Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Well, she is a sweetie. And a hottie. Also, a missing letter doesn't mean she can't spell or that she's an idiot; it just means she thinks faster than she types, which means she is not only sweet but is brainy as well. I think you are envious because she is more popular on this site than you. So stick a sock in it! And the use of misspelling as a means to make a silly and petty point, Xer!

oh my. I had no idea the battle raged.

Marc, would you please go to prom with me?

Last May, the President signed a Farm Bill, which while loaded with pork, also restored eligibility to hundreds of thousands of immigrants who could prove that they resided legally in the United States for at least five years. The provisions took effect on April 1, 2003, which happened to be yesterday. (My job, as a wonk, was estimating the impact of this provision on Food Stamp Program costs and participation, so I have a keen interest in it).

So yesterday, I looked all over the Washington Post for the big story on food stamp offices crowded with immigrants (or empty food stamp offices if the immigrants stayed home). Nada. I did a seach on the on-line, then checked out the on-line New York Times and Los Angeles Times. Nada.

The immigrants coming back onto food stamps would have been a big 3T story, but the Iraq War has definitely moved it off of people's radar screens. Interesting.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Kiff, maybe I'm taking you too literally, but your remarks about Justmom's spelling errors bugged me. Spelling mistakes are an annoyance, but not a sign of stupidity. I usually enjoy your posts and agree with much of what you say, but your bickering with Justmom rubbed me the wrong way.

I don't have the services of Spellcheck when I post on-line, unlike when I use Outlook or MS Word. I expect most of us don't either. Webmaster or other posters, do any of you know of a way to Spellcheck while posting (unless you write out your post in MS Word and them cut and paste it into the post box?

I see Justmom as a nativist, rather than a bigot. She's perfectly happy to have an America of different races, religions, and ethnicity, as long as they conform to what she sees as core American values. It is a point of view that not everyone shares, but I'm happy that she gives voice to it -- it is an attitude shared by an awful lot of Americans.

whew.....SOMEBODY understands me! Thank you Jenny.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Last May, the President signed a Farm Bill, which while loaded with pork, also restored eligibility to hundreds of thousands of immigrants who could prove that they resided legally in the United States for at least five years. The provisions took effect on April 1, 2003, which happened to be yesterday. (My job, as a wonk, was estimating the impact of this provision on Food Stamp Program costs and participation, so I have a keen interest in it).

So yesterday, I looked all over the Washington Post for the big story on food stamp offices crowded with immigrants (or empty food stamp offices if the immigrants stayed home). Nada. I did a seach on the on-line, then checked out the on-line New York Times and Los Angeles Times. Nada.

The immigrants coming back onto food stamps would have been a big 3T story, but the Iraq War has definitely moved it off of people's radar screens. Interesting.

Yes, very interesting. Do you know if immigrants took advantage, or stayed home? And I agree it would have made big news just a few months back.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Kiff, maybe I'm taking you too literally, but your remarks about Justmom's spelling errors bugged me. Spelling mistakes are an annoyance, but not a sign of stupidity. I usually enjoy your posts and agree with much of what you say, but your bickering with Justmom rubbed me the wrong way.

Jenny, please go back and look at the thread again. I said nothing about spelling.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinius Parthicus

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinius Parthicus

Especially given that a big part of the basis for the illusion of unity mentioned above was the expectation on each side of co-opting the other, which I feel left a bitter taste of betrayal and double-dealing in both sides' mouths when reality set in about a year ago.

Either you've been reading some of my old posts, or you and I think quite a bit alike.

HC, I'd say it's the latter. And after having more time to think over the idea of another civil war, the nearest I can really see to it happening would be a nasty, but short-lived uprising by the left, out of frustration over GWB winning another term next year. Said uprising would, IMO, be put down swiftly, and severely, and if it does take place, it would only end up giving our side all the justification we would still need for 'taking the gloves off'.

If you're going to talk revolt, why not think TAX revolt. Here's a perfect opportunity for the left to stick it to the right using their own arguments. Red State Politicos always argue that the Blue State Citizens are all whiners, and should quit expecting hand-outs and stand on their own. "Red State Citizens are tired of paying for <insert the domestic program of choice>".

The only problem with the argument, is the very real fact that the Blue States pay the bills, and the Red States take the hand-outs. It might be time for the Blue States to play a little "put-up or shut-up".

