tdaxp

The closer we get to ending abortion in America, the better. I'm a little confused about you Dan....... You seem very liberal about somethings (like Terri Shiavo), but conservative about others (anti-abortion). I am curious if you claim a party at all. Not trying to hit a nerve or anything, just wondering where you stand.

Posted by: The Red Side of Belew | Friday, March 18, 2005

Two last things...

I voted against Herseth in both the special election and general elections, but she is an OK gal. In Pierre I ate lunch with her family, and they were very nice people. (Plus, I like any Democrat endorsed by the NRA ;) ).

Kerry's plan on child health care is misguided. Insurance for children is very cheap, because kids are rarely dangerously ill. It is a band-aid approach, that will do much harm (possibily removing the ability for children to automatically continue their insurance into adulthood) and little good (the true costs of kids insurance are for catastrophic bankruptcy-inducing cases, which the federal government wouldn't help anyway).

Posted by: Dan | Saturday, March 19, 2005

Dan claims to be Libertarian, but I believe he's secretly a member of a special party founded mostly to infuriate me. Let's call them the CLO, or Corporation's Liberation Organization.

Dan is anti-environmentalism under the guise that it's more wasteful than unchecked capitalism. Dan is against homosexuality in males, but not against females. Dan is into Catholicism, but only for the trivia. Dan only drinks fine liquors, or in a pinch, whatever's laying about. Dan will confound me by agreeing with my insane leftist and often poorly thought-out ideals, only to later mock me because I like World of Warcraft but refuse to read Ender's Game. Dan is anti-abortion because he believes life is sacred, and he is against homosexuality because he believes it's a drain on society (and his arguments are difficult to refute on logical merit, but easily refuted with compassion) Dan is delighted when Republican corruption works out but infuriated when Democrats steal elections, as in the case of Washington State.

Dan likes the Economist, as leftish as they are, and believe Roosevelt was the death knell of America's economy. Dan is against public schools, but is wary of creationism. His brother is bent on world domination, and Dan refuses to ally with me against him, although I secretly believe he'll covertly fund my resistance movement in 2031. Dan liked Deep Space 9, but mocks Enterprise regularly.

All told, Dan is a good friend and I keep reading his damn blog every day. Our political ideals may be asymmetrically opposed on a scale of solar systemic proportion, but he appreciates the fineries of Chinese food, liquor, and mocking things. I'll be sad to see him go when he handily pulls ahead in the Doctorate race just down the road.

Posted by: aaron | Saturday, March 19, 2005

And I don't think I can let this one slip by... Time to chime in.

Abortion is the genie that can't be put back in the bottle. I myself am opposed to abortion, but not on spiritual grounds at all. Matter of fact, I regularly provide the golf clap for the religious who condemn abortion and laud execution. I mock those who weep for the unborn but care not at all for the plight of the diseased, the mentally disabled, or any others stem cell research might benefit. I am infuriated by those who think a helping hand must be earned by penitance.

Abortion must remain legal, however rare. I applaud efforts to make it as rare as possible. Rounds' nod to people of my stance is appreciated. There are times when the life of the mother can be endangered. I know rather well a woman whose life would be endangered by unintentional pregnancy. Is this woman supposed to commit to a life of abstinence for the off chance that a contraceptive malfunction? Legislating against the procedure will only drive it into an unregulated black market. While some would find it poetic that someone committing such a heinous act be irreparably injured, I do not. I also find it distasteful that making it illegal in America would only make it more expensive for the wealthy, who might arrange a sight-seeing trip for their pious daughters in Europe, where this whole mess might be cleaned up and another chance offered... But only to those of privilege.

I fail to understand an administration that will spend untold millions on the fight for the unborn, but refuse to support Senator Kerry in providing free health care for every American child. I am no great fan of welfare, and indeed, my solution to the problem would make privacy advocates cringe, but I think it unfair for the believers of free markets and competition to leave children to pay for the sins of the fathers. Mom and Dad choose to unwisely invest their money in narcotics and Nascar, that's their prerogative. But leaving a child without proper health care because the parents can't afford it?

I look forward to a day when abortion could be virtually non-existent. I think that day will come when people accept that sexuality is a natural part of human nature, and do not seek to bury it under morality. Proper precautions should be taught to teens or even children, and the realities of sexuality offered to them, rather than the ideals of celibacy.

