decisions, I'd pretty much have to avoid every film to be made by a studio that's owned by a corporate conglomerate.

I might be crossing the Raimis off my Christmas card list, but I won't start avoiding his movies.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at April 25, 2007 11:10 AM

comment #7

Krazy Eyes says ...

But isn't Sam Raimi gay? I don't know why I thought this but I've always assumed this to be true for over a decade. I thought it was common knowledge but I couldn't find any mention of it in a cursory internet search.

Posted by Krazy Eyes at April 25, 2007 11:16 AM

comment #8

Hopscotch says ...

Well as you pointed out he's give money to BOTH parties. But for the love of god, this guy is a millionaire. And he gave donations totalling less than $900!!!! His CELL PHONE BILL every month is more than that.

Posted by Hopscotch at April 25, 2007 11:16 AM

comment #9

MathewM says ...

Quit taking money, politics and power so personally. $900 is couch change to Raimi I'm sure. I also find it completely refreshing to read about Hollywood creative types who are unafraid to think outside of the liberal box. Hollywood could use a few more conservative minded filmmakers so we could have a little more variety.

Posted by MathewM at April 25, 2007 11:16 AM

comment #10

vansmith says ...

a bush in 04 vote can be seen alot of ways, like not digging kerry or feeling the hysteria on the left was too much, (michael moore), or wanting to keep up a united front for the rest of the world to see, or feeling the middle east wanted bush out so supporting him was saying fuck you to them..or being a republican right or wrong...

Posted by vansmith at April 25, 2007 11:21 AM

comment #11

JD says ...

These are pretty minor contributions and I'm sure they have more to do with friendships and whatnot than any activist aspirations. If Raimi had deep political convictions, I'm sure he'd contribute an ammount comparable to someone like Robert Zemeckis who, contrary to his right wing rep (due in large part to Forrest Gump), has actually contributed nearly $75,000 to Dems:

http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Robert_Zemeckis.php

Posted by JD at April 25, 2007 11:23 AM

comment #12

Matthew Lucas says ...

At the very least...there's the small consolation in knowing that my ticket money for "Spider-Man 3" can't be used on George W. Bush again.

But then again, the New York Times pays for my movie tickets, so...figure out that chain of money-changing.

Kinda weird, the cycles money goes through...

Posted by Matthew Lucas at April 25, 2007 11:25 AM

comment #13

Pelham123 says ...

Say what you will about Michael Moore and his "hysteria" but he was dead right about Bush and W's Iraq war.

Posted by Pelham123 at April 25, 2007 11:33 AM

comment #14

Monument says ...

The 04 election was about the war and who would be the best leader during wartime. Bush had one issue, terrorism, he pounded the hell out of it and America bought it. Kerry was all over the place; first he supported the war, then he didn't, he was and is a waffler.

For many people a vote for Bush was really a vote against Kerry. He was, and is a rich, stick up the ass blowhard and I'm glad he wasn't elected.

Bush is a rich blowhard too, but for some reason people just like him better. Maybe it's because Bush drives a truck, tears shit up on a mountain bike, and can operate a chainsaw. Maybe the chainsaw thing is why Raimi likes him.

Fuck it, I voted for Leonard Peltier. But this idea that directors who contributed to Bush's campaign should be outed smacks of McCarthy and blacklists. I thought we all decided those were bad things.

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 11:38 AM

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

I'm guessing Raimi would support a guy like Bush, because people on the left would demand films like Evil Dead be banned, because they influence the violent behavior of children. That, and they're more likely to give grants to artsy shit like "The Queen" than "Crime Wave".

Posted by D.Z. at April 25, 2007 11:43 AM

comment #16

jeffmcm says ...

You're joking, right? There are more on the Right who would want to ban a film like Evil Dead than on the Left.

(Plus The Queen was a pretty good movie, not that it needed any grants).

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 11:45 AM

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "There are more on the Right who would want to ban a film like Evil Dead than on the Left."

Last time I checked, it was Tipper Gore who had a problem with rap artists, Hillary who had a problem with one sex scene in a mostly violent game like GTA, and Joe who tried to ban Mortal Kombat.

Posted by D.Z. at April 25, 2007 11:50 AM

comment #18

Hopscotch says ...

It's weird that he donated money to Boxer too. I'm a liberal and even I don't really like Boxer that much, conservatives foam at the mouth thinking about her.

I've always thought it'd semi-interesting to see politically how certain celebs fall, and how much that does / does not play into their public image. Adam Sandler, who often plays ignorant, wise-ass dimwits on screen is a big GOP supporter, among many other...you get the idea.

There was a rumor for the longest time that Hanks was a private GOP man, but his support for HRC has pretty much evaporated that. Jimmy Stewart was huge Republican, HUGE.

Posted by Hopscotch at April 25, 2007 11:52 AM

comment #19

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, those are the exceptions that prove the rule. Ask Sam Brownback or Jerry Falwell or Pat Buchanan what they think of the issue.

God you're obtuse.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 11:55 AM

comment #20

dangovich says ...

When the Dem power brokers got behind Kerry, the 2004 election was effectively lost. The man has all the warmth and charisma of a cadaver. Not to mention, he let the Swift Boaters walk all over him.

I mean, Kerry SERVED in Vietnam, while Bush avoided combat like the plague. Kerry should have hammered that contrast for all it was worth. But he inexplicably chose to try and stay above the fray, and it cost him the election.

Oh well, I hope Mr. Raimi can rest easy knowing he donated money to the worst president in American history.

Posted by dangovich at April 25, 2007 11:55 AM

comment #21

Monument says ...

Do I really need to post a list of righties who tried to get things banned? Both sides do it.

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 11:56 AM

comment #22

RoyBatty says ...

There is also the possiblity that this $900 total was given at a private dinner fundraiser type things that a friend or business acquaitance held. As to Arlene Spector, keep in mind this is the guy who got into hot water over warning Bush to stay away from anti-abortion Supreme Court nominees when he headed the judiciary committee (not to mention his problems with wiretapping Americans willy-nilly).

