deserves some crap shoveled there way as well. I've been boring my friends to tears at parties explaining that it's just plain impossible to have housing prices rising at double-digit rates every year for a long period of time when incomes were stagnant or barely rising. There's only so much current and future income that households can plow into housing! It doesn't take a genius to realize that if everyone is spending 10% more a year on housing, but no one is making any more income, we have a situation that can only last for 3 or 4 years. Especially with housing already being a huge portion of people's consumption.

With everyone buying and selling property back and forth to each other at massive increases in "value," it was only a matter of time until the music stopped and people were left without a chair. It's just like the predictions a decade ago about dot com firms growing at 20% a year forever... sorry guys, economics just doesn't work like that.

All very reminiscent of a Modest Mouse song, Bankrupt on Selling

So all of the businessers in their unlimited hell

Where they buy and they sell and they sell all their trash

To each other, but they're sick of it all

And they're bankrupt on selling

According to their Laffer curve, this tax cut should spur enough growth to increase government tax revenues by approximately $500 billion trillion dollars a week.

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/december1990.pdf

Check the end bit. If we take him at his word that he had nothing to do with this stuff, maybe he should have checked what crazy stuff his ghostwriters were writing...

"I have to take issue with the people who continue to say that Ferraro is a racist, but then turn around and say that Hillary wouldn't be where she is if she had been married to Bill. That is pure sexism."

I always took it as a nepotism slam, more than a sexist thing, though I can see how some might consider it having sexist overtones. But I'd be suprised if it was "pure sexism". For me, it about equivalent to saying George W. Bush wouldn't be where he is if he hadn't been the son of George H.W. Bush (which is 110% correct - born on third base and thought he hit a triple).

Or this would have gotten REALLY confusing. Think of the handwringing over "who has it tougher" if it was between a straight white female, a gay white male and a straight black male. Republicans have it easy by comparison: just keep nominating white dudes afraid of change

Where have I heard these sort of "piss on my back and tell me it's raining" lines before... somewhere in the last 7 years I think... hmmm.

I'm not sure I want another 4 years of people telling me that it's just yellow rain.

Ask this question 2 years ago and the answer would likely be completely different. To even try to use this to say something about "attitudes" in this context is just plain silly.

If any of you actually think this is meaningful, run the thought experiment: If it was Nancy Pelosi vs. Al Sharpton as the two main contenders in the Democratic primary and the same question was asked, would the results be the same?

does his defense make sense?

"He dismissed criticism that it had focused too heavily on "gotcha" questions, arguing that they had gone to the heart of the "electability" that, he said, is forefront in the minds of voters evaluating the two Dems."

Really? Flag pins and 60's radicals determine electability? Only in Washington-land I guess. I'd say the jackass is 0 for 2.

It's silly to cherry-pick single episodes and claim it "proves" that Parker and Stone are carrying water for rightwing talk radio. If you're offended by the Al Gore episode, how do you suppose Republicans felt about the Terry Schiavo episode where Satan is about to attack Heaven and needs to keep Kenny (Schiavo) alive, and Satan's advisor says "We'll do what we always do... use the Republicans." He then proceeds to whispher inanities into the Republican politicians ear.

Having seen nearly every episode, I can appreciate their willingness to take a shot at both sides of the aisle, and I can also see how that might be taken as advocating 'libertarianism'. But I don't require my humor to precisely match my ideological beliefs, and I laugh just as hard as when it's my "side" that's being "gored." Is it libertaniasm to note that even if global warming is a real problem, some of the people hollering most vociferously about it are sanctimonious jackasses? (though I don't personally include Al Gore in that category - I love the guy. Still, Excelsior!)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#PA

with 99% reporting. Clinton just needs 10 more Pennsylvanias and she can wrap this one up...

"In this new world order, energy will govern our lives in new ways and on a daily basis. It will determine when, and for what purposes, we use our cars; how high (or low) we turn our thermostats; when, where or even if we travel; increasingly, what foods we eat (given that the price of producing and distributing many meats and vegetables is profoundly affected by the cost of oil or the allure of growing corn for ethanol); for some of us, where to live; for others, what businesses we engage in; for all of us, when and under what circumstances we go to war or avoid foreign entanglements that could end in war."

Maybe this author makes a lot of money, but I'd guess for a pretty big chunk of people, the price of transportation, heating, and food does govern many of the decisions we make. If his point is that we'll think about energy costs even more when prices go up... uh duh?