I'm really surprised that Dan wasn't a part of the panel, given how often he's mentioned Reagan and Bush 41's disregard (or sometimes laughing dismissal) of the AIDS epidemic. Was it that Dan started spinning and snarling and spitting like the Tasmanian Devil cartoon character, and you couldn't calm him down enough to put him in front of a microphone?

Read my lips: The Bush years, 1989-1993, and 2001-2009 JUST. PLAIN. SUCKED.

@1 Knat: I think you're right. Shit---I'D be spinning, snarling, and spitting like the Tasmanian Devil if I had to make a Bush tribute, too!

@3 - all those words to say that you think you're better than they are because you think being fake polite is better than being honest.

Sad.

How did Charles Mudede live through the 80s and somehow not notice that 'voodoo economics' isn't an epithet for trickle-down economics? Bush used it to describe Reagan's supply-side economics. All conservative Republicans at the time were for trickle-down, and they still are. That's the idea that the economy grows best if rich people get to keep more income; they'll use it to boost the economy, and prosperity will trickle down to everyone else. Supply-side economics asserts that cutting marginal tax rates will increase government revenue, because the economy will do so much better, people's incomes will increase sufficiently to make up for the revenue shortfall.

@3 Not sure how you sleep at night. Rattling off right wing bs is pretty pathetic. Denying the damage done by corporate owned presidents and other powerful who had no problem walking over the dead is chicken shit.

@3: Again with "I will even celebrate the life of Jimmy Carter and the others when they pass because it is the right thing to do."

It's not church you know, you're not obligated to celebrate someone's life if you don't think it's worth celebrating. I still think Carter is a far better person than GHWB was, but mostly because of what he's done after he was president, not while he was the one at the desk.

And you do know that the avatar image/name you've chosen isn't "owning" or fooling anyone, right? You're the most consistent pearl-clutcher and concern troller here, and everyone knows it.

@3: Down, muffy, down. Breathe. Sit. Heel. Stay. Now be a good girl, run along, and take your prozac. You need it far more than any one of us here does.
@6 meb, @7 Ivy R. Nightscales, and @8 Knat: I know, right?

@4: Pridge Wessea: I'm sorry--I knew I'd missed responding to at least one more commenter. I meant to include you in 'I know, right?' in @9. But yeah--I know, right?

@13: Here's a refresher. Read my lips: the Bush years 1989-1993 and 2001-2009 JUST. PLAIN. SUCKED. Did you ever serve our country during any of those years? Are you aware that the Bush family oil interests in the Middle East were what fueled the Gulf War? Are you aware that Dwight David ("Ike" ) Eisenhower--first a U.S General before becoming 34th U.S President-- was fully against the U.S. involvement with foreign military? NO?? Then I guess you weren't paying attention for someone supposedly born in the nifty '50s.

@11 claiming all presidents are equally POS is like saying a fully formed, clean, "ghost" shit taken at a convenient time on a toilet with a bidet, is the same as sudden uncontrollable explosive diarrhea when you're on a crowded long distance bus with no toilet barreling down the highway and can't get out of your seat.

@10 - much love to you auntie