BTW - Raimi's contributions were reported on newsmeat OVER A YEAR AGO! Talk about dated material...

Posted by RoyBatty at April 25, 2007 11:57 AM

comment #23

jeffmcm says ...

Ah, but Raimi didn't have a movie that Wells was trying to destroy sight-unseen a year ago.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 12:01 PM

comment #24

Craig Kennedy says ...

Apparently DZ, for you "the last time I checked" means 1986.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at April 25, 2007 12:01 PM

comment #25

RoyBatty says ...

Not to mention, Raimi comes from a conservative midwestern Jewish family.

Posted by RoyBatty at April 25, 2007 12:02 PM

comment #26

Roddy Reta says ...

Wells' stupidity aside, I think Raimi has a reputation as a liberatarian. Indeed, he has recently bought film rights from two prominent authors with libertarian leadnings -- Dean Koontz and Terry Goodkind.

Posted by Roddy Reta at April 25, 2007 12:03 PM

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

cj: "Apparently DZ, for you "the last time I checked" means 1986."

Actually, if you read recent articles, Dems also support legislation which would fine business owners for selling "violent" videogames to children. After Columbine, they also tried to regulate movie companies from advertising R-rated and PG-13 films to children. And of course, Clinton gave us the V-chip. The other Jeff was wondering why more 20-somethings don't vote, and it's because both parties care more about satisfying boomer nuclear families by attacking our way of life than convincing us to go to the polls.

Posted by D.Z. at April 25, 2007 12:07 PM

comment #28

tholl-yung says ...

He's a turkey, too.

Posted by tholl-yung at April 25, 2007 12:08 PM

comment #29

nemo says ...

"depressing but not unsurprising...raimi has a core midwestern american innocence thing...except when it comes to tree rape...."

Tree rape?!? Do tell! Does Raimi have a man-on-vegetation thing going like those horse lovers?

Or is "tree rape" just a metaphorical way saying he's environmentally insensitive?

Posted by nemo at April 25, 2007 12:10 PM

comment #30

Monument says ...

I shudder to think of what would be written about me if I had people anonymously commenting on my job and opinions all day long.

But seriously, who is more stupid, Jeffrey Wells, or the anonymous douchebag who complains electronically about a post, reads another one, talks shit, reads another one, talks more shit...

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 12:13 PM

comment #31

Rich S. says ...

Come on, nemo, no one who has seen the original Evil Dead would ask that question. You apparently need to "bone up" on your Raimi.

Posted by Rich S. at April 25, 2007 12:13 PM

comment #32

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, you're changing the subject to avoid talking about your suggestion that Republicans are somehow less apt to want to ban such things than Democrats, which is absurd on its face.

And what is 'attacking our way of life', restricting video games? If that's the 20-something way of life that keeps people from voting, it should be attacked.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 12:14 PM

comment #33

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "DZ, you're changing the subject to avoid talking about your suggestion that Republicans are somehow less apt to want to ban such things than Democrats, which is absurd on its face."

Yeah, the Republiscum have acted irrationally towards communist filmmakers and Scorcese, but
over the last decade or so, Dems pretty much attacked everything else.

"And what is 'attacking our way of life', restricting video games? If that's the 20-something way of life that keeps people from voting, it should be attacked."

Well if it was just games, we might be willing to look the other way. But they also were the first to write legislation overturning gay marriage i, supported Bush I's "free" trade of our jobs to other countries for cheap, and have been just as draconian in locking up people who possess drugs as their Republican counterparts. (Plus they expanded from dope to tobacco.) And of course, they continued investing billions into the faulty nuclear weapons program Bush is using today, while forgetting we elected them for universal health care.

As for people supporting Bush in '04, they thought he knew what he was doing. I mean, yeah, if they did the research, they'd know otherwise, but I'm guessing they thought he had a "secret plan". That, and homophobia was enough to win over even moderates, sort of like how anti-Semitism was why Hitler was "President-for-life" for a decade.
Anyway, when I saw Farenheit 9/11, I thought it failed to me, because it should have focused on Bush's domestic policies, not his defense policies, which don't really matter to Americans who can't even find Iraq on a map.

Posted by D.Z. at April 25, 2007 12:24 PM

comment #34

jeffmcm says ...

You're loony.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 12:29 PM

comment #35

Craig Kennedy says ...

DZ, I'll grant you an unfortunate number of so-called liberals have sold out to the Moral Minority in an effort to appear relevant, but I'd be careful before suggesting they're somehow worse than the Michael Medveds of the world.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at April 25, 2007 12:30 PM

comment #36

christian says ...

and medved is as loony as they come...

Posted by christian at April 25, 2007 12:33 PM

comment #37

jeffmcm says ...

BTW, I didn't know there were still any Communist filmmakers out there outside of North Korea. I don't recall a big right-wing outcry over any Ken Loach movies, does anyone know what DZ's talking about there?

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 12:35 PM

comment #38

mitch says ...

wells; *putting this out* IS fair, exactly, just as it was fair for people to no longer support the dixie chicks for their comments.

fair is absolutely the proper word here.

Posted by mitch at April 25, 2007 12:38 PM

comment #39

D.Z. says ...

cj: Medved just trashes gays, while Clinton denied them rights. One would normally consider the latter to be worse.

Posted by D.Z. at April 25, 2007 12:41 PM

comment #40

jeffmcm says ...

That ignores the fact that Medved also supports denying gays wedding rights. Plus Hillary supports domestic partnership benefits, which while not marriage, is still better than nothing.

Please stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 12:44 PM

comment #41

Craig Kennedy says ...

DZ, would you rather have had Clinton as president or Medved?

Posted by Craig Kennedy at April 25, 2007 12:44 PM

comment #42

jeffmcm says ...