Paul Krugman of the NY Times already started the public discussion. If you have a NY TImes account, you can read about it here.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Kiff, maybe I'm taking you too literally, but your remarks about Justmom's spelling errors bugged me. Spelling mistakes are an annoyance, but not a sign of stupidity. I usually enjoy your posts and agree with much of what you say, but your bickering with Justmom rubbed me the wrong way.

Jenny, please go back and look at the thread again. I said nothing about spelling.

Hopefully not telling tales out of school, but XoE made the "spelling" remark as a retort to an equally insipid comment by justmom.

I'm thinking irony or sarcasm, not weeny hyper-perfectionism.

Originally Posted by David '47

If you're going to talk revolt, why not think TAX revolt.

Indeed. And if you are bold (though one need not be so bold as, for example, a lightly-armed Iraqi charging a US armored battalion), you could consider this site, or perhaps this one.

What would you do if someone came to your door with a cup in hand asking for a contribution
to help buy guns to kill a group of people they didn't like?

Mr. Meece it is perfectly acceptable to attack he beliefs of one who premises their world view on faulty beliefs. The only way one could possible believe that the alignment of planets affects world events is to as I have said before completely divorce themselves from reason. Once one rejects reason for an ill-defined and fallacious mysticism there is no further point in talking with that person as they have abandoned reality and entered a dream world that has nothing to do with reality.

Astrology is a great load of crap studied by idiots (note it is spelled correctly). It is a perspective that interests no one of any intelligence who has determined to make their stand in the real world.

I will tell you one more time why this war is a sign of the fourth turning, and I will go real slow so that maybe you can understand.

1. This is not World War II, it is not occurring without dissent. So don’t bother to tell me that such is the case. I know that.
2. Look at the facts whether you agree with the war or not Bush sold a majority of the people that Saddam was a threat and we had to remove him before he struck us. That is an argument that sounds like a crisis era argument rather than a third turning argument.
3. If you doubt Bush has made the sale of the argument look at how the Democratic party has been basically silent. This tells me that their internal polls tell them attacking the war is a losing issue.
4. Look at what has happened with Peter Arnett.
5. Look at how support for the war remained solid even when the public believed it was going poorly.
I could cite more examples but I believe this makes the point. The national mood is different now that it was before.

I know you hate Bush, I know you want him to be wrong, but understand that has nothing to do with whether the national mood has changed. It has. What it means and where it will come out is unclear, but he national mood is different. Don’t let the fact that you hate Bush keep you from seeing what is in front of your face.

The left is getting hysterical. They can’t deal with the fact Bush has out maneuvered them, and if they don’t start figuring out how and why he has done it rather than being hysterical they wont come back. Yes Mr. Meece this is a partisan statement, I know it no need to tell me go back to observing Uranus.

Originally Posted by bubba

They can’t deal with the fact Bush has out maneuvered them, and if they don’t start figuring out how and why he has done it rather than being hysterical they wont come back.

I'll leave out the "why" for right now. As for the "how":

"Remember 0.81818181..."

That seems to have done most of the trick. Aren't mantras cool?

Aren't mantras cool?

Oh, you must mean mantras, like:

Starve Senior citizens
Starve Children
Social Security Trust Fund
Taxing the poor
Angry White Males
'demagoging the issue'
'eat dog food'
Woman and children

blah,
blah,
blah,
blah.................

Originally Posted by justmom

Aren't mantras cool?

Oh, you must mean mantras, like:

Starve Senior citizens
Starve Children
Social Security Trust Fund
Taxing the poor
Angry White Males
'demagoging the issue'
'eat dog food'
Woman and children

Yep just like those.

Also good are:

With us or against us
Support the troops
Just say no
Democracies don't go to war with each other

and my personal favorite:

Vote!

they're all pretty disgusting after a while...

Evidence:

Hollywood finds criticizing Iraq war carries a hefty price.

Nothing new, just the headline was interesting. Given the 'time' we are in.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by justmom

Aren't mantras cool?

Oh, you must mean mantras, like:

Starve Senior citizens
Starve Children
Social Security Trust Fund
Taxing the poor
Angry White Males
'demagoging the issue'
'eat dog food'
Woman and children

Yep just like those.

Also good are:

With us or against us
Support the troops
Just say no
Democracies don't go to war with each other

and my personal favorite:

Vote!

they're all pretty disgusting after a while...

My personal favorite is :

"If horse meat were illeagle, only criminals would eat horse meat." :P
{True story, put out in CA. are the 'pro' argument in favor of keeping horse meat legal.}

Originally Posted by justmom

"If horse meat were illeagle, only criminals would eat horse meat." :P
{True story, put out in CA. are the 'pro' argument in favor of keeping horse meat legal.}

Why would you illegalize meat? :o

Are horses endangered in California?

