McDonalds more credible than Bush

[The diplomat]

Re: McDonalds more credible than Bush

The only idea that has ever stood up to kings, tyrants and mullahs in the Middle East is the promise of economic justice, brought about through nationalist and socialist policies of agrarian reform and state control over oil. But there is no room for such ideas in the Bush narrative, in which free people are only free to choose so-called free trade. That leaves democrats with little to offer, but empty talk of "human rights" - a weedy weapon against the powerful swords of ethnic glory and eternal salvation.or whatever it's called.

This paragraph kinda puzzles me. She is saying that the way to bring down the dictatorships in the middle east is to promise them socialist state run economic policies? How exactly does that work? Where is her evidence?

[Ted Striker]

When we have such silly catch phrases such as "the Axis of Evil," and "Outposts of Tyranny," there is no doubt the brand will suffer.

Whatever marketing intern came up with those slogans should be fired. It sounds like a bad comic book fan fiction parody.

I'm lovin' it!

[Drake Tungsten]

Kinda like the "Evil Empire", eh Ted?

[Ted Striker]

Not even close.

Nice try though.

"Mission Accomplished!"

[Drake Tungsten]

It's amazing that you can still worship Reagan while hating Bush. How do you deal with such cognitive dissonance?

[Ted Striker]

It's amazing that you can try the same tactic repeatedly and fail.

They aren't even close to being the same guy.

Thanks

[Drake Tungsten]

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I stopped reading when she portrayed Tom Friedman as Bush's stooge...

That's where I stopped too. I don't particularly like Tom Friedman but than again I also dislike the Guardian for it's obvious bias. I'll read it when they're not publishing something blatantly off the deep end but I can't say I trust anything it says until a "real" newspaper backs up their take.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The sad thing is that Friedman is light years more intelligent than the rest of the New York Times columnists.

Krugman has more smarts in his pinky than Apolyton's entire right wing combined.

As for the OP, I didn't read it. I won't read the Guardian. Sadly, I must agree with Fez on this one. I dismiss sources with blatant bias no matter what side of the political spectrum.

[Berzerker]

And there is a similar irony to Bush urging the people of the Middle East to remove "the mask of fear" because "fear is the foundation of every dictatorial regime", when that fear is the direct result of US decisions to install and arm the regimes that have systematically terrorised for decades.

Thats illogical, George Bush hasn't been president for the last 50 years while the US was playing along with dictators during the cold war. Is there irony in the fact people disagree? Bush may be just another dictator loving a$$-kisser but you can't blame him for the actions of past politicians who were caught up in an ideological battle.

Oh yeah, Saddam was about as close to a socialist as we'll find in the Muslim ME so the author citing socialist reforms as the bulwark against dictators is

[Sava]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Thats illogical, George Bush hasn't been president for the last 50 years while the US was playing along with dictators during the cold war. Is there irony in the fact people disagree? Bush may be just another dictator loving a$$-kisser but you can't blame him for the actions of past politicians who were caught up in an ideological battle.

but we can hold him responsible for holding said politicians in high esteem... I am of course assuming that Bush thinks Reagan was a great guy.

[Dinner]

Aggie, even you can do better then quoting Mrs. Klein.

The economist, unlike the Guardian, actually is an objective news source which clearly seporates editorial content from factual reporting. HERE is what The Economist had to say about Mrs. Klein.

BTW if you need to be able to log in so you can read the article then go to bugmenot.com to get a free spam free login.

[Berzerker]

but we can hold him responsible for holding said politicians in high esteem... I am of course assuming that Bush thinks Reagan was a great guy.

Sure, lots of people think the world of FDR but some of the things he did were despicable. And I have little doubt that if Bush was in Reagan's place he would have embraced certain dictators in pursuance of the cold war, but my assumptions are not fact. So why is there irony in how Bush operates and how past presidents operated?

If the American people are gonna raise bloody hell about removing Saddam, how would a president get away with removing all the other dictators in the ME?
So, if you cant remove them, you gotta work with them in some way. Arming thugs crosses the line and this was done in the past because of economic and cold war considerations, but the author is indicting Bush for the sins of the past and thats just illogical, not ironical...

[Drake Tungsten]

Krugman has more smarts in his pinky than (insert any name here).

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by molly bloom



You'll dismiss it as quickly as you provide cogent support or evidence for your arguments.





In which case, I'll get the bulk food and drink supplies in, we'll be in for a looonnnggggg wait.


Last person who waited for Fez to produce a coherent argument supported with facts:

Who are you kidding? Nobody ever makes coherent arguments supported with facts. And if someone did, it certainly wouldn't be Gia.