His anticipated non-response: I'd rather have (insert unelectable liberal candidate name here).

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 12:46 PM

comment #43

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "That ignores the fact that Medved also supports denying gays wedding rights."

So does Jesse Jackson. What's your point?

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?date=2004/02/17/6

cj: "DZ, would you rather have had Clinton as president or Medved?"

To be honest, neither, which is why I voted Nader in 2000. I only picked Kerry in 2004, because he had the best chance of winning, and he still blew it. I mean choosing between the two is like asking me if I want my job and right to privacy to be taken away gradually instead of immediately.

Posted by D.Z. at April 25, 2007 12:49 PM

comment #44

SHR says ...

I guess Raimi is now our Leni Riefenstahl

Posted by SHR at April 25, 2007 12:56 PM

comment #45

jeffmcm says ...

"So does Jesse Jackson. What's your point?"

My point is, liberals are in general better than conservatives. What's _your_ point aside from insisting on indefensible arguments to feed your own ego?

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 12:59 PM

comment #46

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "My point is, liberals are in general better than conservatives."

Those aren't liberals; they're moderates. And if they're going to sell my ass out to win the votes of intolerant greedy people, then they won't get my vote.

Posted by D.Z. at April 25, 2007 1:01 PM

comment #47

Monument says ...

"My point is, liberals are in general better than conservatives."

I'm not D.Z. but I'm pretty sure this warrants a severe FUCK OFF. I'm not even a conservative and that pisses me off.

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 1:05 PM

comment #48

jeffmcm says ...

DZ: Try telling a conservative that Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson are not liberals and bring a towel to wipe off the spittle from the copious laughter you're going to get.
Monument: Why?

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 1:09 PM

comment #49

Monument says ...

It's bullshit, elitist garbage not to mention an indefensible subjective argument used to feed your own ego (wait that sounds familiar)

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 1:11 PM

comment #50

jeffmcm says ...

I should rephrase: moderates are better than conservatives. (To me, everyone's better than conservatives except those fabled Islamofascists.)

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 1:12 PM

comment #51

jeffmcm says ...

Re: 1:11 pm post, it's not 'elitist' or 'indefensible'. I have no idea how to argue against the first charge since it doesn't make sense to me, and I can easily argue against the second charge since I simply believe that most liberal policy positions are better than most conservative ones. Does that make sense? I don't understand your objection, Monument.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 1:14 PM

comment #52

Monument says ...

By moderates you mean blue staters who don't really pay attention to politics but know that they are supposed to hate George W. and the Iraq war but really don't know shit about anything in particular (and don't vote)?

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 1:15 PM

comment #53

jeffmcm says ...

By moderates I mean people who are not conservatives or liberals.

Huh? You sound like you're addressing a whole different subject.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 1:19 PM

comment #54

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "I have no idea how to argue against the first charge since it doesn't make sense to me, and I can easily argue against the second charge since I simply believe that most liberal policy positions are better than most conservative ones."

So by that definition, you should support Guantanamo, since it's no different from the Japanese-American internment. Hell, Andrew Jackson had a "liberal" interpretation of executive power which he used to justify slaughtering Indians. Blair's party is more liberal than Thatcher's party; yet Thatcher didn't have to "sex up" information to fight in the Falklands.

Posted by D.Z. at April 25, 2007 1:23 PM

comment #55

christian says ...

let me rephrase:

conservatives suck.

period.

Posted by christian at April 25, 2007 1:24 PM

comment #56

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, that last post is a total non sequitur. What do Andrew Jackson, Japanese internment camps, or the Falklands have to do with ANYTHING under discussion here?

If you want to be a part of the discussion, please make yourself understood.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 1:26 PM

comment #57

Monument says ...

You're right, I much prefer lukewarm water to ice tea or hot coffee.

That's pretty much what it adds up to. People without a real solid opinion about anything. It's just bullshit semantics, like when liberals suddenly decided to be called progressives. It's just a name to make people feel better about themselves and their opinions, or lack thereof.

It doesn't mean anything. Politics are politics, nothing changes and no one wins.

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 1:26 PM

comment #58

Ron Lim says ...

By God. Let's boycott all films released by Fox also. After all, Rupert Murdoch is a right-wing pig. Which reminds me, I better stop watching "24"... not only is it on Fox, but that Joel Surnow is a GOP-shill. Can't watch Pulp Fiction anymore... those residual checks to Bruce Willis is only fueling the republican party! And all my DVDs... how many are put out by Fox? Jesus... I've got some work to do....

Posted by Ron Lim at April 25, 2007 1:31 PM

comment #59

Monument says ...

You're right Jeff, lukewarm water is much better than iced tea or hot coffee.

Moderate is just another way for people without any solid opinions to categorize themselves. It's just bullshit semantics, like when "liberals" suddenly decided that they were "progressives."

But it doesn't matter. Politics are politics and nothing ever changes.

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 1:32 PM

comment #60

Monument says ...

Sorry about the double post, I thought I deleted it the first time.

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 1:34 PM

comment #61

jeffmcm says ...

Okay, I'll rephrase one more time:
People who don't believe that we should live in a theocratic fascist state are better than ones who do.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 1:35 PM

comment #62

Mike Binder says ...

Damn that Raimi to hell!!!! All Tamakwans must pay. He's probably the guy that spilled the Tamagama beans. Fucking Raimi!!!

Live clean!

Posted by Mike Binder at April 25, 2007 1:39 PM

comment #63

Monument says ...

I can agree with that.

But you are implying that all conservatives want to live in a theocratic fascist state, and that's just not true. Broad brush my friend.

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 1:41 PM

comment #64

christian says ...

then let's narrow it down to conservatives who voted for george bush. you get who you vote for.

sadly so did the rest of us.

Posted by christian at April 25, 2007 1:43 PM

comment #65

jeffmcm says ...

Monument, can you name more than one of those 'good' conservatives?

