(no subject)
I don't usually use this as a place to rant, but one of the front page headlines of the birmingham news alarmed me so much so that i must step to the soapbox. To take an actually rather dull article and exploit it's argument bluntly, the republican party's negative impact on the national deficit over the last 20 years is outlandish. Reading the actual article almost proves pointless when compared to looking at the graph pictorial also featured in the article. It is a time line of the national deficit broken down by presidents, reagan to bush jr. in each section, there was a highlighted point and accompanying number indicating the lowest or highest financial figure for each president.
Reagen: -221 billion
Bush Sr.: -243 billion
Clinton: +293 billion (PLEASE NOTE POSITIVE NUMBER!!!)
Bush Jr. -422 billion
if anyone cannot decipher my point here, i will leave it to evolution to explain.
as for my actual life...
workrecordingtjweedoilchangesbeautifulmusicmoreblowtalkcreammotherfuckingcheesedeadlines.
...i'm waiting...
Reagen: -221 billion
Bush Sr.: -243 billion
Clinton: +293 billion (PLEASE NOTE POSITIVE NUMBER!!!)
Bush Jr. -422 billion
if anyone cannot decipher my point here, i will leave it to evolution to explain.
as for my actual life...
workrecordingtjweedoilchangesbeautifulmusicmoreblowtalkcreammotherfuckingcheesedeadlines.
...i'm waiting...