T1B

Tom In VA wrote:

BTW, I didn't claim "BODE", you live in a predominantly white area and have no experience in living in an area where you actually WITNESS, the things I have seen living in a not so white area.

Oh, I've seen plenty, dude. Plenty.

And I've seen plenty of people be "racially profiled."

What's pretty rare to see though, is a completely innocent person being hauled off for a violent crime(or any other crime) they didn't commit. Pretty fucking rare, indeed. Not unheard of, by any means...but rare.


Here's an idea for African Americans to reduce their rate of incarcaration...

You're going to LOVE this one...

They could try...


Oh, say...


Not committing crimes. That would be an out-fucking-standing start. Tackle that one, and we'll deal with the other issues later.


At what point do we actually start holding people accountable for their actions?

Mikey wrote:stealing office supplies from your employer.

That's a crime?

Sin,

Me

Actually, in my case it would be chalked up more to absent-mindedness than anythng else. If a pen finds its way into my hands, I usually walk away with it.

88 wrote:

Ted the Unibomber wrote:THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM

We disavow any use of the numbers 1 through 5

That's some scary shit.

Dinsdale wrote:

Tom In VA wrote: What I meant is that white people get away with committing crime, at whatever rate that might be, more than blacks.

Uhm....no.


Minorities commit crimes at a greater clip than whites. Therefore, simple mathmatical odds tell us that the minorities are more likely to get away with it.


You can try to paint any picture you like, but it's not true. And you, sir, are part of the problem, not the solution.

If you keep making excuses, criminals that believe in the glamous of committing crimes will use your excuses to justify continuing their behavior.

Demand accountability, rather than making excuses.

The truth will set you free...and spot you one hell of a deal on some schnazzy windchimes.

But it all starts with telling the truth. Let's put the lies and excuses behind us and move on to a brighter day, shall we?

Or, should we just keep making it out to be my fault that some clown in Florida who I've never met committed a violent crime, because I'm white.

Quit blaming me for shit I didn't do.

Wow Dins, you've really indicated how poor my English is, thanks and sorry for the confusion.

Here's the deal, I'm not offering excuses and nor am I justifying behavior. I'm stating what I believe, based on my firsthand and second hand knowledge of how things work in DC metro area, is the case. That's it. I too have a "mispent" youth and I also have several close people who are on the enforcement side of the law. Ever gotten high with the son of a G-Man or a cop ?

Typically in this area here's the deal .....

RICH people get away with crimes moreso than anyone else.
RICH white people get away with crimes moreso than anyone else. (More than blacks, hispanics, asians, hippies, punkers, rockers, mods and soc's )
PEOPLE who have CONNECTIONS, get away with crimes moreso than anyone else.


I'm not talking about, nor did the the article stipulate, VIOLENT CRIME. It said people in JAIL. There are people in JAIL who have committed non violent transgressions against the law.

Disparity in drug sentencing laws out front should have explained part of the reason blacks spend more time in jail than whites.

They give different sentences for vlacks and whites for the same offense?

I thought there was a Constitutional Amendment against that, or something?

tom is on fucking drugs


or should he taking them





what a stupid arguement. take a gander at the top murder and crime ridden cities, 1 thing is the common factor, whitey left, and the bruthers are running amuck. but try to spin it any way your derelict mind tells ya too

The law has an a la carte menu for drug sentencing. Check it out:

SENTENCING POLICY FOR DRUG OFFENDERS

White: stern warning (2nd offense community service)
Mexican: Overnight (2nd offense 30 days in county jail)
Black: Ten years at San Quentin (2nd offense "unfortunate incident at San Quentin")

- Dumbfuck in Seattle

Poor people commit crimes, and are put in jail, at a higher rate than rich people. There aren't many rich whites or rich blacks in prison.



Obviously, the truth isn't an "either/or" proposition. Its a combination of things.

Blacks do commit more crimes than whites, percentage-wise. They are also caught, and convicted, more often. Both factors are true.

88 wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Disparity in drug sentencing laws out front should have explained part of the reason blacks spend more time in jail than whites.

