George Costanza
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
And the Longest Post of the Year Award goes to ................................
Gardener! :salut: :lol:
Gardener! :salut: :lol:
Ben Affleck has a great toupee
- Thread starter MidnightFlyer
- Start date
MidnightFlyer
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
blue said:
Absolutely true. And he was wearing one at the Democratic convention, and it was a real nice one.
Nice post Gardner. I'm not sure what it meant, but it was truly impressive.
MidnightFlyer
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Gunner said:
They were probably using a blue screen.
MidnightFlyer
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
this is Ben Without the blue screen.
[/quote]
MidnightFlyer
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Photoshop? What's that? 8)
silkeysmooth
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
haha nice touch with the spelling his own name wrong.
The Gardener
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 25
George Costanza said:
Thanks... I had some time to kill at the airport (stuck in the security line at Terminal 1 at LAX on my way to Las Vegas) so I got on my PDA web browser and texted it in with one hand. I'm still tending to the blister I got on my thumb from doing it.
At least it isn't infected. It popped while tossing the dice at the craps table, and my table mates were all complaining about the wet blood on the dice each time I would finish my roll... sheesh, what a bunch of f*****g pansies. That is, of course, until I hit a streak and rolled 63 times in a row without crapping out. Suddenly, my blood ceased being disgusting and suddenly became a 'good luck charm'. They were rubbing the sh*t on their faces like war paint. And yes, I did get laid thank you thankyouverymuchgoodnight. whoo who.. a little less conversation, a little more action...
Nah, I can't lie to you guys. That's all fiction. I did go to Vegas, but no blister, didn't get laid, and lost a fair amount of money. But, the Mandalay Bay pool, oh hell yes!
Slartibartfast
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 2
You'd think that LAX security lines would move fairly quickly.The Gardener said:
Good post earlier (you know, that non-blister causing one) but, in your opinion, how committed would Kerry be to opening up International trade through the phasing out of subsidies and tariffs, I've read he's been critical of the WTO but what other organization is in a position to push through trade liberalization?
At the Geneva summit last week the WTO countries seemed to have made some progress, well at least in agreeing a framework to use for the final negotiations and in cutting export subsidies, but a protectionist bent US leader could kill this Doha round of trade talks stone dead.
Slarti
The Gardener
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 25
Good points, Slarti. Sure, Bush would probably be a stronger proponent of the WTO which I like, but unfortunately his trade agenda comes with the added baggage of Bush's foreign policy incompetence and his anything-but-conservative civil liberties agenda, both of which I find unpalatable.
I don't think Kerry would be all that anti-globalist. The "New" Democrats since Clinton are fairly supportive of free trade. He might be a bit more protectionist on the manufacturing issues, which would be hard on transatlantic relations, but I don't think his agricultural policy would differ much from Bush in terms of handling north-south trade issues which seem to be the real hot topic at the WTO. I can't imagine that any US president would turn his back on the WTO.
I really wish the Libertarian Party here in the US were more broadly accepted. The Libertarians are economically conservative, and socially liberal, which is more in line with my personal thoughts.
Hey, a question for you... I still can't figure out the reasoning behind why Blair is calling for a referendum on the EU constitution? It seems like a no win proposition for him, at least right now it does. Does he have some trick up his sleeve?
I don't think Kerry would be all that anti-globalist. The "New" Democrats since Clinton are fairly supportive of free trade. He might be a bit more protectionist on the manufacturing issues, which would be hard on transatlantic relations, but I don't think his agricultural policy would differ much from Bush in terms of handling north-south trade issues which seem to be the real hot topic at the WTO. I can't imagine that any US president would turn his back on the WTO.
I really wish the Libertarian Party here in the US were more broadly accepted. The Libertarians are economically conservative, and socially liberal, which is more in line with my personal thoughts.
Hey, a question for you... I still can't figure out the reasoning behind why Blair is calling for a referendum on the EU constitution? It seems like a no win proposition for him, at least right now it does. Does he have some trick up his sleeve?
Petchsky
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 13
Probably a few million pounds on propaganda. He normally manages to get away with it through some sort of backdoor... but this time he is facing alot of opposition. He won't actually give a referendum unless he thinks he will win it, so i'm not holding my breath.
The Gardener
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 25
I was pretty shocked to hear him call for that referendum. It made me wonder if he actually had a plan to sell to the electorate, or, if it was a desperate attempt to get Iraq off of the headlines for a while at least, or, if he was trying to outcorner the Tories in some tactical way. Time will tell, I suppose.
