Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

If you look at the cover of the "Blind into Baghdad" issue of the Atlantic, you can practically read the minds of the people pictured.

Bush looks befuddled, brows knit, trying to make sense of the document in his hands.

Powell looks like an avuncular, patient scoutmaster, standing by Bush's right.

Condi stands at Bush's left, looking impatient and a little testy, waiting for George to get his mind around the issue.

Rumsfeld is in the foreground, looking really pissed, like he's gritting his teeth at having to suffer a fool gladly.

Whitman's frankness! In your earlier oped you noted she never had a chance and stayed too long. That she actually spoke her mind in this meeting gives me new respect for Ms. Whitman. And yes, you are right. She did stay too long.

Here is a cite:
http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/thebushfiles/archives/000052.html
Gotta love Amazon!

Amazing how Whitman, of all people, turned out to be the defender of the Kyoto protocol in the Bush administration. Consider that when she was appointed how everyone moaned and rended their garments of how awful her record on the enviornment had been. She turned out to be the lefty that left on principle. Whoda thunk it.

So true, so true.

There was nothing in the public record prior to his election that suggested he was anything different from what he turned out to be. The problem is not so much him, it's us -- or to quote from the old Pogo, 'We have met the enemy, and he is us.' Is democracy possible?

"Is democracy possible?"

Yes if you believe in the drunken bicyclist theory of elected leaders which states that democracies are not inherently better at picking qualified leaders than oligarchic systems, they're just quicker to replace them with someone who will yank the handlebar around so that the bike veers over to the other side. And if you ever rode a bicycle drunk you know that this makes all the difference.

Yeah but Bush is like a reborn christian and found Jesus or something. Plus, he doesn't like it when gay people marry.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but after 9-11, I spent a lot of time arguing on behalf of us going into Afghanistan and I thought that with the WMD that were supposed to be in Saddam"s hands, there was a case to go into Iraq. (I add that you do not need to now convince me that when future generations look up the word "feckless", the entry will say Dubya's administration) I feel compelled to note this because a common trope on a number of comment boards is 'Hey, everyone knew what Bush was like, so why are you surprised?' Hindsight is 20/20, but, again speaking for myself, we were hoping and praying for a Lincoln, which is why any number of people saying 'I told you so.' doesn't really advance the discussion very much. I realize that it may satisfy the soul to know that one knew before everyone else but I find it a bit tedious. Or perhaps I just feel guilty that I was suckered.

Damn, I was hoping a troll would have posted. So the question before us is: can Bush be re-elected with the troll vote and nothing else?

Maybe. I think.

Referring to over to CCLXXV others of Brad's posts, Bush got a lot mroe respect than he ever deserved because the media were behind him, and his big donors still are behind him. This was often translated to mean that he was a "popular president" even though it was already clear that he wasn't very popular any more. But the assumption was that the media plus the donors would translate to votes, making him "in effect" a popular president. Revealed preferences and shit.

I am increasingly convinced that Bush's media support comes primarily from a few people at the top (owners, publishers: Jack Welch, Rupert Murdoch, The Rev. Moon, Roger Ailes, and half a dozen others).

Damn, I was hoping a troll would have posted. So the question before us is: can Bush be re-elected with the troll vote and nothing else?

Maybe. I think.

Referring to over to CCLXXV others of Brad's posts, Bush got a lot mroe respect than he ever deserved because the media were behind him, and his big donors still are behind him. This was often translated to mean that he was a "popular president" even though it was already clear that he wasn't very popular any more. But the assumption was that the media plus the donors would translate to votes, making him "in effect" a popular president. Revealed preferences and shit.

I am increasingly convinced that Bush's media support comes primarily from a few people at the top (owners, publishers: Jack Welch, Rupert Murdoch, The Rev. Moon, Roger Ailes, and half a dozen others).

The word circled the globe in moments today.
"Bush is going to make gay unconstitutional!"

Thereby making Bush not only the first Prez
since Hoover to lose millions of jobs and
trillions in treasure during his reign, and
the first Prez to make Mad Magazine into
political art, but the first Prez *ever* to
make our US Constitution into a personal whipping post, for all of us.

Absent the abortive Prohibition Law, the
Constitution has been used to free slaves,
give women the right to vote, emancipate
people from their chains, not to bury them.

In that spirit then, here are some of the
suggestions I've received from friends all
around the world, taken in the left spirit.

++Anti-Gay Mental Disability Amendment
The law is very clear about acceptable
thoughts and behaviors. Anyone showing
unstable mental disabilities, and who
declines to work or applies for welfare,
(without some visible physical defect,
like a horse kicked them in the head,
or their OBY failed to attend to the
delivery and they were born with MS,
or they drank too much Pepsi and their
body shut down with chronic diabetes)
will be declared in violation of the
AGMD amendment, chemically lobotomized,
and forced to either join the Army or
do community service indefinitely.
You think you're special, maggot!?

++Anti-Gay Personal Thoughts Amendment
(rider on Anti-Gay Mental Disability Amendment)
Anyone expressing personal thoughts that
are outside of the legitimate legislative,
executive and judicial branches of the
Federal government, (who is not found to
be mentally disabled under the AGMD test),
anyone who has an original thought, or
bucks the trends, or protests the True
Crusade of liberty and freedom, as stated
by legitimately elected Federal leaders
and Chairman Bush, will be found guilty
under AGPT amendment of having illegal
thoughts and feelings, and be sent to
a correction center where they will be
chemically castrated and forced to watch
the Brady Bunch, every episode, along
with Jimmy Swaggart gospel hour, until
they profess our Great Leader is a God.
Don't think, be a stupid.

++Anti-Gay Performing Arts Amendment
Everyone knows the only good art today
is found in the media. The media tells
us what to buy, who is beautiful, where
to take our vacations, who to vote for.
Clearly, public art occurs outside of
the legitimate media, outside of the
normal civil decency controls that the
media self-censors with. Then, the AGPA
amendment will make it illegal to tag
an empty wall with graffiti, to scribble
on the margins of your school notebook,
to write an upsetting online blog piece,
to play a single note of non-pop music,
to build, fabricate or create anything
outside the bounds of normal decency,
as defined by the media and the church.
Anyone engaging in public art will be
shackled with a locating device, forced
to listen to Kingston Trio tapes and
made to work at a half-way house in a
bright mauve jumpsuit until they recant.
Cut your hair and get a job, you hippie!