You must be a racist. You are saying that blacks are more predisposed to commit the crime of drug sales or possession than other races.

You of all people should know better.

It's a boils down to which drugs whites are likely to use versus the choice of blacks. Possessing or selling of any drugs should be treated the same, but it's not.

Dinsdale wrote:They give different sentences for vlacks and whites for the same offense?

I thought there was a Constitutional Amendment against that, or something?

I didn't say that. I said that blacks are more inclined to be CAUGHT, mostly because of profiling .... i.e. DWB.

Routine traffic stops have been known to yield great benefits in capturing criminals from the lowly drug user TO Ted Bundy and Tim McVeigh.

Cop on patrol along Route 1 in Arlington, VA. Sees two vehicles, one with a majority of blacks in it and the other with a majority of white in it. In truth, both vehicles are carrying "weed". In this area, black youth's are more suspect ... profiling .... who does the cop pull over ? The black dudes. They get locked up and possibly sent away.

Who got away with the crime ? The white dudes.


I meant nothing sinister, no attempt at justification or rationalization, both sets were breaking the law. One got caught. One got caught because their skin color. That might be because their skin color is indicative of a larger population that COMMITS the crime, it might not be ... I don't know.

But what I do know is that there are a hell of a lot former druggies who aren't laid up in prison because they're white. They broke the same laws on the same streets. Right here in VA, near DC.

You don't want to know what's happened to brothers in other areas of Virginia.

Who brought up OJ ? That was great.

One black guy gets away with murder and all of a sudden this country forgets about the countless times whites, don't piss your pants you intellectually dishonest cunt flaps, got away with murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till



Sleep tight girls.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Possessing or selling of any drugs should be treated the same, but it's not.

Agreed. They should all be legal.

BSmack wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Possessing or selling of any drugs should be treated the same, but it's not.

Agreed. They should all be legal.

Like nobody saw that insipid comment coming.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Possessing or selling of any drugs should be treated the same, but it's not.

Agreed. They should all be legal.

Like nobody saw that insipid comment coming.

That's what logic will do to you. Seriously, have you a way to "win" the war on drugs?

Knock back a six pack and let me know.

That's all well and good Mace, but what does it have to do with USC and Michigan?

Ted the Unibomber wrote:THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM

6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism...

Here are the things you are required to believe to be a Republican today:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and hand its oil fields over to Halliburton, even though his daddy had written in a book that trying to overthrow Saddam would be a bad, bad, bad idea.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with communist China and communist North Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority should be enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

A woman can't be trusted to make decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all humanity without regulation (provided, of course, that they don't get caught, like Bush's former close personal friend, “Kenny Boy” Lay of Enron).

Jesus loves you — and Jesus hates homosexuals, Hillary Clinton, liberals, uppity women, uppity blacks, uppity hispanics, uppity orientals, immigrants, and everyone else you hate and/or fear.

Along the same lines: A good Christian obsesses about a few verses in Leviticus that appear to support his biases, and a good Christian totally ignores Jesus's liberal preaching about loving your enemies and forgiving anyone who does you wrong. (After all, doesn't Matthew 5:44 say, “Detest and revile your enemies and wage preemptive war against them”?)

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while (a) slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay and (b) inviting into the military high school students who before 2004 were considered too short, too unwell, too stupid, too fat, too lazy, or too gay to be soldiers, and telling the fat ones they won't have to exercise or eat less.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart and care nothing about profits.

Having the top one percent of Americans become even more wealthy while more than 4.1 million Americans slip into poverty is a huge success for Bush economic policies.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism — “intelligent design”— should be taught in schools. (Next, after this admitted “wedge issue” is successful: Chemistry classes will be required to teach alchemy; geography classes will be required to teach flat-Earthism; math classes will be required to teach that pi equals three (1 Kings 7:23); anthropology classes will be required to teach Leviticus; biology classes will be required to teach the falsehood that hares and rock badgers chew their cuds like cows (Lev. 11:6; Deut. 14:7).)