Slartibartfast
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 2
His sleeves are trick less as far as I can tell.
TB (a particularly persistent disease) is a hard character to understand, on the surface he appears to be a fully paid-up member of the great European integrationist project that began back in the 50's, yet in the early 80's the Labour party, under Michael Foot, was fervently anti-Europe - advocating withdrawal from the EEC (European Economic Community) - and Blair campaigned under this policy. Mind you, the UK is building a new generation of nuclear submarines and he was a member of the CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) so his deep-seated beliefs are obviously subject to revision.
As for the referendum on the slightly wordy (852 pages long) Constitution, he was put in a similar position before the '97 and '01 general elections when he promised the nation a final say on our adoption of the single currency. Public hostility to the Euro is such that I think he was genuinely concerned of the damage that the Tories could inflict if they'd been able to declare that 'a vote for Blair is a vote for the Euro'. We've had this currency a very long time, it is part of this Nation's history and has fared us well, only the US Dollar has held its value better in the last 100 years.
So, with an implacably hostile electorate and wavering public support due to his big whopping lies over Iraq he can't of relished the broadly anti-EU papers, the Tories, and even the Lib Dems (who are idiots but do at least believe in democracy), hammering him repeatedly with this issue. Jacques Chirac didn't exactly help things along when he declared it as an historic step for Europe, TB's position had been that the Constitution was purely a tidying up exercise of previous Treaties, he's a congenital liar you see.
Which led us to a guarantee of a say in the matter but, as Petchsky said, he doesn't want to hold a referendum unless victory (for him, not the Country) is assured. One ICM opinion poll put opposition at about 55%, with only 25% in favour and another put support at just 21%, so he must have his fingers crossed that another EU member returns a No vote in their own poll - as the Constitution must be agreed unanimously to proceed - to remove the need for a vote. Considering how bolshy some of Europe's citizens are, in 2003 the Swedes voted against joining the Euro despite almost all of the Country's media, business leaders and Politicians extolling the virtues of it, he'll most likely get his wish.
I'll stop before I threaten your 'longest post ever' title.
Slarti
TB (a particularly persistent disease) is a hard character to understand, on the surface he appears to be a fully paid-up member of the great European integrationist project that began back in the 50's, yet in the early 80's the Labour party, under Michael Foot, was fervently anti-Europe - advocating withdrawal from the EEC (European Economic Community) - and Blair campaigned under this policy. Mind you, the UK is building a new generation of nuclear submarines and he was a member of the CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) so his deep-seated beliefs are obviously subject to revision.
As for the referendum on the slightly wordy (852 pages long) Constitution, he was put in a similar position before the '97 and '01 general elections when he promised the nation a final say on our adoption of the single currency. Public hostility to the Euro is such that I think he was genuinely concerned of the damage that the Tories could inflict if they'd been able to declare that 'a vote for Blair is a vote for the Euro'. We've had this currency a very long time, it is part of this Nation's history and has fared us well, only the US Dollar has held its value better in the last 100 years.
So, with an implacably hostile electorate and wavering public support due to his big whopping lies over Iraq he can't of relished the broadly anti-EU papers, the Tories, and even the Lib Dems (who are idiots but do at least believe in democracy), hammering him repeatedly with this issue. Jacques Chirac didn't exactly help things along when he declared it as an historic step for Europe, TB's position had been that the Constitution was purely a tidying up exercise of previous Treaties, he's a congenital liar you see.
Which led us to a guarantee of a say in the matter but, as Petchsky said, he doesn't want to hold a referendum unless victory (for him, not the Country) is assured. One ICM opinion poll put opposition at about 55%, with only 25% in favour and another put support at just 21%, so he must have his fingers crossed that another EU member returns a No vote in their own poll - as the Constitution must be agreed unanimously to proceed - to remove the need for a vote. Considering how bolshy some of Europe's citizens are, in 2003 the Swedes voted against joining the Euro despite almost all of the Country's media, business leaders and Politicians extolling the virtues of it, he'll most likely get his wish.
I'll stop before I threaten your 'longest post ever' title.
