"Across the Universe"

even if the mexicans didnt really contribute that much, due to PC, we need to have revisionist history to make the mexicans happy.

LOL! spot on but  its better to just leave it as American contribution and leave out the race BS. 85% of those who fought as US GI were Anglos anyway why even bother to mention the others? Vietnam was another story.

Still sunny here, may have to turn on the AC soon.

Oh God, anybody who uses the word “Phat” in a conversation deserves to be shot. Period.

@JWW:

Borat (forgive me) did a very good job too! I was surprised that he was cast in that role and, IMO, he pulled it off very well. His one-liners, throughout the movie, had the audience chuckling. A few nice light moments for a somewhat grim, “les miserables” film.

100%…. and Helena Bonham Carter as well.

Thanks Garg, but I am worried if I bought it, the delivery guys would mess up where I wanted it dropping and squash my roses.

Sorry, I thought that it was a type of crushed iced liquor. Ha, it seems like the only thing good for your body. 😄

Chick-Fl-A also sells Ice Cream, Milkshakes, Salads, Combo Meals,etc. I have ate at McDonald’s before and I only like the McFlurries and Fries. Wendy’s is passable also but that may change to a dislike because of their new fries. Burger King is also passable, but CFA is my first choice. By the way, I am a regular at CFA.

I think he’s absolutely correct.
Many Canadians deplore Jean Cretien (Canada’s P.M.) for stating at the recent G8 meetings some similar things (i.e. it is unrealistic and dangerous for a member to have this kind of a deficit - especially in an increasing world economy where we all rely on each other to some degree). At the same time, i agree that this has the potential to be extremely problematic.
At the same time, in periods of economic downturn - which the US has seen in spades (not the least of its causes were 9/11) - it is economically viable (and good sense) to run a deficit - the depth of which is difficult to determine. Presumably GWB has a few half-decent economists working with him. The problem is - are they saying “oh, great idea boss” to appease GWB, or because in their estimation it’s a good idea?
As for his tax-cutting strat - i completely agree. Basic economic theory demonstrates that if you wish to stimulate the economy you have better growth by injecting money than by cutting taxes DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR. Also he’s correct by stating that the tax cuts to the poor would provide better economic stimulus than to the wealthy.
Which brings us to ask - why these types of economic decisions? As i said - certainly he has the best economists in the nation helping out. Is he relying on political - rather than economical - advisors?
(my guess is “yes”)