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 1:45 PM

comment #66

Monument says ...

So you can type out a snarky reply? Sounds like fun, we should do that all day.

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 1:50 PM

comment #67

jeffmcm says ...

It was a legitimate question.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 1:56 PM

comment #68

Monument says ...

Not really, it's based on your definition of good. Besides, you claim that conservatives want to live in a fascist theocracy, I think you should defend that. Name names, knock yourself out.

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 1:59 PM

comment #69

jeffmcm says ...

I was asking for _your_ definition of good.

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, John Ashcroft, James Inhore, George W. Bush.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 2:08 PM

comment #70

jeffmcm says ...

Sorry, Inhofe.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 2:08 PM

comment #71

JD says ...

Mike Binder's all over the GOP, even in 2004!

http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Mike_Binder.php

Posted by JD at April 25, 2007 2:09 PM

comment #72

Monument says ...

Wow, a real rogue's gallery of blowhards, are you sure you don't want to toss Hitler and Stalin on there for good measure? Well done.

When I think of conservatives and liberals, I think of actual people, not politicians. Here's a better game, give me the name of a politician that isn't completely full of shit.

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 2:15 PM

comment #73

jeffmcm says ...

What's your point re: Hitler and Stalin? Neither of them ever held elective office in this country (or had a national TV audience, as with Falwell or Robertson).

As for your new game...sure, a lot of them are idiots, but I try not to embrace such all-encompassing cynicism.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 2:17 PM

comment #74

Monument says ...

So when you say that all conservatives want a fascist theocracy, is that all encompassing cynicism or do you really believe that?

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 2:23 PM

comment #75

jeffmcm says ...

It's a generic blanket statement for rhetorical purposes.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 2:32 PM

comment #76

Monument says ...

It's bullshit, elitist garbage not to mention an indefensible subjective argument used to feed your own ego.

I know I said this before, but it the shoe still fits.

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 2:54 PM

comment #77

jeffmcm says ...

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you're wrong.

Remember, all of this started because DZ insisted that liberals were as bad or worse than conservatives, I was just countering his nonsense.

I would be happy to have a conversation, but since you seem to just want to repeat yourself, so be it.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 3:07 PM

comment #78

Larry says ...

Every time you think Wells is the biggest jerk in the world, he does something to prove he's even worse. I mean I know he has a very weak grasp on the world situation, but I never thought deep in his heart he was a McCarthyite.

First, who cares what Hollywood figure gives money to what politician? Second, there are serious arguments for and against the War in Iraq (something Wells is too shallow to recognize), but even if you think it was obviously wrong in 2004, the question was what to do next, not should we get into a time machine and change the last few years.

Third, someone in this ridiculously long thread said that Michael Moore was right about the Iraq War. Exuse me? Just about everything he claimed has been proved wrong.

Fourth, someone else has apparently heard Harry Reid's joke about Cheney's support being at 9%, and either believes it or decided repeating it would make the joke even better. (He probably believed it, since he also seems to believe the nonsense that the claims Bush made about Niger have been proved wrong.)

Posted by Larry at April 25, 2007 3:11 PM

comment #79

jeffmcm says ...

The Niger claims were proven wrong almost before Bush made them.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 3:14 PM

comment #80

Mike Binder says ...

Jd? Are you serious? All over the Republican party? Dylan Glen is a good friend of mine and I supported him above and beyond any party. I backed the man. Everything else you need to look closer pal. Love you though.

Live clean

Posted by Mike Binder at April 25, 2007 3:23 PM

comment #81

SpinDozer says ...

'I never thought deep in his heart he was a McCarthyite'

Especially considering you nutzies stamped that particular turf as your own as long ago as well, McCarthy.

'there are serious arguments for and against the War in Iraq '

Slight correction, there were serious arguments against the War in Iraq, there were only ridiculous lies supporting war in iraq.

'Michael Moore was right about the Iraq War. Exuse me? Just about everything he claimed has been proved wrong.'

You are not exused or excused. Your claim is wrong, Moore has not been proven wrong, Bushites have.

Posted by SpinDozer at April 25, 2007 3:40 PM

comment #82

Monument says ...

Seriously, can't we all just get together sometime and beat the shit out of each other for real? It would be more fun.

Conversations can't be had on the internet, at least not on talk back forums.

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 3:46 PM

comment #83

SpinDozer says ...

'Seriously, can't we all just get together sometime and beat the shit out of each other for real? It would be more fun.'

O we will

'Conversations can't be had on the internet, at least not on talk back forums.'

At least not when RW muttonheads insist upon blubbering on with their propaganda. If anyone wants to hear idiotic nonsense about Niger claims being true, we can tune into the Sean Hannity Twaddle Hour.

Posted by SpinDozer at April 25, 2007 3:54 PM

comment #84

JD says ...

I'm just messing with you, Mike B. 25% of your contributions are GOP, which is not "all over the GOP" by any means and if you look above, I defended Raimi with the whole "he's probably just supporting a friend" argument. My comment was really meant for Jeff, who I think should extend the same understanding to Raimi that he appears to be extending to you. Personally, I don't think anyone should be witch-hunted or dismissed on the strength of their political positions. That said, supporting George W. Bush is unique in that it has taken on pretty broad implications that reach far beyond conventional political ideology... so I kind of understand what Jeff's saying about Raimi (who is nonetheless a mad cinematic genius). In any case, no offense intended.

Posted by JD at April 25, 2007 4:08 PM

comment #85

christian says ...

more important, sam raimi is by all accounts a good guy.

Posted by christian at April 25, 2007 4:19 PM

comment #86

Monument says ...

Of course, because goodness and conservatism are mutually exclusive right?

Posted by Monument at April 25, 2007 4:31 PM

comment #87

count.olaf says ...

Zing!

Posted by count.olaf at April 25, 2007 4:42 PM

comment #88

christian says ...

within george bush and company, goodness is certainly excluded.