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to drum up support for a war in which thousands die — including well over 100,000 innocent civilians — is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which includes banning marriage between free and equal citizens of whom you disapprove; establishing far-right “Christian” fundamentalism as the official religion of the United States, along with an American Taliban whose imams will include Pat Robertson and James Dobson; reducing women to second-class citizens by forbidding them to make decisions about their own bodies; and censoring the Internet (and any other media that promote truth over neocon ideology).

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George W. Bush's driving record is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime — unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

You support “states' rights,” or, in English, the right of the Attorney General to tell states what local voter initiatives they are allowed to adopt.

What former president Bill Clinton did in the 1960s (inhale, probably) is of vital national interest, but what current president George W. Bush did in the 1970s (getting drunk; tooting cocaine; going AWOL during a time of war, a felony) and 1980s (getting drunk; tooting cocaine; driving not one, not two, but THREE businesses into bankruptcy and being financially bailed out at least twice by Salem bin Laden, Osama's brother) is totally irrelevant.

^^^^^^^
Knock it
right out of
the ballpark.

why 88--how could you forget that most pressing national economic issue ???

minimum wages !!

88 wrote:The Democratic Party isn't as much of a disappointment because it continues to do what it has always done, which is absolutely nothing.

You say this as if it's a bad thing. Isn't it a Republican value to have government maintain as little a presence in the lives of everyday America and allow citizens to live their lives with minimal government interference? If so, then the logical extreme of succeeding at that goal would be for government to do nothing. So why aren't you therefore praising the Democrats?

Yeah, I know, your statement above is simply another example of typical right-wing hyperbole, and not meant to be taken literally. But if the Republicans are hell-bent on taking action, they would be wise to adopt the part of the Hippocratic Oath that says, "First, do no harm." That would be a good start.

It has no principles, no plans and no goals, except to maintain control over the purse strings of government, penalize the successful while ensuring that the poor remain poor, and opposing any idea proposed by any other person, party or group. If Smackie Chan really wanted to knock it right out of the ballpark, he'd C&P the legislation that the Democratic Party intends to adopt to correct all of the ills he sees in the world.

I'll leave the posting of legislation to you legal beagles. But for you to say they have no plans or goals, while not surprising, is simply asinine. Not saying that I agree with everything they propose, or the way they propose to do it, but they do have an agenda. I'll wait & see how everything works out, although if success is to be measured by the performance of the current Congress, the bar has been set pretty low.

If the poster child for Democratic do-nothingness is Bubba, while the shining example of Republican brilliance is Dubya, I'd just recommend a comparison of the following:

Clinton Record

Bush resume

Under the current regime
the most important
health care issue is whether
stem cells destined for
the garbage are used for
research. Can't let
that happen!

Smackie Chan wrote:
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while (a) slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay and (b) inviting into the military high school students who before 2004 were considered too short, too unwell, too stupid, too fat, too lazy, or too gay to be soldiers, and telling the fat ones they won't have to exercise or eat less.

Why are you insulting every brave soldier that volunteered to protect you and your home?

Wolfman wrote:why 88--how could you forget that most pressing national economic issue ???

Your most pressing issue should be pulling hooves out of your fat asshole, grandpa.

88 wrote:Clinton handed Bush a recession, and "brilliant" Bush and his dumb Republican cronies somehow managed to turn it around

Hey, I've never that tune before.

I think you left out a couple verses though, something about how Bubba doesn't deserve credit for the economic boom that occurred on his watch (but is responsible for the recession he willed to Dubya), and that Dumbya does deserve credit for the turnaround you cited. I now realize the errors of my thought processes. The correct way to view American politics since 1992 is to attribute all negative occurrences to Clinton (while anything positive during his presidency was just dumb luck), and to give full credit to Chimpy for all the wonderfulness that has happened during his administration, while blaming all the unsavory issues on his predecessor. Thanks for enlightening me.

Dinsdale wrote: Yeah, it whitey's fault.

Sin,
Moving Sale

88 wrote: Possible Explanation #2 is not investigated or fairly debated because anyone who would even consider that Possibile Explanation #2 could be true is instantly labeled a racist.