++Anti-Gay Sexual Behavior Amendment
(rider on Anti-Gay Performing Arts Amendment)
The bounds of decent behavior are set
forth on stone in the Bible. All forms
of sexual deviance, perversion or just
plain fun are a threat to the Democracy
and the orderly rule of Law. All persons
engaging in non-heterosexual behavior
with more than one person outside of
the legal sanctity of marriage, or any
married heterosexual persons engaging
in deviant or perverted behavior other
than the missionary crusader position,
will be publicly flogged in the media,
chemically castrated, and forced to
watch Gilligan's Island until they
think Marianne is hotter than Sable.

======================

Seriously, Bush screwed the pooch on
this one, a sign of just how desparate
the gay is to consolidate the right on
something besides his (losing) war or
his (failing) economy or his (bankrupt)
Federal deficit.

There are, by conservative estimate, at
least 7,500,000 gay Americans who are
interested in a gay marriage someday,
and probably 75,000,000 Americans who
are gay, bisexual, or know someone who
would be happier off gaily married,
or bisexual, and supports that wish.

You don't thumb your nose at 75,000,000
potential voters unless you're pretty
sure you control the right, which is
in control of the electoral process.
And you have to know your numbers are
good in California, which you bought
and paid for, in Texas, which you had
redistricted so there's only GOP's,
in NY which you bailed out in their
eleventh hour, and of course, Florida.

I would argue even then, even with the
electoral college in your pocket, you'd
have to be pretty sure the electronic
voting machine mafia is going to come
through for you in the non-tally, since
there are no paper trails. What they
say, like the Media Medusa, goes.

And if you're not a fan of conspiracy,
consider this. If Bush does take these
grossly disgusting political positions,
pre-emptive war, massive deficits, all
non-Church School kids left behind, fill
all the prisons with non-whites, be sure
to make gay marriage illegal, and then
by hook or crook he *wins*, well then
all his positions become legitimized!

Imagine. Dewop, dewop. Stuck in the 50's,
all over again. Except today Fonzi has a
comb-over, and Donnie can't find anything
between his legs, and Ronnie is senile.

Where's Lenny now that we need him, Hef?

Will somebody please fit the president for a red nose and bicycle horn.

I don't feel sorry for Whitman. Where has she been? There's nothing stopping her from coming out. A few editorials, a speaking tour, a book, etc., to further out the president. Does she think that criticizing the clown is aiding the enemy? How can it be that protecting the president is more important to her than climate change? She must have accepted the payoff to shutup.

We need the clown president on TV as often as possible between now and the election. I can hardly wait to see what the terms of the one presidential debate are going to be.

I just thought I'd put a little comment here for no reason apart from giving Brad the fascist pleasure of deleting it.

Oh. And to help people understand that the comments you read here represent a deliberately distorted sample of the opinions of Brad's readers.

It's despicable, really.

Average voters don't see Bush as this dump prez

They seem to see him as this muscular war prez
who is protecting us from terrorists. Our prez
consistently gets high marks for fighting
the bad guys and thus the talk of him being
dumb or incompetent does not have legs.

Economic numbers are too difficult to understand.
Democrats have not come up with a clear answer
for repealing the tax cuts. Buhs's favorite
line is that Democrats will raise taxes. Unless
Kerry or Edwards can clearly explain it in easy
to understand concept, average will lose interest.

The taxes part is really easy to explain. Mr. Bush has not cut taxes. He has merely deferred them. Because of the increased spending, taxes will have to be increased in the future to pay the piper. Mr Bush has increased taxes in the future. The only true way to cut taxes is to cut spending.

> nobody ... believes that George W. Bush is qualified to be the President

But do the voters and the GOP care? There are some awfully clueless people around. Cheney has had his hand in Bush's back since the 2000 campaign. I think the GOP considers Cheney to be the real prez. And Cheney and the GOP tell their constituents what to think and say via Faux News and Limbaugh (or used to). I think there is a lot of time left for the GOP to pull this out. Reagan was probably less capable than Dubya and got a second term. Granted, Kerry will probably do better than Mondale.

>Reagan was probably less capable than Dubya and >got a second term.

But at least Reagan sounded great when reading off of a script. Even conservatives can't stand listening to dubya.

As far as 'less capable', I am not sure, because Reagan at least had some people without demented views of the world as his trusted advisors. Based upon this book, the same clearly cannot be said of Bush the dumber.

Besides the incoherent 'person' who weighed in with no apparent argument other than pat ad hominems, where are the passionate conservatarian voices chiming in on this thread? I know Patrick Sullivan is out there, but why has he remained silent? Where is Jim Glass when the president needs him?

> Reagan at least had some people
i dunno.
Stockman quit after the first term.
2nd term, Raygun had, Nancy? Joan Quigley?
Don't forget that a lot of people think Dubya's got GOD for chrissake although the Coalition is getting restless.

I'll play the troll. Who votes Republican - married white and educated. Who votes Dem. - uneducated, minority, and leftist profs. MMM. It is amusing to read the insecure types say if you don't agree with me you're stupid.

Many feel Kyoto is bad for American interests including 95 Senators. I wonder how Kerry voted on that.

Reagan was stupid too. Carter was smart as a whip except for when he actually made decisions. He built an oil burning carrier. He couldn't handle the economy. He sat on his hands as Iran made a fool of the USA. He was a pathetic Commander in Chief. Damn he was smart though. Clinton sat on his hands as the Trade Towers were attacked, Cole was attacked, two embassies were destroyed and Somalia provided a war cry for Bin Ladin. Damn he was smart though.

If your not a socialist and you actually believe in liberty, free markets and a strong military then you vote Republican. It also means you're most likely a mature educated and family values type of person.

Meanwhile Kerry and Edwards pander to the chronically uneducated who believe in robbing hood economics. Scare seniors and minorities on SS all while black men have a life expectancy of about 65. Dems want more money for education as real $ spending climbs and test scores have been a flat line for the past 30 years. Sad we can't have a real discussion here. Blacks would be stupid to vote Republican its worked so well for them the past 40 years.