I have been a fan of Mike Rounds for some time, regardless of his Party. I came very close to agreeing with him on removing links from State-sponsored websites that led to information on sexuality. The targets in question had long since moved on from the need-to-knows of sexuality, which I believe should be available, to the fringes thereof, I believe in the interest of having "fresh" content. I'm perfectly fine with curious students learning about the dangers and consequences of sexual intercourse on the public's dime. I am not, however, that interested in them learning pleasing oral techniques or interesting new positions.

Hopefully an amicable solution can be found soon to this divisive issue. However, I don't think an absolute ruling one way or the other is going to beneficial to anyone in the long run. There are circumstances to every situation, and if we stop accomodating that fact, then we devolve into barbarism. This is a tragic practice, but I think it's one we can't un-invent.

Posted by: aaron | Saturday, March 19, 2005

Personally I strongly approve of Dan's diversity. Seems that I can agree with just about every "stance" Dan takes. If I don't agree - Dan at least finds enough "stuff" to make it understood. This reaction was a surprise - but a good one.

Posted by: chrys | Saturday, March 19, 2005

I'm a registered Republican. My voting record

'04 Presidential: Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) (v. Bush (R) and Kerry (D))
Reason: I support most of what President Bush does, but I cannot vote for someone who supported AG Ashcroft. It's hard to find a man worse at the job than Reno was, but Bush managed. Ashcroft was soft on terrorism and too often distracted by other issues. Hopefully Gonzales won't morph into a clone. Plus, I'm in a deep red state, so my vote doesn't matter anyway. :)

04 Senatorial: John Thune (R) (v. Daschle (D))
Daschle's strategy was to slow down everything I care about, and miss the point on all of Bush's weaknesses. I do not think Daschle is as liberal as national pundits say -- I think he was too weak to be anything other than an apparatchik.

02 Gubernatorial: Jim Abbott (D) (v. Rounds (R))
Jim Abbott, President of the University of South Dakota. Jim ran to the right to Mike on a lot of issues. I was very struck about Abbott's Missouri River proposals, which were more market based and pratical than Rounds' ideas. Plus, having lived under Janklow for so long I was weary of a "nice guy" governor who might waste time.

02 Senate: John Thune (R) (v. Johnson (D))
Just a prelude to Daschle v. Thune. Johnson was Daschle's toady.

00 Presidential: Harry Browne (L) (v. Bush (R) and Gore (D))
"Compassionate Conservativism" is another word for "Clinton 'Liberalism,' but less trashy." Bush's post-elections actions really impressed me. Especially his generosity to John Ashcroft, who had an election stolen from him in Missouri. The Senate Democrats' early attacks on Ashcroft were wildly off-base, and Bush is a great man for defending him then.

Posted by: Dan | Saturday, March 19, 2005

I must admit, I do agree with alot of things that Dan posts. He seems to be a bit of a centralist republican. Its alright I guess, its better than being a gosh darn liberal. Republicans come in very different flavours when you think about it. There is ones ( like me ) that are old school conservative (pro-life, prayer in schools, hard punishment on criminals, homosexualality should be outlawed, etc.). Some are a little more central ( like Dan ), and then there are the left-winged republicans (the pro-gay, pro-choice). I dont like thinking about the far left right-wingers (oxymoron) , but I could be friends with a central right-winger like Dan.

Posted by: The Red Side of Belew | Saturday, March 19, 2005

I call myself good friends with Centrist Republicans and can honestly say one of my best friends is about as far right as they come. It's a diversity of opinion and the opportunity for discourse that has made me as tolerant as I am.

