Looks like Dean now has the nomination clinched.

Shi Huangdi · December 6, 2003, 22:44

The most influential and powerful group in the Democratic party has now endorsed him.

http://northcoast.com/~spdtom/index.html

MrFun · December 6, 2003, 22:48

Nice troll -- that would be like me creating a troll thread, on how the Republicans rely on the fringe extreme religious right nut groups for support, rather than the vastly greater number of moderate voters.

Drogue · December 6, 2003, 22:50

It is, quite literally, a troll

MrFun · December 6, 2003, 22:51

no sh*t Nancy Drew

Drogue · December 6, 2003, 22:54

Well... It's a devil, but it looks close enough to be a troll pic

Drogue · December 6, 2003, 22:57

Saying that, I think Dean would look at home with flames and horns a la Mayor Quimby running against Sideshow Bob.

Verto · December 6, 2003, 23:05

mrmitchell · December 6, 2003, 23:24

I had a bookmark of a really good "Bush = Satan" page.

But I deleted it.

monolith94 · December 6, 2003, 23:26

From the site:

"The Democratic party, unlike the stoic Republicans, encourage the promotion of self over society. How can we not throw our political support to such a party?"

This is said to imply that the promotion of self is a bad thing. However, the Republicans have always been more about the promotion of self, with their desire to cut government, welfare and taxes. This seems hypocrtical.

In addition, they fail to understand that promotion of self can be promotion of society, all at once.

Kirnwaffen · December 6, 2003, 23:29

By the way, could someone please explain how the RNC got my address.

mrmitchell · December 6, 2003, 23:39

Quote:

This is said to imply that the promotion of self is a bad thing. However, the Republicans have always been more about the promotion of self, with their desire to cut government, welfare and taxes. This seems hypocrtical.

The government balloons in all administrations. Republicans only like to say they cut down government when they need to get votes.

The spikes were because of the Civil War, WWI, and WWII probably: also, the data only goes to 1997. But it's the first image I could find, and last major Repugnantcan administration (Reagan) appears to have merely kept gov't spending SLIGHTLY lower with Clinton's first few years continuing that.

But, hell, I'm learning major economics principles based on a graph. Does anyone have data through 2003 as well?

Verto · December 6, 2003, 23:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
By the way, could someone please explain how the RNC got my address.

The Patriot Act.

mrmitchell · December 6, 2003, 23:54

Something from the Cato Institute. Dated Oct 25 2003.

Quote:

Did you know total federal government spending grew 17 percent during the last three years? This compares with 6.8 percent, 8.3 percent, and 3.5 percent for the first three years respectively of the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-25-03.html

Thus, Reagan actually bloated it, as did Bush, and then Clinton curbed the bloating a little. Hah! Think of that! A Democrat, doing something good! Now let's all of us good patriotic flag-wavers have a good laugh. These Cato guys must be flaming America-hating liberals, remember to put them on the Watch List.

Also:

Quote:

Federal spending has risen to a little more than 20 percent of GDP, up from only slightly more than 18 percent of GDP three years ago. High levels of government spending are dangerous both to our fiscal health and our liberties.

Ah, so 20% about, for this year.

It also turns out Repugs looooove those welfare programs.

Quote:

During the latter Bush I and Clinton years, defense spending was falling as a percent of GDP, which, in part, explains the modest growth in spending during 1991-2001. What is particularly troubling now is that nondefense discretionary spending (leaving out Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) has grown by 23.2 percent during the last three years, as compared to minus 13.5 percent, plus 11.6 percent, and minus 0.7 percent of the first three years of the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations. (My colleague, Dr. Veronique de Rugy of the Cato Institute, prepared this and a much more detailed spending analysis that may be found on www.cato.org.)

http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-25-03.html

Eh.

Shi Huangdi · December 7, 2003, 01:48

Hmm, seems as though some people are upset about the current endorsement here. Perhaps if this site is representative, there will be a splinter Satanists for Bush organization? Don't know if they'd actually have much sucsess in pulling over this key traditional Democratic constituency over to the Republican ticket though.

orange · December 7, 2003, 01:57

i'm getting a blank screen

Kuciwalker · December 7, 2003, 02:04

Quote:

The spikes were because of the Civil War, WWI, and WWII probably: also, the data only goes to 1997. But it's the first image I could find, and last major Repugnantcan administration (Reagan) appears to have merely kept gov't spending SLIGHTLY lower with Clinton's first few years continuing that.

There was also a spike at the War of 1812

though its smaller.