Dem populism is really hard to take, but you guys lap it up. I realize different goals require different strategies, but isn't it just a little uncomfortable listening to Kerry call for tax increases on the 200K+ crowd as the way to fix the economy or hand over national security to the UN as a way to defeat terrorism. Really, I'd rather have Jimmy Carter back. Well, I'd at least have to think about it.

ad hominem (n.) L. "to the man"

Maybe we need a little incoherence, and a whole lot less Brobdinagian Queen's hair-splitting of apriori logic, in vitro statistical macrocosms, and quibbling over whether Powell stayed way too long, or whether Whitman really came out, you can almost hear the Access Hollywood theme song.

The only thing that matters is to defeat Bush,
the only thing that matters is to save America,
not some limp soto voce vox populi insinGlass.

"My principal Design was to Inform, and not to amuse Thee." J. Swift, The Travels (IV:12)

There was nothing incoherent about that.

You need to understand that "conservatives" are unlikely to contribute anything substantive here because they get their comments deleted.

My clue to stop reading when reading an argument is seeing someone calling someone a 'socialist'.

Little projections of fear.

D

C'mon, Person!

Tell us what you think. I haven't seen Brad delete any substantive arguments, so I only have your word for it. How about actually making a substantive post so we can see THE MAD DELETER in action?

I'd like to see your "substantive," now that conservatism has become a fraud.

Sorry Dano, I meant "of egalitarian orientation" or maybe I should have said "demand boosters". You still want to take from the rich and give to the poor right. So noble and enlightened. When will America learn? We need job training programs, unlimited pain and suffering awards, Rx $ controls, single payer healthcare, Kyoto, .00000001 arsenic levels, gov't run pre-school and finally national defense outsourcing to the UN.

Dano, I should not have implied Dems favor heavy handed gov't engineering social outcomes from limited knowledge but with unlimited intelligence.

This election is a referendum on one very basic issue. If you believe that (what is left of) western civilization is worth defending then vote for Bush. If you don't, then vote for the Dhmmicrat.

The alliance of the American left with Islamist terrorism is bizarre, but there it is.

Brian, yes the Dems are good at redistribution of wealth, but so are the Republicans. They just target different constituencies for the prize. It's almost freakin impossible for me to choose between Kerry and Bush if it comes to that. Sure, Kerry's economic plan isn't what I'D put together, but it is better than what we have seen from Dubya so far in some respects. And we could cut out the cronyism (or some of it anyway) and blatant disingenuous-ness. That's probably worth it right there for me. I wish that we weren't socialized into this two party system. The libertarians really have some good ideas.

What I think about what? Brad's original posting which claimed "nobody who works for him and knows him well believes that George W. Bush is qualified to be the President of the United States"?

Patently idiotic partisanship. Unworthy of the effort of falsifying it, like almost everything else on Brad's blog in recent months.

Or do you refer to the proposed constitutional amendment? Seems like a dumb idea to me - it makes everyone rabbit on about trivia when there are serious things to be concerned about. And what other people do doesn't concern me as long as it doesn't infringe upon anything I do. Leave 'em alone.

But this issue rates with Laci Peterson and Kobe Bryant on my interest scale. Waste of perfectly good blog bandwidth.

"I'll play the troll. Who votes Republican - married white and educated. Who votes Dem. - uneducated, minority, and leftist profs."

I posted the numbers on another thread, but it seems they bear repeating.

% of votes for BUSH in 2000 (of all votes for Bush & Gore, i.e. without Nader) correlated by state against three scores: RURAL (log pop density), POOR (median income), and DUMB (% without high school - % with college):

BUSH-RURAL: +0.77
BUSH-POOR: +0.37
BUSH-DUMB: +0.24

Now this compares to an election 40 years prior:

NIXON-RURAL: +0.44
NIXON-POOR: -0.08
NIXON-DUMB: -0.27

Now this doesn't account for intra-state variance but it already gives a glimpse into the changed demographic, and explains the relentlessly populist strategy this administration is running. If Rove knows that 70% of Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map yet believe Saddam had ties with al Qaeda he realizes that there are enough votes out there that can be swayed purely by flag-waving, carrier-prancing, gay-bashing and phony tax cutting.

'Seriously, Bush screwed the pooch on
this one, '

and then he had it put to sleep so it couldn't rat him out? is that the new conspiracy theory!?

actually, I think that's probably what happened...

Brian wrote, "[Carter] sat on his hands as Iran made a fool of the USA."

And Reagan...traded arms for hostages.

"Who votes Republican - married white and educated. Who votes Dem. - uneducated, minority, and leftist profs."

Have any polling data to back that up?

"If your not a socialist and you actually believe in liberty, free markets and a strong military then you vote Republican. It also means you're most likely a mature educated and family values type of person."

Free markets? That's why Bush increased steel tariffs, I imagine. And where's the Republican movement against sugar tariffs? Strong military...you mean, "spending on the military with no cost/benefit analysis," as you yourself admitted in another thread on this site ("cost-benefit in this case is inherently a leap of faith.") Educated? Again, provide polling data. Family values? And you're referring to the Party of Adultery, with members like Newt "if it's oral sex, you can't say you slept with me; sure, I'll divorce my wife in the cancer ward; I'm on my third wife" Gingrich, Henry "homewrecker; but I was a youthful 41 at the time" Hyde; etc.

"Blacks would be stupid to vote Republican its worked so well for them the past 40 years."

Actually, the economic situation of blacks was improving up to the early 1970s, which is when working class wages began to stagnate.

john wrote, "Our prez consistently gets high marks for fighting the bad guys and thus the talk of him being dumb or incompetent does not have legs."

That's only because he gets a free pass from the media. The media _could_ have screamed about how Bush's policy of using proxy Pashtun troops at Tora Bora probably allowed bin Laden to get away, but they didn't.

"Democrats have not come up with a clear answer for repealing the tax cuts. Buhs's favorite line is that Democrats will raise taxes. Unless Kerry or Edwards can clearly explain it in easy to understand concept, average will lose interest."

As bakho pointed out, "The taxes part is really easy to explain. Mr. Bush has not cut taxes. He has merely deferred them." Of course, this line is probably still too subtle for many people. One campaign (I forgot whose) *did* come up with a pithy, catchy summary of this point of view: "the birth tax".

