Big Ol' Smitty

You have to blame Reagan for this too. Reagan was a very close ally of Marcos. Both men practiced realpolitik in the Philippines And ended a colonial-style occupation of a tiny country. This was the right thing to do. Jimmy Carter created stagflation? You mean no other place ever had ever experienced slow growth and inflation before?

So what company does this one work for? NBC/Universal?

I tried again and still stuck on 11.

Wait a sec, did Hitler just fart on Saddam and Mussolini?

Lincoln kickin' it with Mao? Why is Mike Tyson in that? And why is Kofi Annan playing the flute? And W looking through a spyglass? What's bin Laden up to back there? That thing is great.

Is there any actual evidence of this, snuff? I'm not big on Clinton, but I don't automatically accept the Drudge Report as gospel. http://mediamatters.org/items/200711140002

I think you mean Kerensky. So you're saying Wilson screwed Europe by not pushing his idealistic policies forcefully enough (France, Britain, & Italy got what they wanted). Then you turn around and say Wilson's 14 Points "caused wreck & ruin to Europe" when only 4 of the 14 were actually passed. So who screwed Europe, Wilson or the other Allies (who wanted to buttrape Germany)? Secondly, I'm not sure Wilson intervening in Russia would have been a terribly bright move. Attempts by foreign powers to prop up unpopular government (like the Russian Provisional Government) have generally been unsuccessful, not to mention morally questionable (such as propping up Diem and then a series of other crappy governments in South Vietnam).

I got to 11. I would have been embarrassed if I'd scored lower, since I'm a social studies teacher.

How did Wilson "fuck over" Europe? The other Allies got what THEY wanted. Basically none of what Wilson wanted got put in place. It seems like Britain, France, & Italy would be more responsible for "fucking over all of Europe" than Wilson. Wilson did send American troops to aid the Whites in the Russian Civil War. US troops even engaged Red forces at times.

Is Ralph Nadar radar that detects consumer advocates and electoral spoilers?

There's been a recent debate going on lately, most famously between David Brooks & Paul Krugman of the NYT, on Reagan & race. Recently, Krugman unleashed this: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/1...ocent-mistakes/

No, because I agreed with their argument that they deserved residuals (I had always been under the impression that they got them already), but I don't see a strike ending well for the union here. The studios look ready to sit this one out, and they have more resources than the writers do in a war of attrition like this one. They'll get something in the end, though, but not as much as they were demanding. You didn't answer the question, but you sort of did. If they get something in the end, that's a whole lot better than the nothing that they got before. The strike would have strengthened the hand of the writers. I think it's also telling that, while you express concern for the "little guys", your response is FUCK THE UNIONS who are trying to improve their situation. You're not gonna say FUCK THE CORPORATIONS (who are actually shitting on the "little guys") because then all of the energy you've expended making fun of nocalmike over the years would be for naught.

So what do you propose, that the writers just bend over and take it from the companies? Gay superhero dads support the strike.

I've refashioned my hat into pants...

Here's one of those fancy Hollywood unions that don't run the risk of severed limbs and what they went through back in the 40s: http://www.iatse728.org/home/strike.htm

You don't really know what you're talking about. Not all writers make super money, and most writers rely on residuals to stay afloat. They are simply asking for residuals for when people make money off of their work. But the little guys are the ones who get hurt the most by work stoppages, are they not? It's not in their best interests to strike. You're exactly wrong. A successful strike is going to help writers NOT on the A-list a lot more than the big-timers.

You're dumb sometimes.

Paul is also somewhat elven.

Czech crucified me one time for making this argument.

I'm with the MiB, Kinetic, & co. on Trippin' on a Hole in a Paper Heart. Also, I seem to be one of the few respectable gentlemen in this day & age who like Audioslave. That list MiB posted is depressing. Puddle of Mudd, Staind, 3 Doors Down, etc. are the kind of bands my high school dropout truck driver brother likes. I love the guy, but, ya know...

Dude. Ron Paul's supporters had their big fundraising push on GUY FAWKES DAY. That's the guy who tried to blow up Parliament. 9/11 Truthers. The gold standard. Eliminating the federal reserve system. Joel Stein is dead on.

I don't like Teddy's imperialism. I really don't like what Reagan did (in Latin America especially), but he was very successful overall, beloved, and not anywhere near as disastrous for the country as Bush Jr.

Also,

Then, by that definition, there are no capitalist countries in the world. We're all socialists. I think a better term for what you're referring to is "mixed economy." On the scale from laissez faire to socialism the US tilts further toward laissez faire than almost all other developed countries, with the possible exception of Australia (maybe).