This has more to do with green than it does with Black, White or Brown.

Smackie Chan wrote:

88 wrote:Clinton handed Bush a recession, and "brilliant" Bush and his dumb Republican cronies somehow managed to turn it around

Hey, I've never that tune before.

I think you left out a couple verses though, something about how Bubba doesn't deserve credit for the economic boom that occurred on his watch

He did oppose the policies that made the economy grow. Two things brought him into line: 1, He managed to cut himself in on a percentage of the gross, and 2, the Demorats lost control of congress. "Welfare", as we knew it, was reformed, planned tax increases didn't happen, and the budget was allegedly balanced years ahead of what Bubba claimed was possible.

(but is responsible for the recession he willed to Dubya),

Well, it was his Justice Department that got the recession rolling by suing Micro$oft for Anti-Trust.

and that Dumbya does deserve credit for the turnaround you cited.

Chimpy gets partial credit for proposing tax cuts, although belatedly. Itshould also be rembered that he didn't have the balls to demand that the tax cuts be made permanent from the outset. Nor did he have the balls to veto any of the Drunken Kennedy spending bills.

Clinton's fuck ups were nowhere near as bad Carter's, and Chimpy's accomplishments fall way short of Reagan's

Thanks for enlightening me.

Glad I could help

When posting pictures of the tires and wheels you have for sale, it's probably a good idea to make sure you're uploading the right pics.

http://www.boingboing.net/images/clist.jpg

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:I wasn't making excuses for them, I was proffering an explanation.

Your explanation takes the form of an excuse which minimizes or completely ignores the real problem.

If you think whites and blacks commit crimes at the same rate, but whites just get away with more of them, you are a fucking idiot.

I think he's trying to say that white people are smart enough to get away with violent crime and black arent.

Ace wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:I wasn't making excuses for them, I was proffering an explanation.

Your explanation takes the form of an excuse which minimizes or completely ignores the real problem.

If you think whites and blacks commit crimes at the same rate, but whites just get away with more of them, you are a fucking idiot.

I think he's trying to say that white people are smart enough to get away with violent crime and black arent.

Not really. What I've been saying is that profiling, nets more criminals, appparently of a specific color.

Again. Two vehicles with lawbreakers inside travelling down the same stretch of road where I live.

One vehicle with blacks in it, one with whites. Chances higher that the vehicle with blacks in it will get pulled over, leaving the vehicle with whites in it to continue down the road, "getting away with crime".

This happens. I've seen it, heard about it, and it's a fact of life around here.

As for "DWB", I've had far too many black associates and employers describe their experiences with "DWB". These men and women are law abiding citizens many of whom have a Ph.D and enjoy an upper to middle class lifestyle. Their credibility in this matter exceeds that of the embittered, deaf, dumb and blind that appear to post here.

Those that have somehow concluded anything other than what I stated, are strange. Good reads, but strange. Must be the holiday season.

Do Blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites? I don't think there's any way to deny it. Especially violent crimes. But it's the inner city culture/lifestyle, profiling, and racism that make them more susceptible to becoming criminals, not their race. It's not because they're poor, it's because there are so many single moms, no pro-social support family or friends, higher rates of substance abuse, bad schools and fewer employment opportunities that are the biggest contributors to someone becoming a criminal. Throw whites into the same environment and culture and they too would be criminals at the same rate and be committing the same violent crimes.

Mace

bullshit

they are called hoosiers/white trash, and they dont even come close to commiting crimes like the blacks.


talk about a pity the poor black people crock of shit

88 wrote:But if you review the progress of this thread, you will find that YOU were the numb nut Demonutsackrider that suggested that Clinton and the Demospenders ought to get credit for the roaring economy of the 90's (but not the .dot com bubble it was based on and the burst that occurred just as Bush took office) and made fun of Bush for his management of that mess until 2003 (when, as you conveniently omitted, things turned around and surpassed the economic benchmarks established during Clinton's tenure in the White House).