This election is a referendum on one very basic issue. If you believe that (what is left of) Western civilization should push for a prolonged religious war with the Islamic civilization then vote for Bush. If you don't, then vote for the Democrat.

The alliance of the American right with Islamist terrorism is bizarre, but there it is. United in their goal to keep this conflict going.

Brian,

Facts help when making your case and your remark on Carter and the carriers seems to be false.

You wrote: "Carter was smart as a whip except for when he actually made decisions. He built an oil burning carrier."

The Carl Vinson's (CVN-70) contract was awarded in April 1974. The Theodore Roosevelt's (CVN-71) contract was awarded in September 1980. There were no carriers in between. The John F. Kennedy and the Kitty Hawk class were the last of the oil burning fleet/attack carriers constructed, well before Carter.

During the Carter administration, there was debate on how much to expand the fleet of nuclear carriers but I there was no oil burning attack carrier built. Where did you get that information?

If you want protectionist trade policies guaranteed to set back economic progress in this country and around the world vote Democratic.

If you want college admissions to be on the basis of race rather than merit vote Democratic.

If you want to send a signal to terrorists around the world that Americans are cowards and defeatists vote Democratic.

If you want American children to continue to be cheated of the right to a decent education by the teachers' unions vote Democratic.

If you want to trash American medicine by having it taken over by the government vote Democratic.

Anyone who started paying attention to the presidential race in the summer of 1999 could see the essential issue was Bush total unsuitability, by reason of immaturity and lack of raw intelligence, to be president. But the mass of independent Americans had been lulled into complacency by the peace and prosperity of the 90's Gilded Age, and by the absence from our history of totally dangerous, radical presidencies.

"Or perhaps I just feel guilty that I was suckered."

As bad as Bush is he's only part of the problem, probably a small part. I would vote for any Democratic candidate over even the likes of fine men like Lugar or Hagel because either of them would end up obeying Delay's slice of the country and not the rest of us. The radicals started taking over the GOP 25 years ago and completed their revolution 10 years ago. Conservatives should purge them or marginalize them to the point where they give up. Bush's disastrous presidency might inspire such a transformation. Until done the Republican Party will not be able to lead this country intelligently.

"Besides the incoherent 'person' who weighed in with no apparent argument other than pat ad hominems, where are the passionate conservatarian voices chiming in on this thread? I know Patrick Sullivan is out there, but why has he remained silent? Where is Jim Glass when the president needs him?"

Posted by: non economist on February 24, 2004 09:35 PM

Jim has that problem of trying to make bricks without straw. Or dirt. Or water. The poor guy tries, but Bush's ability to screw things up keeps defeating him.

Patrick is very, very busy trying to defend Bush's military record. He seems to have added that to his keyword searches. Before, only 'Enron' could reliably bring him in.

I fail to see how Patrick Sullivan has defended Bush on the military issue.

The charge is that Bush went AWOL, presumably for reasons of his own. Patrick's "defence" is in fact the worse charge that Bush took advantage of the Guard's corrupt hope for a bought and paid for lobbyist to slough off.

With defenders like Patrick, who needs enemies?

Even with all the evidence to the contrary, there are those who still maintain Reagan was some sort of deft and subtle Learned Hand guiding the Great Ship of State through the troubled waters of the '80s. It will be the same for Bush. Even when the post-administration evidence mounts that he was less curious and capable than a sack full of rocks, there will still be sycophants reciting odes to his strategic genius and enlightened design and searching the horizon for the "Next Bush"...

I keep coming back to the issue of "trustworthiness" as spinning differently for Bush this time. He's got problems with his record on this, which is one reason he's trying the shift to social issues.

One component of trust is a reliance on good will, the other a reliance on competence. Doctors can mean well, and still kill the patient by mistake: dead is dead. A leader can affect a bold, confident vision, one illustrated by his energetic, certain, demeanor, and his evident devotion to a cause and his personal courage, and still suck. I mean, George Armstrong Custer was charismatic and personally very brave, but his poor command skills were clear before Little Big Horn finally put an end to his string of mistakes. And I think that Bush's inflexibility, his refusal to reconsider his course in light of the obvious facts, particularly fiscal, is casting doubt among his fans. They won't vote for his opponent, but they might not vote at all.

Bush ran as the anti-Clinton last time. "Anti-Clinton" doesn't have the same ring to it as it might have had, then, I think, to those of us who do not form Limbaugh's radio audience. Bush dodged the draft, we discover. Clinton could do arithmetic. People had jobs with Clinton. Prosperity. Surpluses. One war at a time. One topic that has not rolled into this election is the environment and Bush's vending off of public lands and favorable treatment of polluters. It might, yet.

When I read this log-entry I read "monarchy".

Who was the last Democratic president to do the robinhoodinomics, bash-the-privileged thing?

It wasn't Clinton, certainly, or Carter. I don't think Johnson either, really. Certainly not Kennedy.

Perhaps Truman? I suppose you might say the fair-deal, unionist orientation might be considered robinhoodinomics.

Some Republicans don't seem to realize that we aren't trying to raise taxes because we don't like rich people, but because the government cannot sustain its current fiscal policies. If only spending would be rought under control! can be moaned, but hallowly. The only way to cut spending is to cut big entitlement programs like Social Security (privatizing it, BTW, would ADD to costs a huge amount, until the transition from PAYGo to accounts was complete), or the military -- but that would be pro-Islamist defeatism, right? -- or to default on interest payments. You can't cut balance the budget by cutting rich-to-poor redistribution programs (as opposed to, say, young-to-old ones) because there isn't enough of them there to cut to balance the budget. Nor can you do it but cutting bureaucracy or waste or anything of that sort.

Or do our current budget problems matter? Are they supposed to sort themselves out?

Education vs. voting is an interesting pattern. Most of those with moderate levels of education tend to be Republicans. Most of those with very low (high school dropout or high school w/o college) or very high (post-graduate education) levels of education tend to be Democrats. Who forms a bigger part of the Democratic base? Certainly, there are more poorly educated than very highly educated people in the country, but then again, the poorly educated probably tend to vote a lot less than the overeducated Ph. D.s and such. My guess is the undereducated more than the overeducated, simply by quantity. It isn't certain though.