Slarti
The Gardener
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 25
Slarti, you seem to be well versed in economics... are you one of those high-flying young financiers working in The City posing as one of us hopeless male pattern baldness losers? lol
But back to the topic... Blair was once a member of CND?! Haha, I did not know that. I wonder who will ultimately replace him? Brown seems to be the heir apparent, which would imply that Blair would either gracefully step down, or face a revolt of some sort that would put Brown into leadership. Or, could the Tories somehow reverse their recent funk and regain a majority? I would think it would take some major disappointment in the electorate to bring that about. I like Howard, I particularly enjoy his style during PMQ (not that PMQ means much in terms of policy, but it is one of the few opportunities for us yanks to see an opposition leader at work), but it always seems like the Conservatives pass over their more youthful, hopeful, and charismatic candidates in favor of political deadwood. Then again, it might just be my ingrained American-ness that sees energy and charisma as somewhat important when in fact it might not be as important to a Briton.
So, what happens next? When and how do you think Blair will meet his defeat, and who steps in? If it's Gordon Brown, what would that mean to Britain?
But back to the topic... Blair was once a member of CND?! Haha, I did not know that. I wonder who will ultimately replace him? Brown seems to be the heir apparent, which would imply that Blair would either gracefully step down, or face a revolt of some sort that would put Brown into leadership. Or, could the Tories somehow reverse their recent funk and regain a majority? I would think it would take some major disappointment in the electorate to bring that about. I like Howard, I particularly enjoy his style during PMQ (not that PMQ means much in terms of policy, but it is one of the few opportunities for us yanks to see an opposition leader at work), but it always seems like the Conservatives pass over their more youthful, hopeful, and charismatic candidates in favor of political deadwood. Then again, it might just be my ingrained American-ness that sees energy and charisma as somewhat important when in fact it might not be as important to a Briton.
So, what happens next? When and how do you think Blair will meet his defeat, and who steps in? If it's Gordon Brown, what would that mean to Britain?
Slartibartfast
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 2
If I were to be rude I'd say that my grasp of economics, however tenuous, is a clear sign that I'm not a high-flying City financier. The last thing a Forex or derivatives trader needs is a mind filled with complicated theories of macroeconomics, no they need to spend their time monitoring which direction the herd is moving so they can at least be guaranteed of matching the performance of their peers. So don't worry, I am a bona fide hopeless male pattern baldness loser 
who just happens to have an unhealthy interest in economics and also, because I invest in the Stock Market, in business news in general.
Much as it pains me to do this I'll now turn my thoughts to our beloved leader (well mine, not yours).
Starting with the relatively straight-forward issue of his successor - a certain Mr. Gordon Brown, currently working from No. 11 Downing Street but residing in No. 10 (he and Blair swapped homes as No. 11 has extra living space), is as much of a sure thing for next leader of the Labour Party as you could get in politics. After so many years in opposition Labour will be desperate to maintain the facade of a united Party so, at least in the public arena, you'll have a graceful exit by Blair rather than a coup d'tat. As in so many aspects of life it's the timing that's all important and, to confuse matters, Blair will fight the '05 election on the basis of serving a full term to counter the potentially effective Tory slogan of 'vote for Blair, get Brown'. So how long will he go on for? I suspect that two years into his third term in office he'll stand aside, citing personal reasons, and the dour Scotsman will take up the reins.
You can assume from this that I have absolutely no faith in the Tories pulling themselves together to mount a serious challenge in less than a year's time. Howard is clearly an academically intelligent man but he, like William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith, has failed to offer a distinct alternative to the tax and spend policies of 'New' Labour, so why vote for them? The economy is too strong, even if it is based on Govt. and personal borrowing, to offer the Tories salvation and they've failed to address issues such as unfettered immigration, soaring violent crime, the lack of affordable housing or the appalling state of our transport system with any remotely revolutionary, or eye-catching, ideas. The most the Conservatives could hope for is to gain 70 to 80 seats to at least give them a larger pool of talent to pick from, hopefully that would include some younger, charismatic MP's with, like me, a belief in Britain's future as a strong, globally trading, yet politically independent, Nation.
So what would Brown mean for Britain? He'd be an easier target for the opposition parties, Teflon Tony can brush off minor issues like lying to Parliament but Brown lacks that salesman-like quality of Blair, so a Tory win in '09 or '10 would be far more likely. Though the public could be so tired of Labour by that stage that, no matter who is leading them, a loss would be unavoidable. Brown's main problem as PM is that he is, from what I've read, something of a megalomaniac and hence likes to micro-manage when he should be delegating, this may be possible for a Chancellor to achieve within the Treasury but not for a PM with responsibility for an entire Country. The most positive aspect of a Brown led Govt. is that he'd no longer be inflicting 'death by a thousand cuts' onto our economy - though I can't think of another Labour MP with the gravitas to be Chancellor.
That was a nice, succinct response - I'm never going to build up my posts tally at this rate, I'll stick to one word answers from now on.