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Pfc. Jessica Lynch, likely to become the first popular hero of the Iraqi War, is only 19. She?s too young, in my estimation, to be of the Hero mold, or a Millie. But maybe she is just a very late one. On the other hand, she may be on the leading edge of my generational archetype?the thumb-sucking Artist. In which case, will there soon be a name for these Silent-esque children who sheepishly take bullets for the Holy Cause?

--Croaker

According to the Strauss and Howe timeline, Jessica Lynch would be among the first cohorts of the Millies--she would have been born in either 1982 or 1983.

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinius Parthicus

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinius Parthicus

Especially given that a big part of the basis for the illusion of unity mentioned above was the expectation on each side of co-opting the other, which I feel left a bitter taste of betrayal and double-dealing in both sides' mouths when reality set in about a year ago.

Either you've been reading some of my old posts, or you and I think quite a bit alike.

HC, I'd say it's the latter. And after having more time to think over the idea of another civil war, the nearest I can really see to it happening would be a nasty, but short-lived uprising by the left, out of frustration over GWB winning another term next year. Said uprising would, IMO, be put down swiftly, and severely, and if it does take place, it would only end up giving our side all the justification we would still need for 'taking the gloves off'.

If you're going to talk revolt, why not think TAX revolt. Here's a perfect opportunity for the left to stick it to the right using their own arguments. Red State Politicos always argue that the Blue State Citizens are all whiners, and should quit expecting hand-outs and stand on their own. "Red State Citizens are tired of paying for <insert the domestic program of choice>".

The only problem with the argument, is the very real fact that the Blue States pay the bills, and the Red States take the hand-outs. It might be time for the Blue States to play a little "put-up or shut-up".

Paul Krugman of the NY Times already started the public discussion. If you have a NY TImes account, you can read about it here.

I was wondering how long it would take before one of the liberals saw this pseudo-argument and tried to use it.

True, the bulk of the taxes are paid in the blue states, but that rather misses the point of the entire tax debate. Further the Red States provide the larger percentage of the military recruits, and several other things that the Blue States provide less of, including food. The 'which States provide what' debate is fruitless and irrevelant.

What produces the tax differential is the fact that the Blue States tend to be metropolitan areas. Even in the major cities, there is a significant Red cultural presence, but the concentration of some voting groups here causes the metro areas to vote 'blue'.

So a Red State taxpayer tired of subsidizing 'x' is not being a hypocrite, since he's paying in taxes just as a Blue State taxpayer is, he's merely living in area with fewer economic activities per square mile.

The 'Red zone' and 'Blue zone' that are in dispute for the direction of the country are cultural terms, not synonymous with the Red and Blue States of the 2000 election. The Red Zone is present in Boston and the Blue zone is present in the rural lands of Texas, in different proportions.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Also good are:

With us or against us
Support the troops
Just say no
Democracies don't go to war with each other

my personal favorite is "marijuana use results in pregnancy", followed immediately by a beer commercial.


TK

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by justmom

"If horse meat were illeagle, only criminals would eat horse meat." :P
{True story, put out in CA. are the 'pro' argument in favor of keeping horse meat legal.}

Why would you illegalize meat? :o

Are horses endangered in California?

No. It was a group of animal rights activists who got together and decided that horse meat for human consumption was inhumane.

I voted for it to stay legal. I figured, "hey, if you wan't to eat horse meat, who am I to stop you?"

Originally Posted by TrollKing

my personal favorite is "marijuana use results in pregnancy", followed immediately by a beer commercial.
TK

I remember being over at a buddy's house when I first saw that commercial. He looked over at me, patted his gut, and said "Whoa! I though I was just a lazy slob!"

Good times.

Originally Posted by justmom

No. It was a group of animal rights activists who got together and decided that horse meat for human consumption was inhumane.

To the horse or the guy eating it?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by justmom

No. It was a group of animal rights activists who got together and decided that horse meat for human consumption was inhumane.

To the horse or the guy eating it?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinius Parthicus

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinius Parthicus

Especially given that a big part of the basis for the illusion of unity mentioned above was the expectation on each side of co-opting the other, which I feel left a bitter taste of betrayal and double-dealing in both sides' mouths when reality set in about a year ago.

Either you've been reading some of my old posts, or you and I think quite a bit alike.