Posted by christian at April 25, 2007 4:51 PM

comment #89

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "Remember, all of this started because DZ insisted that liberals were as bad or worse than conservatives, I was just countering his nonsense."

Um, no. That wasn't really my point. I'm just saying that being a liberal doesn't automatically make you better than being a conservative. After all, Theodore Roosevelt was from an off-shoot of the Republican Party, and he believed in preserving nature. In fact, just about everything Bush is doing is straight out of the Soviet playbook: Iraq is our Afghanistan, and Katrina is our Chernobyl. But obviously, neither Bush nor the commies could be classified as "conservative".

Posted by D.Z. at April 25, 2007 5:45 PM

comment #90

jeffmcm says ...

DZ: "I'm guessing Raimi would support a guy like Bush, because people on the left would demand films like Evil Dead be banned."

Lest you forget the nonsense that started it all instead of rewriting history. And the Republican party of 1900 was very different from the Republican party now. Don't be obtuse.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 5:56 PM

comment #91

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "Lest you forget the nonsense that started it all instead of rewriting history."

It's not nonsense. People on the left who support war, the death penalty and extramarital affairs while complaining about sex and violence in the media are just as much hypocrites as people on the right who are against stem cell research while preaching a "culture of life". The Dems have managed to alienate their own base by trying to be more Republican than the Republicans, and are barely close to the same wavelength as the rest of the public on Iraq. The fact that people who would normally despise Bush voted for him twice shows how little they've had to offer for the last 10 years.

And yeah, the Republican party hasn't had any integrity since Ike, but at least Nixon and Reagan knew when to back down and when to negotiate. Even Shrub the First gave us the Kyoto Protocol Clinton tried to run around, rather than enforce, before Dubya ignored it altogether. That's why they can still technically be viewed as "conservative".

Posted by D.Z. at April 25, 2007 6:40 PM

comment #92

jeffmcm says ...

None of that changes the fact that, on balance, Democrats are, in my humble opinion, better than Republicans and much less likely to ban horror movies. Considering that the Democratic leadership in Congress is actively moving forward on curtailing the Iraq war, it shows how out of touch you are.

Have I mentioned that I can't stand you?

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 6:52 PM

comment #93

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "None of that changes the fact that, on balance, Democrats are, in my humble opinion, better than Republicans and much less likely to ban horror movies."

Yeah, they just want to ban movies with smoking and guns.

"Considering that the Democratic leadership in Congress is actively moving forward on curtailing the Iraq war, it shows how out of touch you are."

They're not demanding a full pull-out; so we're still going to be occupying the country come 2008.
Plus they have yet to impeach Bush and Cheney, and besides Kucinich, refuse to even discuss the matter.

Posted by D.Z. at April 25, 2007 7:26 PM

comment #94

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"To be honest, neither, which is why I voted Nader in 2000."

From now on, every time D.Z. and I get into it about politics, I'm going to point out that I voted for Gore in 2000, and HE helped elect Bush.

Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau at April 25, 2007 8:35 PM

comment #95

MovieBob says ...

Both parties are equally untrustworthy on the matter of censorship, because NEITHER party can accurately call itself "conservative" when it comes to expanding goverment power over the arts, the media, etc.

A REAL "conservative," i.e. one who believed in limited government and individual freedom being fundamentally more important than "society" or "the greater good," would HAVE to bristle at the very notion... but modern Republicans have to either support it or SEEM to support it in order to pander to their religious-nutbag "shock troops" for election time. At least "liberals" who are pro-censorship are being ideologically consistent - i.e. applying their "liberal" (read: broad and expansive) use of government power to the realm of media and the arts, 'regulating' the film, TV and music industry the same way they'd prefer to 'regulate' every other industry.

Thing of it is, we don't actually HAVE a "conservative" party in America right now. We've got TWO liberal parties who only really differ on ideological genesis: Christian-Socialist "Republicans" and Socialism-Lite "Democrats."

Sam Raimi is a great filmmaker and a stand-up guy. If he's a Republican, as far as I'm concerned, it simply makes him more interesting. He was partly responsible for the 80s splatter-horror revolution, he and his boys OPENLY courted a new-age/lesbian audience for a near-decade of "Xena".. if he's a Republican he's one of the GOOD ONES, and maybe a hopeful sign.

Posted by MovieBob at April 25, 2007 8:42 PM

comment #96

jeffmcm says ...

"Yeah, they just want to ban movies with smoking and guns."

You're an idiot if you think they want to ban movies (only the pandering ones do) and I would expect you to want to ban smoking and guns yourself.

Come on, be honest for once in your life: if anyone else on this blog had written "Raimi would support a guy like Bush, because people on the left would demand films like Evil Dead be banned" you would instantly write a knee-jerk post about all the things that Conservatives have tried to ban in the last hundred years. But since someone didn't post that, you argued the opposite point. Because you love to argue. Because it makes you feel like a big man.

"They're not demanding a full pull-out; so we're still going to be occupying the country come 2008.
Plus they have yet to impeach Bush and Cheney, and besides Kucinich, refuse to even discuss the matter."

These are both just lame. The mechanics of a military operation are such that even if we decided to pull out tomorrow, it would still take months for such a thing to happen; and that ignores our enormous responsibility to make sure that the country doesn't just collapse in on itself and implode, which I suspect you don't care about. Meanwhile, Bush and Cheney, though both horrible people, will not be impeached anytime soon, so get that pipe dream out of your head. Wake up and face the real world, where people actually have to work with their political opponents to get things done instead of sniping at each other from positions of safety, like on a blog. Fucking grow up, DZ. You're a loser.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 25, 2007 10:42 PM

comment #97

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "Come on, be honest for once in your life: if anyone else on this blog had written "Raimi would support a guy like Bush, because people on the left would demand films like Evil Dead be banned" you would instantly write a knee-jerk post about all the things that Conservatives have tried to ban in the last hundred years."