That's not at all what I was saying. My point was that you can't have it both ways. You can't suggest that a Democratic President has little influence over the economy when it's doing well, then turn around and give a Republican President credit for an economic upturn. Either they both get blame or they both get credit. And referring to the the 'crats as "Demospenders" is laughable given the lack of fiscal responsibility exercised by the current administration, even if you ignore war expenditures.

88 wrote:Smackie Chan's C&P is inaccurate on most accounts, but still highlights the sad and pathetic reality in which we find ourselves.

I'll agree with you on this: Smackie's C&P contains both an element of truth and an element of hyperbole. (Btw, it's been making the rounds via email for close to three years now, subject to minor revisions, which is why I have never posted it.)

The Republican Party has become a huge disappointment. It didn't follow its principles when it acquired majorities in Congress and gained control of the White House, and we are all suffering for it.

The Republican Party is a disappointment? I disagree -- it has become exactly what I saw coming as far back as a quarter century ago, when I was still in high school. Anyone who didn't see this coming a mile away is either stupid or self-delusional.

The Democratic Party isn't as much of a disappointment because it continues to do what it has always done, which is absolutely nothing.

Uhh, the Democrats have been in the minority since 1994, and haven't held the White House since January 2001. They haven't been in position to do anything for quite awhile. And they're still in the minority until the new Congress takes office next month.

It has no principles, no plans and no goals, except to maintain control over the purse strings of government, penalize the successful while ensuring that the poor remain poor, and opposing any idea proposed by any other person, party or group.

Link?

If Smackie Chan really wanted to knock it right out of the ballpark, he'd C&P the legislation that the Democratic Party intends to adopt to correct all of the ills he sees in the world.

The goals of the Democratic Party have been common knowledge for quite some time now, but I'll post them one more time to refute this argument yet again: raise the minimum wage; cut student loan interest rates; enable the government to bid competitively for prescription medication through Medicare; implement the 9/11 Commission security recommendations; broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds; and mandate paper ballots in elections.

That having been said, I honestly don't hold out much hope for that, at least not for the next two years. I expect the Partisan-in-Chief to veto anything that has "Democrat" next to it. But the Democrats will have an opportunity to provide a check on Smirky McFlightsuit the next time he feels the urge to use the Constitution as toilet paper.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:it has become exactly what I saw coming as far back as a quarter century ago, when I was still in high school. Anyone who didn't see this coming a mile away is either stupid or self-delusional.

You are a dumbfuck on a consistent basis. Nobody reads your seven-paragraph diatribes. Paragraphs, mind you, with seven sentences and a total of fifty-seven commas. In the run-on sentence arena, you are Bruce-fucking-Jenner.

Sorry* Terry, but you are full of yourself in a way you'll never understand. You think people actually read your tripe or somehow take you seriously. Sadly, scribe, but on your best day people maybe catch the first and last sentences of each aforementioned seven-sentence paragraph.

Dumbfuck statements like the one quoted above only prove that you are full of shit. No, nobody here thinks you're brilliant. No, nobody here could give a fuck what you were doing in high school when you couldn't get a prom date. No, nobody buys that you even knew what politics were back when you played trombone for the band on Friday nights.

Get the fuck over yourself Terry. You're an overly-verbose, middle-aged moron. Lots to say, nobody to listen and no clue that the only person taking you seriously is yourself.



* not really

Maybe if we put Terry on a reindeer tubesteak egg nog diet it'll help him pull his head out of his ass.

You think?

Jimmy Medalions wrote:
You are a dumbfuck on a consistent basis. Nobody reads your seven-paragraph diatribes. Paragraphs, mind you, with seven sentences and a total of fifty-seven commas. In the run-on sentence arena, you are Bruce-fucking-Jenner. No, nobody here thinks you're brilliant.

Get the fuck over yourself Terry. You're an overly-verbose, middle-aged moron.

Every so often I'll skim through a Terry post to see if he's posting anything informative. As always, his typed-out bullshit confirms the reason I don't read his posts other than to mock him a few times. He's a horrible read.

