Honestly, what is the point here? Why argue either way? If the Democrats wish to base the future on the past, why get in their way? So what if he's "wrong"? Ever heard of the "switch in time saved nine"?Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
David, we've been through this before, and you were shown to be wrong.
It reminds me of that scene in the movie Bladerunner, "Move on, move on, move on..."
How do you know that the House would have chosen Bush?David, we've been through this before, and you were shown to be wrong.Since you mention it, let me add a quick E2K comment. Since the results of the election were "managed" by the SCOTUS, and the executive nominates all judges and justices - for life, no Presdient so 'elected' should be naming jurists.
The SCOTUS had no effect on the fact that G.W. Bush became President of the United States.
They affected only the length of the circus preceding what was already a done deal.
That isn't opinion, David. It's fact. And thus Bush's right to appoint Justices is beyond debate, as is the right of the Dems in the Senate to try and block them, if they can manage it.
I probably should have qualified my words, in theory they could have chosen someone else. But in practice, it would have been a majority GOP House in a bad mood toward the Dems. The practical chance of them picking anyone other than GWB would less than 1%. Far less. Especially since it would anger their own party base so much that they'd be committing political suicide.How do you know that the House would have chosen Bush?David, we've been through this before, and you were shown to be wrong.Since you mention it, let me add a quick E2K comment. Since the results of the election were "managed" by the SCOTUS, and the executive nominates all judges and justices - for life, no Presdient so 'elected' should be naming jurists.
The SCOTUS had no effect on the fact that G.W. Bush became President of the United States.
The Senate, now, is a slightly different story, as I've noted. The SCOTUS may, just may, have actually affected the identity of the Vice-President.
okay... so the margin is 212-221? All that would be needed would be for nine Republicans (maybe 10 depending on how the independents ran) in moderate districts (who might very well need the support of a good number of moderates or even Democrats) to abstain from the vote, risking angering their party base a little in exchange for appealing to the moderates (especially since it was still a 3T...)I probably should have qualified my words, in theory they could have chosen someone else. But in practice, it would have been a majority GOP House in a bad mood toward the Dems. The practical chance of them picking anyone other than GWB would less than 1%. Far less. Especially since it would anger their own party base so much that they'd be committing political suicide.How do you know that the House would have chosen Bush?David, we've been through this before, and you were shown to be wrong.Since you mention it, let me add a quick E2K comment. Since the results of the election were "managed" by the SCOTUS, and the executive nominates all judges and justices - for life, no Presdient so 'elected' should be naming jurists.
The SCOTUS had no effect on the fact that G.W. Bush became President of the United States.
The Senate, now, is a slightly different story, as I've noted. The SCOTUS may, just may, have actually affected the identity of the Vice-President.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0404/p13s01-almo.html
Is it OK to have fun?
After two weeks of war, many Americans are feeling torn between the obligation to stay informed and the need to take a break.
By Gregory M. Lamb | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
and Janet Saidi
BOSTON AND SAN DIEGO - At a time of war, who better to turn to than Elmo? The muppet was part of a recent attempt on "Sesame Street" to calm the concerns of pint-sized Americans, such as Jeffrey Hyson's two toddlers.
As the threesome watched, Maria, one of the adult characters, assured Elmo that he could still go to the park or eat ice cream - or see an elephant on roller skates (cue the clip of the skating elephant).
The youngest Americans aren't the only ones trying to figure out what kind of fun is OK when the nation is involved in the most intense conflict since the first Gulf War a dozen years ago. "I feel guilt" watching entertainment shows, says Avonelle Sorensen, a Mason City, Iowa, resident whose daughter is in the Army but so far hasn't been deployed. "Those people over there are suffering, and here I am sitting in my comfortable home with my feet up."
Anecdotal evidence and a slumping box office indicate many Americans are feeling similarly conflicted about the luxury of leisure. After two weeks of war, many are torn between an obligation to be informed and the need to take a break from it, says Monica Kintigh, a professional counselor at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth. She is counseling people to feel free to do the things that they like. "Do you like to go out dancing? Then go out dancing," she says. "Find ways to find some laughter in your life."
Interviews with a sampling of people across the country indicate that laughter is exactly what many are seeking. Cultural observers say that is similar to people's reactions after the Sept. 11 attacks, when a majority of Americans gravitated toward the cultural equivalents of comfort food.
Historically, "during wartime, popular culture tends to emphasize entertainment and patriotism, when it talks about war themes at all," points out Mr. Hyson, a cultural historian at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia.