Even if you think the Democratic party is more protectionist than the Republican party (itself semi-dubious), there's no way you can think that John Kerry is more protectionist than George Bush.

If Clinton was responsible for the Cole, the Twin Towers bombing, and the embassy bombing, is George Bush responsible for the Twin Towers attack redux, the Pentagon, Bali, etc? I don't think either, really, but the thousands of casualties and hundreds of fatalities in Iraq are almost unquestionably his responsibility, as are, yes, the comparative freedom millions of Iraqis now enjoy instead of Saddam's muderous rule (I don't think I should really have to mention that if I'm going to talk about Iraq casualties, and I don't think I demand anyone else talk about casualties if they're talking about liberation, but regardless...).

On George Bush's competence, how do we know? People who aren't impressed with his confidence are more likely to fall out with the administration, and then write/talk about it as former administration officials. People who are are more likely to stay in the administration, and then write/talk about it as administration officials. Administration officials, however, always have to speak well of the president, so determining the sincerity of them, even if they're genuinely impressed with Bush's competence, is difficult

Yes making goofy eyes at Putin is what a strong character would do!

I know Brad deleted one of my posts that was very substantive, on the subject of free trade theory -- and I'm a liberal. The substance of my remarks was that most economists are unaware of the implications of modern free trade theory when the comparative advantage is based on differences in relative factor endowments, ie, capital-population ratios. In other words, free trade between rich and poor countries. Specifically, they are unaware that the implication is that real wages must decline in the rich countries to maintain full employment. (see, eg, the famous paper on Protectionism and Real Wages by Samuelson and Stolper in the late 1940's)

Apparently Brad considered my remarks an ad hominem attack on the economics profession. Anyway, I'll keep a copy of this post and send it to "person" and others, in case he deletes it too.

Julian Elson:
"On George Bush's competence, how do we know? "

Look around you - 9/11, Iraq, the economy, international relations. Before he became president, his major skill was scr*wing things up, and being bailed out by connections.

Which explains a lot of the current situation.

Luke -- you won't send anything to "person" He was worried about DeLong's brownshirts tracking him down and hurting his children. Can't be too careful.

I actually agree with you about wages and globalization, as does Max Sawicky, I think. The "reserve army of the unemployed" has increased many times in size. But I strongly endorse Brad's banning policy.

If there's anyone who takes Willingham's huffing and puiffing seriously, these two quite lengthy files provide a lot of documention for counterarguments:

Conservatives and Islamofascism

www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.idiots.htm

"Who is Bandar Bush?: Does George W. Bush Have What it Takes to Fight the War on Terror?"

www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.binladen.htm

http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.binladen.htm

http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.idiots.htm

Re: " most economists are unaware of the implications of modern free trade theory when the comparative advantage is based on differences in relative factor endowments, ie, capital-population ratios. In other words, free trade between rich and poor countries. Specifically, they are unaware that the implication is that real wages must decline in the rich countries to maintain full employment."

Oh, we economists are very aware of it. We just don't like to talk about it (much)...

OGMB someone deleted the 2000 exit polling here it is again.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html

It is as it was. I am totally backed up. Populism belongs in the Dem party.

Too bad, that with all this talk about the state of Mr. Bush's presidency, and what his real worries might be, that everyone has totally ignored a major Iraqi restoration, that perhaps the Marsh Arabs will someday get to go back to their homes. And right away, don't you see the worries of George Bush, duck hunter extraordinaire, as to whether he'll get a good hunting spot, and how much he will have to pay the guides for those choice duck hunting spots? There are some real issues here.

Plus, there is a serious lack of good hunting and fishing shows coming out of Iraq, and I feel very very confident that this situation will be rectified very soon.

In case unhappy spouses would remain at home and complain to the duck hunters later, some entertainment in the sewing-crafty type shows would probably do the trick.

If most professional economists know about the unpopular implications of free trade theory, Brad, but just don't like to talk about it much, doesn't that amount to a form of intellectual dishonesty?

I well remember when Samuelson himself got up before the cameras in the East Room of the White House on the eve of the Nafta vote, and addressed this very point. His remark was short and sweet, the gist of which was that protectionism had never caused real wages to go up.

This was disingenous. In fact, at such a crucial moment, and on such an important issue, it was positively misleading. Given the stature of the man, it will probably go down as one of the greatest scandals in American intellectual history.

If I were an economist, I would dress in sack cloth and ashes and dedicate my life to finding ways to mitigate the damages brought about by this irreversible decision (GATT as well as Nafta). Because otherwise it is going to tear this country apart.

Err... sorry. My brain isn't working. I didn't mean we can't assess Bush's competence from an outside view. I mean that there's a selection bias for people who once worked for him, but no longer do, to be people who don't really get along with him and think he's a dope, and an even stronger bias for people who STILL work with him to say he's great, since that's basically part of their job.

Brian: "It is as it was. I am totally backed up. Populism belongs in the Dem party."

You mean you're totally backed up that Bushists are innumerate?

"Who votes Republican - married white and educated."

Married: G44-B53; White: G42-B54; (College) Educated: G47-B49

"Who votes Dem. - uneducated, minority, and leftist profs."

No College: G48-B48; Black: G90-B09; Hispanic: G62-B35; Leftist profs: not reported.

Other than the minority vote not a single number backs you up. They're all an order of magnitude closer to even split than to unanimity. And in particular you seem to be oblivious of the simple fact that if a minority votes one way (say "Gays vote for Gore": G70-B25) this does not make the obverse true as well ("Straights vote for Bush": G47-B50).

ogmb, nice try. You either did not look closely at the chart above the one you cherry picked or you're dishonest.

Gore won non HS grads 59% to 39%.
They split the HS grads
Bush won both those w/ some college and those w/ undergraduate degrees 51% to 45%
Gore won post grads 52% to 44%

6 points is a huge margin in the context of the 2000 election.

The number you chose combined non HS grad and HS grads with those w/ some college as "uneducated" and combined undergrad degrees w/ post grad degrees as "educated". It looks like CNN wanted to give the Dems a number they could publicize in order to save face.