I shrugged off a religious upbringing, not as a matter of rebellion but one of rationality. I remember being about 10 years old and telling a friend of mine that I wouldn't listen to rock 'n roll music because it was Devil Worshipper music... I guess I've come a long ways from there. "Red Side..." might disagree that I've progressed, but I'd be forced to disagree with his disagreement :)

I think it's unfortunate that your discourse won't extend to "far left right-wingers". I'd imagine that would pretty much make thinking about me aneurism-inducing. I've found that the things that have made me think the most critically about my positions has been opposition, whether from Dan or somewhere else. You won't catch me hawking Kennedy's book or Clinton's book on my website, though I think a lot of people would be entertained by Colmes'. I guess in the political news Cola Wars, I was always more into PBS than CNN or FOX. I think debate is healthy and I'm never above wading into someone else's side, as red as their site might be :)

Posted by: aaron | Saturday, March 19, 2005

Despite my emotional outbursts toward Aaron on my own website, I do think that was a well written post. Yes, you fit a certain category, as do I, and that cliche is as far as I really go. I am very passionate about the United States. I believe that we should keep our Judeo-christian beliefs, not be afraid to defend ourselves, and I do believe that some freedoms should be limited. I think atheism is just confussion, Liberalism is a dangerous mental disorder (as Michael Savage says), and I also believe that without people like Dan and Aaron, America would be perfect. LOL I'm just kidding. America wouldnt be what it is if it wasn't for you guys and other people like you. Every majority needs a minority. Diversity is a good thing.

I must say though, i've read Alan Colmes' book and it made me so mad. Alot of my beliefs come from the bible and from people like Ann Coulter. I watch Fox News and boycott anything I think that is liberal (stopped watching techtv because of host's position on the past election). I agree that debate is healthy, to a point.

Posted by: The Red Side of Belew | Sunday, March 20, 2005

What do you mean by "Liberalism"? The word can mean many different things. In Europe the French hate "anglo-saxon liberalism" -- which makes me think over there it must be perfect! ;)

Posted by: Dan | Monday, March 21, 2005

The best description I can come up with is this; An attractive ideology that sucks you in then taints everything it touches. Ideas like acceptance, equality, and diversity, but is anything but that when the wool is pulled over your eyes. Michael Savage calls people who follow this philosphy the "Sheeple" which is a mix of sheep and people. David Huntwork says "We have seen the daily attacks upon the Boy Scouts, the Ten Commandments, the pledge of allegiance, and heterosexual marriage. The institutions, symbols, and traditions that have been the heart of the American culture and society are under constant assault as they are dismantled one by one. "

They're basically a recycled member of the American Comunist party from the 1930's. I've never met a liberal who truely deep down thought that comunism isnt a bad idea. Many claim that the Comunist Manifesto is a great book.

In the late 70's, they had managed to get control of all the major media and produced propaganda 24/7. A great example of the blantent hatred for the conservative right would be former CBS anchorman Dan Rather. CNN is another obviously liberal propaganda factory.

Today's liberals that are in office (John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Barbarra Boxer) are yesterday's hippies. These are the people who were protesting against the war in the 1960's. Today, its not changed. Tomorrow's liberals are today's protesters on the war in iraq.

Ideas like humanism, feminism, gay-rights, multi-culturism are made to seperate the common man and make these groups to have an arguement. Without the issue, what would the liberal be mad about?

They love everyone but America. They think Europe is doing everything right, even the more liberal nations like Netherlands, Belgium, and France. I live in America, why should I care about the French???!!!!

Their agenda is to do away with capital punishment, do away with God, make all abortions legal, make euthanasia legal, save the rainforests, save the wildlife, stop all drilling, and anything else that seems less american and even more, do what the American people (as a majority) do not want.

Posted by: The Red Side of Belew | Monday, March 21, 2005

The Left did a lot of harm, especially in the 1960s and 1970s. Much of the 1930s Lefts goals seem almost quaint by comparison!

However, there are some good liberal hawks. Thomas Barnett (http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/) and the folks at Liberals Against Terrorism (http://www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/drupal/) being great examples.

Feminism and homosexualism are catastrophies, and multiculturalism may be (depending how to define it). Humanism was invented by Catholic monks, though, so I'll give it a pass... :)

Now that you've described liberals, could you define liberalism? I sense some agreement and disagreement, but I'd like to be more precise... :)

Posted by: Dan | Monday, March 21, 2005

Liberalism is the act of being liberal. I dont hate liberals per say, i hate their actions. I know some liberals might have a better view than others, but the group "Liberals Against Terrorism" still is liberal when you take away them defending the war on terror. An orange is still an orange if you paint it blue.

Posted by: The Red Side of Belew | Monday, March 21, 2005

Then can you define "liberal" or "being liberal"? Something more precise than a description?

Posted by: Dan | Monday, March 21, 2005

I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. I thought I had already covered this topic.