Nope. I honestly don't like how Dems have constantly tried to fuck with my entertainment over the last 20 years, just to score points with red-staters. At least when the fundies do it, they actually believe it.

"The mechanics of a military operation are such that even if we decided to pull out tomorrow, it would still take months for such a thing to happen; and that ignores our enormous responsibility to make sure that the country doesn't just collapse in on itself and implode, which I suspect you don't care about."

No, I really don't care. It's not my mess, and I didn't vote for our troops to die, in order to fix it. What kind of idiots are we to continue wasting resources on Iraq, when we can't even stop one of our own cities from being wiped out by a flood?
It sucks to be the Iraqis, but much like the fuck-up with India, Pakistan, and Kashmir, their country was an artificial contruct of the Brits, anyway. And the latter three are still at it 60 years later.

If Dubya knew geography, or the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, the region might have been saved, but, thanks to us, Turkey and Saudia Arabia are probably going to down with Iraq. You know what they say about good intentions, right?

"Meanwhile, Bush and Cheney, though both horrible people, will not be impeached anytime soon, so get that pipe dream out of your head."

I didn't even think their party would get kicked out last year, but if that can happen, anything's possible. Either way, I'm just glad the movement's finally getting noticed.

"Wake up and face the real world, where people actually have to work with their political opponents to get things done"

Um, no. Working with the Repugs is why the Dems lost for the last 6 years. (Eighteen if you count Reagan/Bush I.) They've only gotten about 5-10 of them onboard in both houses for withdrawal, and the assholes completely blocked a minimum wage increase. It's obvious the Dems have to play hard-ball to get anywhere, because the Repugs hate
anyone who isn't a rich white donor. (Or a rich minority apologist for racist and anti-poor policies, for that matter.)

Posted by D.Z. at April 25, 2007 11:57 PM

comment #98

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Well, you helped vote him in, not me.

Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau at April 26, 2007 5:30 AM

comment #99

Josh Massey says ...

"Thing of it is, we don't actually HAVE a "conservative" party in America right now. We've got TWO liberal parties..."

A-FREAKING-MEN.

Posted by Josh Massey at April 26, 2007 5:47 AM

comment #100

nemo says ...

"Thing of it is, we don't actually HAVE a "conservative" party in America right now. We've got TWO liberal parties..."

Just because George Bush and the Republicans are hypocrites who do a lousy job of representing conservative values does NOT make them liberals. Liberals are not failed conservatives. And moderates are not failed conservatives either.

Bush and the current GOP may be hypocritical failed conservatives, but they are still conservatives. But if you're a conservative, you still own Bush and the Republicans. They're your boys.

Posted by nemo at April 26, 2007 8:06 AM

comment #101

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

We have two pandering statist parties, what we don't have is a libertarian, government-minimalist party.

Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau at April 26, 2007 9:11 AM

comment #102

SpinDozer says ...

'We have two pandering statist parties, what we don't have is a libertarian, government-minimalist party.'

So long as you define statist as those who support the distribution of wealth back into industry, yes. You may have noticed that Bushco has destroyed, attemped to destroy, or is in the act of destroying every government agency it can. The Army, FEMA, EPA, Social Security, Medicaid, VA, and the school system have all been targeted as business opportunities for private contractors. A regular Libertarian paradise, free enterprise or death.

Moviebob's spectrometer is either upside down or he has one of those old Disraeli models. Absolute drivel to think we are 'near-Socialist'.

Posted by SpinDozer at April 26, 2007 9:32 AM

comment #103

christian says ...

the new republican meme to explain the failures of bush-cheney as they don't actually represent true conservatism is hilarious.

they've done everything the conservative philosophy demands with the inevitable
terrible results. all you repubs who voted bush should apologize or shut the fuck up.

Posted by christian at April 26, 2007 10:06 AM

comment #104

Monument says ...

I vote for shut the fuck up. The Democrats need to shut the fuck up, the Republicans need to shut the fuck up, the Christian Coalition needs to shut the fuck up, the NAACP needs to shut the fuck up. Al Sharpton needs to shut the fuck up. Jerry Falwell needs to shut the fuck up. Everybody needs to shut the fuck up.

And on the heels of 100 and some posts on politics, everyone here should shut the fuck up and do something else. No one is impressed. Hey Every one of us has Google and an online thesaurus, so we can all pretend to be certified political geniuses. None of us are and no one really cares what anyone else thinks, fuck off.

I always wanted to be involved in one of these 100+ post online wank-offs but now I'm going to take my own advice and shut the fuck up too.

Posted by Monument at April 26, 2007 10:18 AM

comment #105

Monument says ...

I always wanted to be involved in one of these 100+ post online wank-offs but now I'm going to take my own advice and shut the fuck up too.

Posted by Monument at April 26, 2007 10:19 AM

comment #106

Monument says ...

twice

Posted by Monument at April 26, 2007 10:19 AM

comment #107

MovieBob says ...

nemo:
"Just because George Bush and the Republicans are hypocrites who do a lousy job of representing conservative values does NOT make them liberals. Liberals are not failed conservatives. And moderates are not failed conservatives either."

He's not a 'failed' conservative. You can't fail at something you've never been in the first place. Dubya has increased the size of government, increased the reach of government into the private lives of citizens and has spent more money doing so than LBJ. The only substantive difference between the Bushies right now and the Great Society guys decades ago is in what direction the money and power is allocated. Bush may hold to what are today erroneously called 'conservative' philosophical beliefs (they are, in fact, merely RELIGIOUS beliefs) but his method of implementation teeter constantly on the brink of socialism.

(Guiliani and McCain, btw, are ALSO liberal "Republicans," but ones who mostly lack the religious-nutball 'twist' that makes Dubya so doubly irritating.)

Posted by MovieBob at April 26, 2007 10:34 AM

comment #108

SpinDozer says ...