Its quite obvious populism would be a more effective strategy for Dems. I notice you left out those with less than high school education. A mere oversight I suppose. Blacks are a classic study in social choice making. Dems have the union vote another organization counting on group think. What do you think is going on when Edwards speaks of two Americas or Kerry, if elected would be the 3rd wealthiest Pres. ever, calling for tax increases on 200K+ crowd as a cure for the economy. I know there are different strategies for dealing with problems the country faces, but if Kerry's and Edward's stump speeches are not bald face populism in your eyes then we cannot have an honest discussion. I was already having my doubts.

Julian, as far as SS is concerned, we know the eligibility age must be raised no ifs ands or buts. It currently is a bad system if not immoral. The system should have moved towards individual accounts long ago. Black men have a life expectancy of about 65. It must be changed and accounts with the ability to pass on wealth is the only decent thing to do. I hold both parties culpable in the entire fiasco.

You cannot tax yourself to prosperity. Of course all things are question of degree here but you must admit if you think tax cutting will eventually lead to greater economic activity then it is a rational strategy for eliminating deficits. Just like buying a piece of capital equipement is done to raise future profits at the cost of short term profits. Are you saying gov't cannot be restrained? Sadly, you may be right. I hope that is not the case.

Moving on, its not necessarily that terrorists events happen on your watch its what you do about it. And I for one think Clinton simply laid down. It didn't poll well. What do you think Bush would have done in Clinton's shoes after two embassies had been simultaneously blown up?

Brian, you have to feel sorry for the leftitsts. Think of the grief and and anguish zizka must have felt when he saw that socialist giant Saddam Hussein pulled out of his spider hole. Well, they still have the mullahs in Iran and the genocidal regime in North Korea to admire. And they can support the brave heroes who blow up women and children in Israel.

What a strain it must be to be evil. Have pity on those work so hard at it.

Oh boy... another free-trade theory fight!!

OK, I am rusty on this, but it seems to me that Luke Lea's analysis should have been answered more completely rather than being deleted. And now that Prof D has answered, I am surprized that he did not say the respectable neoclassical thing. Or maybe I am more rusty than I though and maybe I am unclear on the respectable neo-classical thing.

First to review:

Re: " most economists are unaware of the implications of modern free trade theory when the comparative advantage is based on differences in relative factor endowments, ie, capital-population ratios. In other words, free trade between rich and poor countries. Specifically, they are unaware that the implication is that real wages must decline in the rich countries to maintain full employment."

Oh, we economists are very aware of it. We just don't like to talk about it (much)...

But shouldn't a good neoclassical neo-liberal say: "My dear foolish child, if the economies are 'similar enough' in mathematically well defined but empirically meaningless way, the the both countries will move to the market solution that would hold in a world of perfect factor mobility. And in a two-country two-good model then the welfare gainers in each country will be able to compensate the losers in each country -without any transers of funds between countries- and still be better off."

So that is the crucial welfare cost-benefit calculus that justifies free trade. More potential pie for whole world. Who actually gets it is not neo-classical economists' problem. That is the always relevant, never too simple story in the all-purpose all-applicable 2 country 2 good 2 factor perfect certainty model. And it is basically the same welfare reasoning as everything else in neo-classical economics, so what is the problem?

Of course there are complications, even in theory-world. If I remember correctly in a multi-country multi-good, multi-factor world, then the winners in each country might not be able to compensate the losers and have everyone in that country come out better with free trade. Their might have to be inter-country transfers for everyone in each country to *potentially* come out better off. (see W. Ethier articles in Handbook of International Economics, I think? I am rusty so correct away if I misremember)

Oh, other complications -What if political factors in other countries prevent real wages from rising there? What if countries cause distortions to expand export sector for political reasons. How much distortion can happen before world efficiency frontier results are wrecked? How much distortion can happen before more-poor sectors of a third world country are paying for gains in less-poor sectors? (Lotta second best issues here, to use the econ-jargon. I will not accept response that only third best economists raise second-best issues. I may be a fourth best economist but I know a non-response when I see one.)

But I will give an example that I do hope will produce some outraged responses. It is nice that young programmers in India can increase their incomes and start bying developed world nice things. But how much of their education was subsidized by the state? Is it more subsidized than the in the US? How much to studetns at IIT pay? Would more public education, or micro-loans or whatever do more for the very poor. What is the trade off between change welfare of educated and very poor in India.

This is just an example, I don't have the answer, but these are the kind of question you have to consider, unless you can be assured that the free market reigns everywhere. Same question could be posed about worker's rights in China. Or effects of semi-feudal land tenure and debt-slavery and other bad things on wages for very poor in India.

Any outraged responses will be ignored unless accompanied by facts and figures, because what I am saying is your simple theoretical results don't hold anymore. So easy outrage, please. Facts and figures.

More complications: what if much of trade liberalization is actually hidden insurance to subsidize financial investment, or shift risk from international investors to local workers or local government? Any theorems or empirical data there? What are the welfare effects of the shifts in risk of foreign investment, property rights, etc. Much of free trade legislation concerns international investment as much as lowering real trade barriers.

So why does the economics profession take such silly pompous stand on this issue? What do they gain? They lose most of the time when times are tough or powerful interests have something at stake. They always lose when big business is on the other side, and then they beat up on mis-fortunate unemployed US workers. So they end being lame, unpopular,misunderstood, ignored, irrelevant, losers most of the time. What's the point?

OK, I have Hamiltonian tendancies. I admit it, but will remain so until I get answers to my queries above. And I have one very respectable economist on my side.

Brian: thanks for the SS retirement age raising point. Fair enough. Though privatization will require massive cuts in other programs or raising taxes, raising the age could be a realistic way of cutting expenditures.

Let's look at the contribution of each education level to the margins in the 2000 election. Post-grads formed a bigger part of Gore's support than non-high school grads. Bush's biggest total contribution comes from those with some college education who didn't graduate. In short, what I said about those with moderate education levels being Republicans and those with high or low ones being Democrats holds out on average. This isn't a partisan point: it's no friendlier to my side to call them a bunch of elitist intellectuals and unwashed masses than it is to say your side consists of middlebrow, moderately educated types. There's no need to distort things by claiming that the highly educated are more likely to support Bush, and the poorly educated to support Gore, without looking at the whole trend.