Now how would Kerry fund all his spending commitments? An article in a business paper a couple of weeks back reckoned they'd exceed the additional tax revenues he'd raise by at least $500 billion after ten years, you've already got a sizeable budget deficit so what's his master plan?
Slarti
who just happens to have an unhealthy interest in economics and also, because I invest in the Stock Market, in business news in general.Much as it pains me to do this I'll now turn my thoughts to our beloved leader (well mine, not yours).
Starting with the relatively straight-forward issue of his successor - a certain Mr. Gordon Brown, currently working from No. 11 Downing Street but residing in No. 10 (he and Blair swapped homes as No. 11 has extra living space), is as much of a sure thing for next leader of the Labour Party as you could get in politics. After so many years in opposition Labour will be desperate to maintain the facade of a united Party so, at least in the public arena, you'll have a graceful exit by Blair rather than a coup d'tat. As in so many aspects of life it's the timing that's all important and, to confuse matters, Blair will fight the '05 election on the basis of serving a full term to counter the potentially effective Tory slogan of 'vote for Blair, get Brown'. So how long will he go on for? I suspect that two years into his third term in office he'll stand aside, citing personal reasons, and the dour Scotsman will take up the reins.
You can assume from this that I have absolutely no faith in the Tories pulling themselves together to mount a serious challenge in less than a year's time. Howard is clearly an academically intelligent man but he, like William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith, has failed to offer a distinct alternative to the tax and spend policies of 'New' Labour, so why vote for them? The economy is too strong, even if it is based on Govt. and personal borrowing, to offer the Tories salvation and they've failed to address issues such as unfettered immigration, soaring violent crime, the lack of affordable housing or the appalling state of our transport system with any remotely revolutionary, or eye-catching, ideas. The most the Conservatives could hope for is to gain 70 to 80 seats to at least give them a larger pool of talent to pick from, hopefully that would include some younger, charismatic MP's with, like me, a belief in Britain's future as a strong, globally trading, yet politically independent, Nation.
So what would Brown mean for Britain? He'd be an easier target for the opposition parties, Teflon Tony can brush off minor issues like lying to Parliament but Brown lacks that salesman-like quality of Blair, so a Tory win in '09 or '10 would be far more likely. Though the public could be so tired of Labour by that stage that, no matter who is leading them, a loss would be unavoidable. Brown's main problem as PM is that he is, from what I've read, something of a megalomaniac and hence likes to micro-manage when he should be delegating, this may be possible for a Chancellor to achieve within the Treasury but not for a PM with responsibility for an entire Country. The most positive aspect of a Brown led Govt. is that he'd no longer be inflicting 'death by a thousand cuts' onto our economy - though I can't think of another Labour MP with the gravitas to be Chancellor.
That was a nice, succinct response - I'm never going to build up my posts tally at this rate, I'll stick to one word answers from now on.
Now how would Kerry fund all his spending commitments? An article in a business paper a couple of weeks back reckoned they'd exceed the additional tax revenues he'd raise by at least $500 billion after ten years, you've already got a sizeable budget deficit so what's his master plan?
Slarti
The Gardener
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 25
Wow, so Tony Blair actually lives in No. 11!? I did not know that. So, do Blair and Brown cross paths and say hello on their way to work in the morning? lol..
As for your question... I think we're going to be dealing with deficits whether it be Bush or Kerry as President. The total debt does not bother me that much YET... but this assumes that there is an economic corner to be turned in the near future.
But frankly I don't think we have to worry about that. Even with Kerry in the White House, as it looks now, he'll still have a Republican majority in Congress controlling the purse strings. Now, if the Democrats make moves to reclaim a majority in Congress, all bets are off. That would change everything.
As for your question... I think we're going to be dealing with deficits whether it be Bush or Kerry as President. The total debt does not bother me that much YET... but this assumes that there is an economic corner to be turned in the near future.
But frankly I don't think we have to worry about that. Even with Kerry in the White House, as it looks now, he'll still have a Republican majority in Congress controlling the purse strings. Now, if the Democrats make moves to reclaim a majority in Congress, all bets are off. That would change everything.
MidnightFlyer
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
The Gardener said:
One can only hope.
Thinning Sucks
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 56
The Gardener
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 25
Good point, Thinningsucks. Affleck does indeed have a really fake-*** looking hairline. Then again, so did Ronald Reagan. Some people are just born with amazing helmets of hair follicles that just don't minaturize like the rest of us. Not knockin' ya, I'm just in the mood for being irrationally contradictory tonight.