Posted by: The Red Side of Belew | Monday, March 21, 2005

You described liberalism, showing ways it is bad. But what is "liberalism"? What do liberals actually believe? Where is a definition that I could use to say "Mr. X is a liberal" or "Mme. Y is not a liberal"?

Posted by: Dan | Monday, March 21, 2005

I'm quite left and I think communism is a horrible idea. I support capitalism and agree 100% that it's the reason our poor have cars while North Korea's poor have starvation.

What makes me a liberal ( and I use the term with pride, not a sneer ) is that I don't support handouts to the rich, like a tax cut that's done little to rejuvenate a slow economy or the OK to drill for oil where it won't do anyone but the oil companies any good. Even Mr. Savage will have a hard time refuting the fact that no oil will come from ANWR for many years, no matter how many resolutions are passed. I'm not worried about the wildlife. They'll adapt. I'll probably never even see Alaska. What I don't like is that I'm not getting a handout and Kenneth Derr is.

I like to look at things from the opposite angle before forming my opinion. Prayer in schools? Sure, why not. As long as you'd be fine going to a Hindu country and praying their prayers in their schools. As a God-fearing Christian, I doubt you'd be enthused to pray to their false Gods... But how do you know they're false? If you'd been born to Hindu parents, do you think you'd have realized you were "wrong" at some point and converted to Christianity? I really think not. As a Christian, do you want their ideals forced on you just because you're the minority?

Abortion? Not for my wife. Unless it were medically necessary. But for yours? Hell, I don't care. Do I condone the use of it as a means of after-the-fact birth control? No. But there's circumstances to every situation. I'm pretty OK banning partial-birth and late-term abortion. I'm not OK banning it entirely and driving it underground or into the backroom boutiques of the wealthy.

Homosexuality? Prove me that it's a choice that someone makes. Prove to me that someone is choosing to "sin" and that they can change. Explain the poor Mormon boy's blog I read who wanted to become a preacher but realized in seminary ( do Mormons call it that? ) that he was gay. No amount of penitance, no amount of counseling, no amount of anything could change the horror he felt at himself. Except suicide. I weep infrequently, Red Side, but I do weep. Will abortion be re-legalized when we figure out how to detect "gayness" before birth? Or won't the regard for the preciousness of life extend to the malformed demonspawn?

The environment... I've seen areas of the Black Hills ( here in SD, quite beautiful ) clear-cut. Was 100+ years of forest worth the $8.50/hr. that logger could have made at Best Buy or another retail outlet? Depends. Do you like camping? Do you like fishing? Do you like hunting? Sometimes it feels to me that if the Right had their way, there'd be nowhere to do it. I was a Boy Scout. I think it's a great institution, except for the overcompensating fathers who build their son's Pinewood Derby cars for them... But I could talk for hours about overcompensating parents. Where will the Boy Scouts camp when we carve up our National Parks to the highest bidder? I know no one's pushing for that, but it seems to me there's always a price when the Right is in charge.

If he were alive, I'd have my uncle tell you about the horrors of the Vietnam war. But he's dead. Because he got cancer from Agent Orange, which corporations and the government swore up and down for many years was harmless. He was a doctor. He went there to help people. And for his sacrifices, he was repaid denial and government cover-up. The people who protested the Vietnam war weren't wrong. It was the wrong war at the wrong time. The fight against communism was just yesterday's religious jihad. There will always be war. Should women and children be murdered so we can raise our flag and be proud of our work? War is one thing. Rape and murder is another. Vietnam was the latter. Read a book.

I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh a lot. He's exactly right on a number of things. He's exactly wrong on a number of things too. Thomas Barnett ( brilliant man ) is a lefty, and I disagree with some things he says. When Warren Buffett, who should be giddy like a schoolgirl at Bush's tax cuts writes a letter to the Washington Post questioning the utility of them, don't you have to wonder? What I'm saying is that I could echo the party mantras with the best of them, but I don't. I even think SS Privatization might be a good idea, if we can minimize the risk and make sure that career investors can't destroy my parents' retirement so they can finance a new yacht.

I've listend to Mr. Savage, and he frightens me. I've read articles by Ann Coulter. I definitely think National Review did the right thing by axing her. Do I agree with everything the ACLU does? No. Do I believe in Affirmative Action? No.