Multiply % of voters by % margin group went for one over the other.

No High School:
Margin of Gore over Bush: 20% (59% vs. 39%)
% of voters: 5%
Net contribution to Gore: 1%

High School:
Margin of Bush over Gore: 1% (49% vs. 48%)
% of voters: 21%
Net contribution to Bush: 0.21%

Some College:
Margin of Bush over Gore: 6% (51% vs. 45%)
% of voters: 32%
Net contribution to Bush: 1.92%

College:
Margin of Bush over Gore: 6% (51% vs. 45%)
% of voters: 24%
Net contribution to Bush: 1.44%

Post-graduate:
Margin of Gore over Bush: 8% (52% vs. 44%)
% of voters: 18%
Net contribution to Gore: 1.44%

You might be right about Clinton laying down when it came to terrorists. I think that context isn't inappropriate in this situation, though: most of the people with whom it "didn't poll well" were Republicans who accused Clinton of using terrorism as a distraction from corruption within his own administration. Now, in retrospect, it's clear that Clinton should have ignored the Republicans and vigorously pursued terrorism in spite of their opposition, and Clinton was wrong not to do so. Still, one must understand that times were different then, before 9/11. There was no national consensus saying that we should make ending terrorism one of our top priorities (and why should there have been? You have limited resources: do you pursue threats (like terrorism) that have killed a few hundred people over the decade, or do you pursue threats that kill thousands, like murders?). Clinton was wrong about terrorism, but he was righter than most in the country at the time.

Julian, Clinton was dead wrong on terrorism. He proactively pursued it as a criminal issue. Any Republican criticism was because he was not agressive enough about going after Bin Ladin. Clinton did get knocked for his missile attack on the Sudanese asprin factory and that was quite justified. AG Reno made evidence used in Trade Towers I off limits to intelligence agencies.

The whole point of looking at who educated voters support is to refute the common theme on this web site that Republicans are stupid. You must admit that rhetoric is a common here. Look at what OMBG said

"% of votes for BUSH in 2000 (of all votes for Bush & Gore, i.e. without Nader) correlated by state against three scores: RURAL (log pop density), POOR (median income), and DUMB (% without high school - % with college)"

Just look at how he references the voter groups. My point is which party is more likely to use populist themes to garner votes. Where is that strategy going to be most successful.

You say "There's no need to distort things by claiming that the highly educated are more likely to support Bush". I never said "highly educated". I simply said "educated", and that is perfectly accurate. I am not trying to distort anything.

You say "Bush's biggest total contribution comes from those with some college education who didn't graduate." This is a non-point its only true because the voter population is larger for non-grads than grads. The key is both groups support Bush by exactly the same margin. If there were more grads than non-grads then they would have made up the larger contribution.

I may be a little sarcastic in presentation, but it seems to be the preferred method of argumentation here. I appreciate the respectful dialogue.

What do you think Bush would have done in Clinton's shoes after two embassies had been simultaneously blown up?

"Invaded Malaysia" would be my guess.

We provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Online Levitra Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.one-levitra.com http://www.one-cialis.com http://www.one-levitra.com

Cheap Propecia http://www.one-propecia.com/ is a new and effective treatment for male pattern baldness. View Online Propecia News. It is a capsule taken by mouth vs. a cream. A net increase in scalp hair count and hair regrowth was seen in over 80% of men for whom it was prescribed. Buy Propecia Now!

Cheap Soma Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.top-soma.com.

Online Tramadol is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.top-tramadol.com!

Phentermine Online and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.hot-phentermine.com/

Do you know the difference between a failed interview and an amazing interview? Do you want to be able to answer even the toughest, meanest, and most low-down interview questions that you could ever be possibly asked? Do you want to go though your interview with confidence? Do you want to feel prepared, impress the interviewer, and win the job interview of your dreams? We provide you with job interview tips, visit http://www.job-interview-questions-tips.com

Online Cialis Levitra Viagra has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003.Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy Cialis through various registered pharmacies. Also try levitra , buy levitra cheap levitra http://www.one-levitra.com/ http://www.one-cialis.com/levitra.htm/ or visit these sites for news and side effects : cheap cialis http://www.one-cialis.com/

Ultram Generic Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.top-fioricet.com !

Phentermine Online and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.hot-phentermine.com/

Online Ambien, ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is invaluable for your mental and physical well being. If you suffer from insomnia, you may want to look into cheap Ambien (zolpidem tartrate), the most prescribed sleep medication in the U.S. Buy Ambien Now or visit this site: http://www.i-ambien.com!

Cheap Soma Carisoprodol, Soma - Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma, Cheap Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.one-soma.com.

Ultram Generic Fioricet, Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.x-fioricet.com !

Online Wellbutrin, wellbutrin, wellbutrin XL, wellbutrin SR is prescribed for the treatment of depression, but it is not for everyone. If you take cheap WELLBUTRIN XL, there is a risk of seizure, which is increased in patients with certain medical problems or in patients taking certain medicines. Buy Wellbutrin XL Now or visit this site: http://www.i-wellbutrin.com!

Phentermine Online, Phentermine and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.x-phentermine.com/, phentermine diet pill, phentermine sale, phentermine free shipping, cheapest phentermine!

Online Tramadol, Tramadol, Tramadol HCL is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Ultram Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.x-tramadol.com!

Online Xenical, Xenical is one of the most prescribed treatments for weight loss in the world. cheap Xenical is used with a reduced-calorie diet to help significantly overweight persons lose weight. It also helps to prevent regaining weight previously lost. Orlistat works by blocking some of the fat normally digested by the intestine. Buy Xenical Now or visit this site: http://www.x-xenical.com!

I have been a stranger in a strange land.