The committee would like to Thank comrade Monument, it is due to his vigilance that we were alerted to excessive Google and thesaurus use by party or parties unknown.

Yours in Truthiness,
The Grand Council of Independent Citizens' Alliance Against Information and Other Unauthorized Thought (buy or die subcmomittee - Ralph Lunch chair)

Posted by SpinDozer at April 26, 2007 10:56 AM

comment #109

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Well, you helped vote him in, not me."

Gore and Joe helped vote Bush in, not Nader. Not to mention any of the Dems who looked the other way at black voters having their rights violated by Jeb.

Posted by D.Z. at April 26, 2007 11:08 AM

comment #110

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Sure, D.Z., sure.

Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau at April 26, 2007 11:41 AM

comment #111

D.Z. says ...

It's not like Gore would have had a mandate, had he won. I mean he should have had a huge majority, based on his record, and his party's record, but he chose to play it safe, and lost. Do I feel responsible for a party which is only taking the initiative after half a million people are dead, and most of New Orleans is living in park trailers? No, I don't. They waited and allowed it to happen, and they're as complicit as the Republiscum who rubber-stamped Bush's policies.

Posted by D.Z. at April 26, 2007 12:03 PM

comment #112

nemo says ...

"The only substantive difference between the Bushies right now and the Great Society guys decades ago is in what direction the money and power is allocated."

That little substantive difference makes all the difference in the world. It's the reason Bush and company (including the Republicans in Congress who have helped him out) are NOT liberals and are NOT socialists.

They may be lousy conservatives, but they are conservatives. The direction in which they allocate money and power is what makes them right wing.

The right wing in Europe has always been more statist and less small government than the American right wing. Maybe the current crop of Republicans are just getting back to their historical European roots. Or maybe they're just double-talking hypocrites. But they're still right wing. Being hypocrites does not make them left wing, liberals, or socialists in any way.

Posted by nemo at April 26, 2007 1:11 PM

comment #113

nemo says ...

"... Dubya has increased the size of government, increased the reach of government into the private lives of citizens and has spent more money doing so than LBJ. The only substantive difference between the Bushies right now and the Great Society guys decades ago is in what direction the money and power is allocated. Bush may hold to what are today erroneously called 'conservative' philosophical beliefs (they are, in fact, merely RELIGIOUS beliefs) but his method of implementation teeter constantly on the brink of socialism."

By the way, you're right about every point you make here, except for the last part about socialism. If anything, Bush's implementation teeters constantly on the brink of the dreaded F word, fascism. That is the philosophical source of Bush's statism, not socialism.

But of course, if you actually point this out by correctly using the F word, you don't qualify as a Serious Person. A Serious Person in American political debate never uses the F word, even when it obviously applies.

Posted by nemo at April 26, 2007 1:23 PM

comment #114

jeffmcm says ...

"No, I really don't care. It's not my mess, and I didn't vote for our troops to die"

If you're an American citizen, the war in Iraq is your mess. If you wanted to be completely blameless, you should have moved to Canada.

"thanks to us, Turkey and Saudia Arabia are probably going to down with Iraq. You know what they say about good intentions, right?"

This is unacceptable and the height of smug irresponsibility. To say that it's okay for a NATO member and the largest oil producer in the world to be enveloped in religious sectarian wars shows that you have absolutely no clue about world events, no interest in other peoples' health or well-being. You are subhuman.

DZ, I'm embarrassed that you consider yourself a member of my half of the political spectrum. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 26, 2007 1:54 PM

comment #115

Monument says ...

What happened to shut the fuck up?

Posted by Monument at April 26, 2007 2:05 PM

comment #116

SpinDozer says ...

'Dubya has increased the size of government'

'By the way, you're right about every point you make here'

I think the 1st statement is misleading, Bushco has increased the size of Government expenditures fer shure...not too sure about bodies - the breathing kind -(esp if Homeland Security excluded), but I think the services that ordinary people look to Government to provide (or just do without) has decreased.

Posted by SpinDozer at April 26, 2007 2:26 PM

comment #117

christian says ...

and now we get the spectacle of george tenent further laying waste to this criminal administration by accusing them of using his sound bite throwaway as the rationale for war.

so you right wingers -- YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP.

and thanks for bush! love him! he's yours!

Posted by christian at April 26, 2007 2:38 PM

comment #118

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"Do I feel responsible for a party which is only taking the initiative after half a million people are dead"

Assuming you're referring to Iraqis, the actual figures for the entire period of Saddam's regime (before Bush took the initiative to end it) are more like 2.2 million (assuming you don't only give him half credit for the Iran-Iraq War. Feel free to feel responsibility for that.

Oh, and what party was it that ruled New Orleans for most of the last century, making it so vulnerable to a single disaster of the sort other parts of the country have withstood and recovered from quickly?

Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau at April 26, 2007 3:16 PM

comment #119

christian says ...

the army corps of engineers did a terrible job of building the levees, even building them inches below standards.

republicans don't like to pay for things unless they kill people...

Posted by christian at April 26, 2007 3:22 PM

comment #120

jeffmcm says ...

Mgmax: A hurricane followed by flooding of the type that occurred in New Orleans has never happened in this country before, hence no other part of the country had ever 'withstood and recovered from quickly'. Alongside a San Francisco earthquake and a major terrorist attack in NYC, it was considered to be the third worst possible disaster that could happen in the country.

Also, if our country was so concerned about those 2.2 million Iraqis, we wouldn't have supported Saddam's government in the 1980s against the Iranians and we would have eliminated him in 1991, but we didn't.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 26, 2007 3:36 PM

comment #121

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "If you're an American citizen, the war in Iraq is your mess."

No, it isn't my mess. I didn't vote for that nazi, and the only good thing about me not having a steady job is I didn't make enough money to be taxed into funding his illegal war. I also don't drive a gas-guzzling SUV and I don't work for corporations which build and sell bombs on the side. Maybe you're content to be a "little Eichmann", but not me.