Atomic Punk wrote:

Jimmy Medalions wrote:
You are a dumbfuck on a consistent basis. Nobody reads your seven-paragraph diatribes. Paragraphs, mind you, with seven sentences and a total of fifty-seven commas. In the run-on sentence arena, you are Bruce-fucking-Jenner. No, nobody here thinks you're brilliant.

Get the fuck over yourself Terry. You're an overly-verbose, middle-aged moron.

Every so often I'll skim through a Terry post to see if he's posting anything informative. As always, his typed-out bullshit confirms the reason I don't read his posts other than to mock him a few times. He's a horrible read.

Agreed.

^^^When a mutual "board enemy" agrees with you, then you know Terry sucks.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:I got nothing, so I'll attack the messenger.

Conservative debating tactic 101. Thanks for playing, moron.

Even with your attention span, you should be able to get through that. Then again, maybe I'm giving you too much credit.

Face down, plant that white flag pole in your asshole, and give it a wiggle or four, Terry, or your surrender is not accepted.

Loser.

88 wrote:Your latest post would make sense but for the content of the links you provided in your earlier post:

Smackie Chan wrote:Clinton Record

Bush resume

You're mixing two differents arguments here (actually, there've been three). If we briefly recap, you C&P'ed a diatribe from respected political analyst The Unabomber that attempted to demonstrate how the wretched disease known as liberalism has epidemically infected and spread throughout our once respectable conservative society. I responded, tongue-in-cheek, with a C&P from a humor Web site rebutting that notion with exaggerated Republican beliefs. (First argument) You then responded by dismissing most of what was cited in my C&P, and added that the Dems do nothing. I countered the claim of inactivity with the link to Clinton's accomplishments, which shows that at least one Democrat did more than nothing during a two-term presidency, and for good measure added another link for the sake of comparison to the same humor Web site from which I earlier C&P'ed to illustrate the bumbling record (both in and out of the White House) of the boy in your corner. (Second argument) You then minimized the positive contributions made by Bubba, and overinflated Dubya's achievements, by citing the recession Dubya inherited and subsequently turned around. My retort was that this was a familiar refrain heard ever since Dubya took office (and especially since 9/11) - that the bad things that have happened on Dubya's watch are all really the result of Bubba's actions, or lack thereof. It also meant to illustrate the "have it both ways" tendency of some (on both the left and right) to credit their team for economic prosperity while their guy is in the White House, but to deflect blame for hard times to the last guy. (Third argument)

Your last post is taking my reply to argument #2, and saying it is incongruous with what I said in argument #3, mixing apples and oranges.

And calling the 'crats "Demospenders" is not laughable, considering the "agenda" you posted and their track record. Furthermore, calling the 'crats "Demospenders" has nothing to do with the recent "Republcospenders". Both parties have been spending our money as fast as they can.

Alright then.

You seem to think that the 'crats are going to be fiscally responsible and push an agenda that will solve the country's problems. I'm very skeptical of that notion. I think they will spend just as recklessly as the "Republicospenders" have been doing for the last 6 years.

No, I don't seem to think that. If you recall,

I wrote:I'll wait & see how everything works out

I am also skeptical. I suffer from no illusion that the last election was an endorsement of the Democrats' agenda. It was clearly a rejection of the track record of the party that has controlled the White House and both houses of Congress in recent years. The fact that the Democrats won is simply the result of there being only one other option when the country is dissatisfied with the status quo; the result of a two-party system.

Getting back to who deserves credit or blame for the economy, it's not difficult to make some predictions on what might happen in a few years. For the sake of argument, assume a Democrat is elected in '08. Between now and then, the economy continues to grow at a slow but steady pace. In 2010, it takes a downturn, and there are rumblings that we are once again in recession. Who's to blame? The Democrats will claim that it's the result of policies implemented by Dubya, while the Republicans will point out that it's the fault of the sitting President. Doesn't really matter what the true cause might be, even if it could be irrefutably identified. It's the nature of the beast. Besides, economics is hardly an exact science. Reminds me of the question, "If you laid all the world's economists end to end, would they reach a conclusion?"