Credit, debt and loan are all different words that boil down to the same thing: borrowing money from someone with a promise to pay it back, usually with interest.  Personal loan allow you to borrow a fixed amount and then pay it back according to a fixed schedule. The same is for car loan, home loan, auto loan and college loan.Sometimes a loan will require collateral, which is basically property or assets that you promise to give the lender in the event that you are unable to repay the loan. Often, borrowers use personal online loan to pay for big purchases. http://www.i-loan-online.com

Keno, Bingo, Slots, Poker and other all-time favorite games delivered by top-notch software at only trusted and certified casinos. A comprehensive online bingo and unique casino games portal. Select your game with the best bonuses and payouts!  http://www.i-online-bingo.com

Do you need urgent cash till pay day? Now? Payday loan online is alot easier faster and less hassle then going to your bank for a personal loan or credit card.Payday on your paycheck, usually ranging from $100 to $500. What is a payday loan? Payday loans are meant to help tie you over when you are short on cash between paychecks. http://www.payday-loan-payday.com

Here is the story: BlackJack originated in French casinos around 1700 where it was called "vingt-et-un" ("twenty-and-one") and has been played in the U.S. since the 1800's. Online BlackJack is named as such because if a player got a Black Jack of Spades and internet black jack an Ace of Spades as the first two cards (Spade being the color jack black of course), the player was additionally remunerated. http://www.888-blackjack.com/

Whether you have a rigid poker strategy in mind before you hit the table or whether you play it by ear, having a strong foundation of poker knowledge is important to every player. If you know and understand something about this game (video poker, strip poker, online poker )that your opponent does not, you will play a better game. http://www.888-online-poker.com

Debt Counseling companies currently help over 1 million people to debt consolidation their unsecured loans, bills, and credit card debts into one easy payment, while saving thousands of dollars in unnecessary interest & credit fees. We can help you consolidate r debts with a  consolidation plan  that is just right for you! This free debt consolidation could save you 50% or more in monthly credit card payments. http://www.free-debt-consolidation-free.com

We offer online personals ads services for dating singles with many free services such as: anonymous dating email addresses, relationship advice for marriage, dating or singles, personal ads posting, match, and many more free online Dating Singles Personals: Personal ad Services... for all men and women. Our Dating Singles Personals site is more than those matchmaker, marriage, pen pals or photo match personal ads sites; we're much more! Want more than the strictly dating service, online personal ads and matchmaker dating singles sites? Then. http://www.dating-service-dating.com

Dating and picture personal dating ads services for singles looking for love, romance, dating dates pen pals or relationships. Personals for the online dating and singles community. Post Your Free Dating, Singles, Picture Personal ads today. Visit us to chat with singles, look through personals, and read up on all the hilarious and heart-rending tribulations of dating service and romance today. http://www.dating-free-dating.com

All Online Casino Gambling sites chosen & recommended here at Online Casino have been thoroughly tested by us for fairness, reliability, online casino game play realism, casino payout percentages, game speed, and bonuses. We have tested hundreds of casino sites ourselves in an effort to bring you the very best online casino promotions. The following is a small sampling of internet casino - only the best from Online Casino Rewards. http://www.666-casino.com

Just because there's a pattern doesn't mean there's a purpose.

Our best online gambling review pages will surpass all your expectations offering the best online casino sites on the web. Look no further, whether it's online sports betting, progressive poker, free games, flash downloads or fast casino downloads, we have the best online gambling reviews to meet anyone's needs. Looking for online gambling news? you'll find everything in once place including online gambling online tips, reviews and promotions. http://www.666-gambling.com

Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes.

Bet the dumb out oif up online black jack thus we can get rid of it.

Fuck you all, fuck my siter and all online poker this is the case.

Great Poker texas holdem poker thar is trye http://texas-holdem.666-casino.com/texas-holdem.htm

Whether you have a rigid online poker strategy in mind before you hit the table or whether you play it.

Gambling sites chosen recommended here at Online Casino have been thoroughly tested by us for fairness, reliability!

A comprehensive online bingo and unique casino games portal.

God the fuck online casino are you sure.

Great Blog online poker
this is the true that is right http://poker.666-casino.com/poker.htm

Great Blog. I love it
casino best bonuses
http://casino.666-casino.com/casino.htm

Why you are not so bad
online casino trust me.

The poker I have ever played
online texas hold em that is the beginning!
http://www.online-texas-hold-em.us

God damn it, you are such an online casino
then ever 'http://online-casino.666-casino.com/online-casino.htm

Ohhh this is strange fucker online casino gambling sounds.
http://www.i-play-casino.com

Go there and try this
online casino highly recommeded by me.

Drugs are wrong opportunity, be aware of that
texas hold em play the casino here! http://www.i-texas-hold-em.com

Try this fun men online poker you think.

news all aroung the world online poker try it for free that right.

Best regards from the casino played
texas holdem be all the way near!

They offer a variety of
online casino gambling sounds.

But the increased number of online bingo cards was exactly what was needed to make.

Learn this from me, never online poker play it you think.

To do this go there and see of that
online texas hold em do allow
this! http://www.online-texas-hold-em.net

Try this and feel it online bingo not to be missed.

Back to track online blackjack casino games on the Internet.

Play at the best dumb online bingo not hte rest.

Surely not a chance for you but online poker nevertheless try this.

Great Poker Rooms I suggest too online texas holdem poker thar is trye http://online-texas-holdem.666-casino.com/online-texas-holdem.htm

Got here and seen this right  online poker
but do not go there
http://online-poker.666-casino.com/online-poker.htm

By the way ever played the casino played
texas holdem poker nice happenings all the ewya!
http://www.texasholdem-poker.us

why play it as you can online bingo feel free with this opportunity.

Online, trust our 24hr live support security, and
the best online black jack casino games on the Internet.

Good site debt consolidation loan that is right. The http://www.all-debt-consolidation.org

There are no weird people - some just require more understanding.

Reggae Boyz Cheap mexican Drugs Free Directv DVR Debt Consolidation Buy cheapest laxapro Buy cheapest laxapro Buy cheapest drugs lexapro Buy Phenthermine drugs lexapro debt Consolidation Buy Cheapest Phenteramine Buy Cheapest Phenteramine Reggae Boyz Fanz Club http://www.reggaeboyzfanz.com http://www.cheapest-pills-online.com http://www.free-satellite-tv-directv-nocable.comhttp://www.quick-drugs.com http://www.buy-cheapest-lexapro-side-effects-noprescription.biz http://www.quick-drugs.biz http://www.debt-disappear.com http://www.cheapest-phenthermine.biz http://www.debt-consolidation-now-online.com http://www.quick-drugs.biz/phentermine/index.htm