Comments on: G20 Summit: A new Bretton Woods?

By: Paul Burns

Paul Burns — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:29:36 +0000

Anybody -well almost anybody – would be better than GWB as US President. He was uniquely bad,so much so he made earlier bad presidents, of which I readily admit there aren’t too many, look good. Right now, he seems terrified of coming out of the Presidency looking worse than Hoover (not realising he already is). in terms of his presidency being corrupt, he’s at least as bad as Grant.(And Grant, at lesast was able to write a masterpiece of American literature in his Memoirs, (I think that’s the title) which Bush is certainly incapable of.) And there are one or two other presidents historians generally agree to be “bad” I’d have to look up, that Bush is probably worse than.
Even if Obama looked like he was going to be utterly hopeless, which he doesn’t, he’d be better than GWB.

By: Katz

Katz — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:33:37 +0000

At the very least we can expect Obama to match his ambitions more closely than Bush to his means.

Obama may well be quite malign, but the sheer incompetence of the Bush regime, while setting itself transcendant and even apocalyptic goals, has left the world in a sorry, sorry state.

I don’t expect Obama to be noticeabley more transcendant in his ambitions than the general run of US presidents. I expect Obama to be much less apocalyptic than his lamentable predecessor.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:27:25 +0000

We will see whether Obamugabe’s parlor trick of blowing smoke out of both his mouth and his ass whilst chewing gum simultaneously, is a substantive improvement.
.
Well might you remark on Obama’s talents is the ability to control both ends of his digestive system simultaneous. But at least he can do that.
.
Dubya can’t control either of them. He frequently mistakes one for the other. .
.
American imperialism is a well-established phenomenon and the object of serious scholarly inquiry spanning back at least a century. The myth of the reluctant superpower has been a convenience. The Bush administration did away with it at possibly at the high water mark of its progress.
.
Of course that’s been said before.

By: j_p_z

j_p_z — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:34:39 +0000

Well since we now appear to be in the midst of a bona-fide Seldon Crisis, how fortunate that The Mule will shortly take the reins of the Empire.

And I do expect all you “America-is-an-empire” Obamaclowns to refer to your shiny new god-king as an Emperor. It doesn’t go back to being a virtuous republic just because this time your clown won.

“Madam, a People’s Republic — if you can keep it.”
– Benjamin Franklin Raines

Katz: “proof that Bush can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Well, “It may be, it may be,” as the Back-ache said to Saint John. It is possible. We will see whether Obamugabe’s parlor trick of blowing smoke out of both his mouth and his ass whilst chewing gum simultaneously, is a substantive improvement.
Then again, according to the Word of His Serene Obamitude, simply running a presidential campaign more than qualifies one to be the President. So it seems that, by Chicago Rules, Bush has been doubly qualified. Guess we’re about to find out all about the wisdom (or not) of playing by Chicago Rules.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:24:17 +0000

Between a political organization of society and an economic organization of society, which will be the dominant form?
.
Perhaps neither?
.
Politics and economics are dominant modes of thinking about the good life. The argument above is essentially the one that carried the 20th century. I tend to think the other branch of practical philosophy – ethics – could do with an airing.
.
But in any case maybe it’s time we should consider whether this opposition between politics and economics is still desirable. Doubtless there’s conflicts. What’s good economically can be bad politically and vice versa. But still…
.
We may be learning the faults of the monetarist/neoliberal schools of economics but that doesn’t mean they weren’t right about the New Deal et al. A lot of the criticisms that were made were apt.
.
It’s time for a new school of economics. One that will save us (until it inevitably fucks up that is).

By: Adrien

Adrien — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:17:09 +0000

But no-one can really talk about it because its such a nasty experience they’ve made it a state secret.
.
Yeah it’s down in the vault next to the Clinton/Fellatio file. Well it was but they had to chuck it. The Clinton file – that’s a big file.

By: Paul Burns

Paul Burns — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:55:00 +0000

Oh, perhaps a discussion in code about what its really like to shake GWB’s hand.
But no-one can really talk about it because its such a nasty experience they’ve made it a state secret.

By: FDB

FDB — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:43:40 +0000

What is this, MoisturiserGate?

By: Adrien

Adrien — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:34:01 +0000

You damn commies. I can’t believe this. This is such a blow to Australia’s standing in the global village. No hugs for Kevvie! Kevvie got NO HUGS from Dubya. Johnnie got hugs. Johnnie and Dubya hugged and rubb’d a dub dubb’d.
.
And John helped Dubya ~~git his dang oil back~~ topple The Evilest Man evah. He committed 0.7% of the total invasion force. Wow! That’s impressive.
.
And now Kevvie’s deliberately hangin’ shit on ol’ Dubya. What is he thinking?
.
I mean first of all Dubya’s the ~~Czar of a Bankrupt Empire~~ President of the United States and Kevvie’s damaged Australia’s relationship with the US Administration for a whole two months!
.
And given the high esteem and respect that Dubya commands amongst the American people and the world in general this will reflect very badly on us. .
.
Did Kevvie make up Dubya’s G20 riff or not?

By: steve at the pub

steve at the pub — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:10:38 +0000

I’d say believe Mal Fraser’s hand to be as “rough as a pair of bullocky’s gloves” is more a reflection of how distant is your contact with “workers” Katz.

Plenty of fellers who shine chairs with their bum have fleshy hands. Mal Fraser’s were such that they were remarkable among even those. For softness, as opposed to pudginess.