I anxiously await the definitions forthcoming. I don't seek to offend, Red Side, indeed I've enjoyed pseudo-conversing with you, but I suspect you're having a hard time coming up with a clear definition without being provided it by the right-wing media.

Posted by: aaron | Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Aaron, I will admit that you are not a majority of the confused minorty. You "not supporting handouts for rich" doesnt not say that you dont support welfare or raised minimum wage. Why should you get a handout?? Drilling for oil is the best thing to do on land that few, if any, americans even use. Yeah, nature is great and stuff but whats gonna make that SUV go?? Something takes you to the store to buy the New York Times (tehehe, sorry couldnt resist it).

Prayer in schools....omg you're not serious. Prayer in school doesnt mean that you must pray for God. Just the right to be able to pray is all we want. If I went to India or whereever and they had prayer in school, i'd be praying to my God, the God Almighty. I dont care who you pray for (even tho atheists piss me off), just allow me the right to do so.

Abortion is murder. Its nothing but murder. Being unwanted or poor doesnt make a baby bad. You knew what you were doing when you were screwing around. Rape? So what! Just because you didnt want to have sex or want the baby doesnt make it the baby's fault. Incest? Oh well, thats your stupid fault.

Homosexuality is not natural. I use the bible, yes i know, you're rolling your eyes, but its what our country was founded on. Its very direct in its definition. Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination." Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." And you can not tell me someone is naturally gay. Its just confusion. I have a question for you. Why do gays perverse everything about themselves. Its all about the sex. They even tried to flame and put feminism into their act to make it seem like its more natural or something. *GAGS*

The enviorment is really nice, I love it. I enjoy camping, dont do hunting or fishing (personally cannot do it) but do not have anything against them. I believe it is our duty to protect the enviorment. But...there is nothing wrong with doing something with land that is not being used at all (ANWR). Why in the world do we have Alaska if we arent' going to use it. 9 in 10 people in Alaska want ANWR drilling. Yes it creats jobs, thats a good thing! Best Buys are good things!

Vietnam was started by the democrats and finished by the conservatives. I know Vietnam was really bad.

The Tax Cuts were great. How is our economy now? Great considering the attack on 9/11 inwhich slowed things down abit. Would it be as good under Gore or Kerry? Yeah right! lol.

I agree, ACLU is a joke and so is affirmative action.


I'm not really having a hardtime coming up with a definition, just dont understand what you want. I guess you mean talk radio by right-wing media? There isnt anything else. Newsmax maganize might be the only printed form of it that I know of. Maybe you mean books?
Closest thing on TV is Fox News, which is totally central on all subjects (have both sides on every story).

Posted by: The Red Side of Belew | Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Leviticus does not homosexualism. It would have trouble doing so, as did not exist then. It does condemn certain homosexual acts, but in the context of hygene.

As I wrote earlier (http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/01/11/homosexuality_only_for_the_trivia.html),

"Gays have not been persecuted a great deal throughout history. If they were, we would see the ordinances of persecution. We would see somewhere the prohibitions. We would see something better than the weird, oddly-worded, and shellfish-strewn wreckages in Leviticus."

Be careful not to fall into Marx-style materialism. Goods are a consequence of liberty and a means to a better world, but not an end in themselves.

Posted by: Dan | Tuesday, March 22, 2005

I support welfare with the following caveat: Get government money? Lose the booze. Lose the cigarettes. Your baby doesn't need Baby Gap. Making enough to get by? Lose the subsidized housing. I alluded in an earlier post that my solution to welfare would make privacy advocates cringe. Well, here you go. I'm tired of seeing people on government aid with a nicer car than my hard-working co-workers. I'm tired of a friend of mine being the only person paying full price at a local daycare, while everyone there has their house payment or rent payment nearly made for them while he struggles to make ends meet.

A raised minimum wage would be hard on small businesses, but if the low end of your society can't make ends meet, then you have problems. I don't think the lower class should be living in squalor. They deserve to have quality things and lead a decent existence. If you'd rather have them working two jobs to pay the bills than having a normal life, then you've never been to college or been unintentionally poor. Reagan can create all the welfare queens he wants... Some people on government assistance don't revel in the lifestyle and enjoy the free money. They're trying to make a better life for themselves. I was unemployed for almost a year. It was hard to make ends meet. I didn't go on Unemployment because I don't believe in a handout. But I came pretty close to not having a choice. Some people don't.