HC, I'd say it's the latter. And after having more time to think over the idea of another civil war, the nearest I can really see to it happening would be a nasty, but short-lived uprising by the left, out of frustration over GWB winning another term next year. Said uprising would, IMO, be put down swiftly, and severely, and if it does take place, it would only end up giving our side all the justification we would still need for 'taking the gloves off'.

If you're going to talk revolt, why not think TAX revolt. Here's a perfect opportunity for the left to stick it to the right using their own arguments. Red State Politicos always argue that the Blue State Citizens are all whiners, and should quit expecting hand-outs and stand on their own. "Red State Citizens are tired of paying for <insert the domestic program of choice>".

The only problem with the argument, is the very real fact that the Blue States pay the bills, and the Red States take the hand-outs. It might be time for the Blue States to play a little "put-up or shut-up".

Paul Krugman of the NY Times already started the public discussion. If you have a NY TImes account, you can read about it here.

I was wondering how long it would take before one of the liberals saw this pseudo-argument and tried to use it.

True, the bulk of the taxes are paid in the blue states, but that rather misses the point of the entire tax debate. Further the Red States provide the larger percentage of the military recruits, and several other things that the Blue States provide less of, including food. The 'which States provide what' debate is fruitless and irrevelant.

What produces the tax differential is the fact that the Blue States tend to be metropolitan areas. Even in the major cities, there is a significant Red cultural presence, but the concentration of some voting groups here causes the metro areas to vote 'blue'.

So a Red State taxpayer tired of subsidizing 'x' is not being a hypocrite, since he's paying in taxes just as a Blue State taxpayer is, he's merely living in area with fewer economic activities per square mile.

The 'Red zone' and 'Blue zone' that are in dispute for the direction of the country are cultural terms, not synonymous with the Red and Blue States of the 2000 election. The Red Zone is present in Boston and the Blue zone is present in the rural lands of Texas, in different proportions.

HC,

I'm not talking generalities. I'm talking real numbers. For example, I live in Virginia, which receives, in a typical year, $1.50-1.75 in Federal disbursements for every Federal tax dollar collected. Connecticut only gets back $0.65-0.68 per tax dollar. Even as pathetic as that is, its small potatoes to the main point Krugman makes.

His article dealt with a specific program, Homeland Security. His point was, that per capita spending on this program was highest in low risk areas like Montana, and lower in high density, high risk areas like New York and California. The reason was simple, the distribution was by formula, and the formula overwhelmingly favors the Red states. Here's the formula:

• Every state gets .75%, regardless of size (total commitment > 37.5%, since Washington DC and the territories get from this distribuiton, too.)

• The balance is then distributed to the states/others by population.

Now I don't know about you, but I can see pretty easily that Montana gets a ton of money, but has virtually no need. The high risk areas, on the other hand, are highly underfunded. And remember, security at Federal facilities is handled through separate funding.

No, the Red States are not carrying a fair burden, and the Blue States are finally catching-on.

Bubba:

The only way one could possible believe that the alignment of planets affects world events is to as I have said before completely divorce themselves from reason.

Or someone who is aware, from his/her own studies, that nature includes an operating principle capable of altering the probabilities of indeterminate events, governed by the equation P'=P+P/(Q/X) where P is the normal probability of the event, P' is its altered probability, Q=1-P, and X is a measure of the intensity of said operating principle in the local context; and that the laws governing this operating principle allow for the possibility that the planets, as very large, massive, and energetic objects, generate significant quantities of it . . .

Or someone who, like Mr. Meese, may be unaware of all of the above but has sufficient actual acquaintance with astrology to know what he is talking about when talking about it.

Unlike others I could mention.

Look at the facts whether you agree with the war or not Bush sold a majority of the people that Saddam was a threat and we had to remove him before he struck us.

Nonsense. A majority of Americans were opposed to going to war without U.N. support until the day the war began. Overnight, the level of support jumped from the mid 40s to 70% and has stayed there ever since. It's clear enough what's happened: now that we're actually at war, many people who thought we should not go in -- and, I submit, probably still think we shouldn't have gone in -- see no choice but to stick it through. There are posters on this board who have expressed exactly that view. I imagine that the Democrats are in a similar position. You're reading a lot more into that than belongs there.

Bush did not sell the American people on the war. He did, however, sell Congress, or perhaps intimidate them. Though the price paid by the so-called opposition party for that craven cave-in in the following election is indicative of public feeling.

Anyway, Congress authorized this fiasco, and Bush used that authorization to do what he wanted, without need for or attempt at further wooing of the public. Despite appearances, this is not a popular war. Bush will pay a price for it.