"To say that it's okay for a NATO member and the largest oil producer in the world to be enveloped in religious sectarian wars shows that you have absolutely no clue about world events, no interest in other peoples' health or well-being."

Why should I feel sorry for the Sauds, when their buddy Osama attacked one of my cities, and the higher money I have to shell out for gas at the pumps pays for public beheadings? The Turks might be more civilized, but until they acknowledge the Armenian genocide, I sure as fuck am glad they're not being allowed entry into the EU.

Posted by D.Z. at April 26, 2007 4:07 PM

comment #122

jeffmcm says ...

Yes, it is your mess, if you consider yourself an American citizen. If gas goes up to $20/gallon in a couple of years because the region is in chaos, are you going to go to a gas station and say, 'please charge me less, I voted for Nader'? What kind of adult-sized infant are you?

Posted by jeffmcm at April 26, 2007 4:11 PM

comment #123

D.Z. says ...

"Yes, it is your mess, if you consider yourself an American citizen."

I don't see what being a citizen has anything to do with it. I wasn't the one who started the war or even endorsed the war. Let Bush and his apologists pay for it with the billions they've ripped off from the Iraqis in oil-not me.

'If gas goes up to $20/gallon in a couple of years because the region is in chaos, are you going to go to a gas station and say, 'please charge me less, I voted for Nader'?"'

I'd rather pay $20/gas than for 20,000 dead Iraqi civilians a month, because the latter method is the only way we can "stabilize" the region at the present time.

Posted by D.Z. at April 26, 2007 5:12 PM

comment #124

jeffmcm says ...

Both of your statements duck the question. If you live in this country, if you consider yourself a responsible American, then it is impermissible to stick your head in the sand and say 'it's not my problem' with these issues. Every American is responsible for the actions of their government because we live in a democracy.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 26, 2007 5:18 PM

comment #125

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "If you live in this country, if you consider yourself a responsible American, then it is impermissible to stick your head in the sand and say 'it's not my problem' with these issues."

I believe being responsible means to discontinue exacerbating tensions in Iraq which lead to more 9/11s. Being irresponsible is doing the same thing, and expecting a different result.

"Every American is responsible for the actions of their government because we live in a democracy."

Perhaps, but Bush wasn't democratically elected.

Posted by D.Z. at April 26, 2007 5:39 PM

comment #126

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, you said you don't care if Saudi Arabia and Turkey fall into sectarian warfare. That's irresponsible, and you said it. You can't take it back. You said it, and you tried to change the subject. Unless you didn't mean it when you said it, because you love to argue, in which case you are a liar.

So take your pick: irresponsible and smug, or a liar who loves the sound of his own voice arguing. One or the other (or both!)

Posted by jeffmcm at April 26, 2007 5:52 PM

comment #127

D.Z. says ...

"DZ, you said you don't care if Saudi Arabia and Turkey fall into sectarian warfare. That's irresponsible, and you said it."

They're artificial countries, anyway. Why should I care? Being irresponsible is allowing them to continue to oppressing minority groups for the sake of lower gas prices at the pump.

Posted by D.Z. at April 26, 2007 6:11 PM

comment #128

jeffmcm says ...

For every serious question, you have a frivolous, 'I took high school history' dodge. Since you're not serious in either of those responses, and since you would most certainly suffer and whine during the global economic depression that would result from a full-scale religious war in the Middle East, I'll let you stew in your own juices.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 26, 2007 6:29 PM

comment #129

SpinDozer says ...

I believe OBL's POV is that if you pay US taxes, you are a legitimate target.

I believe that the so-called good book sez if there are even 10 upright men in Sodom or Gonorrhea that the city can be redeemed.

So chuse your Tool gentlemen.

Posted by SpinDozer at April 26, 2007 6:47 PM

comment #130

D.Z. says ...

jeff: Newsflash: The U.S. economy's already a mess.
The only thing keeping it afloat is a stock market fueled by greedy housing and weapons contractors price-gouging the working class and poor out of their own communities.

Posted by D.Z. at April 26, 2007 7:05 PM

comment #131

jeffmcm says ...

DZ: You have no clue. Sure there are problems but most nations in the world are still envious of our economy.

Grow up.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 27, 2007 1:49 AM

comment #132

D.Z. says ...

jeff: What the fuck are you talking about? Our economy is currently indebted to most nations in the world.

Posted by D.Z. at April 27, 2007 2:50 AM

comment #133

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"jeff: Newsflash: The U.S. economy's already a mess.
The only thing keeping it afloat is a stock market fueled by greedy housing and weapons contractors price-gouging the working class and poor out of their own communities."

Yeah, I could tell by all the people buying plasma TVs at Costco yesterday.

D.Z., not to sound like your grandpa but I grew up in a recession, I grew up in inflation and stagflation, and you have NO idea what a real economic downturn looks like.

Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau at April 27, 2007 7:08 AM

comment #134

Monument says ...

There's an even better whiny bitch-fest over at the Huffington post, go check it out.

Posted by Monument at April 27, 2007 9:08 AM

comment #135

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Yeah, I could tell by all the people buying plasma TVs at Costco yesterday."

Try asking those same people how many of them have insurance or a decent-paying job.

"D.Z., not to sound like your grandpa but I grew up in a recession, I grew up in inflation and stagflation, and you have NO idea what a real economic downturn looks like."

Sure I do, since I had to deal with Bush I's last recession, too.

Posted by D.Z. at April 27, 2007 10:26 AM

comment #136

Monument says ...

Right, that recession back in the late eighties. Unless I'm horribly mistaken you were about 11 back then, so I'm not sure that you had to "deal" with anything. Your parents maybe, but not you.

I don't really care, I just like calling bullshit when I see it.

Posted by Monument at April 27, 2007 12:21 PM

comment #137