No one is stopping you from praying privately at school. All they're doing is not having mandated, schoolwide events or actions that promote a specific religion or denomination. I appreciate that. I plan to raise my children as Christians ( in action ) and give them the opportunity to make up their own minds like I have. If I decide I want to live in the Phillipines or China, I'll be pretty displeased if my child is forced to partake in a school play or program, or even to pray, to another religion. In America, you don't have to. And that's what makes us great.

A few passages further in Leviticus ask that you not trim your beard or wear clothing of multiple fabrics. Like I said, I was brought up in a religious environment. I also remember Jesus being friends with prostitutes and lepers, destitutes and tax sinners. A lot of people seem to skim those passages. Why do religious figures think it's OK to disregard passages from the Old Testament if they aren't convenient for modern life? Why is no one pushing for a law to be written that prevents me from having intercourse with my wife while she is muenstrating?

Every day, 1,600 women die in childbirth. It can be dangerous. What's better for our society? That the mother die and take the baby with her, as in many cases, or that the mother live on and have another chance? I don't agree with abortion, but you can't make it completely illegal. An absolute law will not serve anyone.

Why would athiests piss you off? I'm borderline athiest and you don't piss me off. Our country wasn't founded on Christianity. But we do allow you to practice it to your heart's content.

Our economy is great? Why doesn't Wall Street or Alan Greenspan agree?

Posted by: aaron | Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Wall Street and Alan Greenspan both agree we have a terrific economy. Stock prices are trading at above-average multiples of earnings. Greenspan has repeatedly spoken of how globalization allows unprecedented economic expansion.

While Jesus often commanded "Go and sin no more," Aaron is right on the transcendent nature of His love. As Paul wrote, the Law is but training for virtue. And as Christ spoke and Paul scribbled, the most important commandment is loving your neighbor as yourself.

I wonder what it what it would take for those who try to have the Ten Commandments posted in public spaces to instead install the Most Important Commandment in those places?

Posted by: Dan | Tuesday, March 22, 2005

No one is making you pray in school and werent before liberals got the idea of taking God out of everything, either. Why take God out of everything? God is being taken out of the court houses, schools, they're even changing The Easter Bunny to The Garden Bunny, give me a break.

"Loving your neighbor" is not a problem here. Euthanasia (Terri Schiavo) and abortion are not acts of love are they? And as for more scripture on being gay, Genesis 13:13: "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly." The peverse of gays, as well as any other act of sodomy is no different than they were back then. For crying out loud, they wanted to rape the angels that were giving them the messages! What is so different about these weirdo's today?? Jesus was being friends with prostitutes and lepers, destitutes and tax sinners, I'm not saying that he isnt. I'm friends with these sort of people, doesnt mean that their way is right. I'm not claiming to be Jesus either ( I know that will come up somewhere, lol), or even to be anything near as great as him.

The reason atheists piss me off is because that they deny God. Most atheists were brought up with christian, catholic, and jewish backgrounds. Denying him doesnt make him not exsist.

Look guys, we can argue about these topics all day long, but we all know, Aaron is extremely left, I'm extremely right (not just correct, lol j/k), and Dan is in the middle here.

Posted by: The Red Side of Belew | Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Believing in him doesn't make him exist either. Sorry, couldn't resist :)

Greenspan is saying that we're overspending ourselves. He's saying we don't save enough. He's saying we don't have enough highly skilled workers and too many low-skilled workers. He's recommending we raise rates to keep inflation down.

My Wall Street comment was hastily added, and I retract it. I know Greenspan has expressed concern, so I perhaps wrongly assumed that Wall Street followed suit, as is usually the case. Since I get all my news from CNN, it's obviously faulty :)

Posted by: aaron | Tuesday, March 22, 2005

If that's what CNN is saying, it is faulty.

Instead of adding a post-length comment, I just posted again.

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/03/22/greenspan_economy_terrific.html

I will kill this thread yet! :)

Posted by: Dan | Tuesday, March 22, 2005

QED

Posted by: aaron | Wednesday, March 23, 2005