Observers say that, people's short-term reactions will probably center on a desire to be entertained, rather than creating high art. They add that it will take years - even decades - before the fine arts respond either to the war or to cultural shifts brought on by it and, even more profoundly, by Sept. 11.
"It's the high culture - literature, fine arts, poetry, and so on - that mounts the critique of the culture, of the war effort," Hyson says. He cites "The Red Badge of Courage," published 30 years after the Civil War, and "Catch-22," a scathing look at World War II that came out in 1962.
In the meantime, Americans are relying on instinct when choosing a diversion. Sheri McLoughlin, a homemaker in Beaverton, Ore., says she isn't comfortable watching shows like "Alias," a drama about a young female spy. "It's almost like I feel I shouldn't be watching that unless I'm going to just watch the war coverage," Ms. McLoughlin says. Since the start of the war, "I'm turning away from [police dramas] like 'CSI' and 'Law & Order' and turning more to something like 'Everybody Loves Raymond,' " she says.
McLoughlin has also been trying to get her children out of the house and away from CNN. Last week, she took them to the Oregon Zoo, Portland's Children's Museum, "Piglet's Big Movie," and the library.
Finding comfort in the blues
Theresa Thomas, whose husband, Jerome, is serving in the Gulf, is very worried about him. She says the Navy airman has been incommunicado since he left in January on the USS Dubuque. Mrs. Thomas watches TV soap operas to help her sleep at night.
For Thomas, the main distraction from the war has been playing in her jazz and R&B band, Theresa Thomas and Vibe, at gigs around San Diego.
"It does help a lot because it gets my mind off of what [Jerome] is doing. He can't e-mail. He can't call. So it's very, very hard," says the data analyst and mother of two teenagers. Thomas says she's avoiding the radio and relying on her trusty CDs instead. "Blues always helps me get through," she says.
Changing the channel
With TV showing people in real danger, some have wondered if "reality" shows such as NBC's "Fear Factor," which asks contestants to do dangerous or disgusting things, would seem less appealing.
"It's sort of beyond belief to me that you flip one channel over and you're watching bombs go off in Baghdad and then you're watching this sort of silly stuff," says Evie Goldstein, a lawyer who lives in New York.
On March 10, before the war began, "Fear Factor" easily won its time period. Last Monday, it dropped to second, coming in well behind CBS comedies "King of Queens" and "Yes, Dear." Viewership for the Oscars, one of the prime TV events of the year, had the lowest ratings in its televised history when it aired the first weekend of the war. But as the war completes its second week, entertainment shows have bounced back.
Nonviolent fare like "America's Most Talented Kid," a talent show that got off to a solid ratings start last Friday night, would seem to be obvious escapes. But intense dramas like "24" have kept fans, too. Hyson says he's engrossed by the show, whose plot centers on international terrorism. "It's unnerving, but it's pushing all the right buttons," he says.
Ms. Goldstein agrees, adding that "24" is her favorite show. "The parallels are so weird" with the war in Iraq. But, despite its intense themes, she says, "it's still escapism. It's not real bombs going off."
Parents' desire to limit children's exposure to war coverage has proved a boon to kid networks. Nickelodeon has seen a ratings rise of 35 percent in prime time since the war began, according to Nielsen Media Research. The Disney Channel saw a 31 percent uptick in prime time. And TV Land, home of classic sitcoms, is up 45 percent since the war's start.
On the big screen, wars have traditionally helped the movie box office. During the 1991 Gulf War, attendance rose dramatically over the previous year. But receipts have been lackluster thus far. The top 12 films last weekend brought in $87.4 million, a drop of 23.5 percent from a year ago. Movie audiences have headed mostly for comedies. "Bringing Down the House" was the No. 1 film for three weeks before being displaced by another comedy, "Head of State," last weekend.
Judy Hart of College Station, Texas, and her husband, Gary, haven't gone to the movies since war started. She still wants to see the Oscar-nominated movie "Gangs of New York," but "I don't want to see something that violent right now."
Not all moviegoers have avoided war- related topics. Alain Othenin-Girard, a Swiss businessman living in Hollywood, Calif., ventured out to see the Oscar-winning German film "Nowhere in Africa." His other choice was "The Quiet American," about the early involvement of the US in Vietnam. Only afterward, he says, did he realize that both movies dealt with war.
Broadway - hit by shaky tourism and a musicians' strike - had been worried about losing its audience before Americans took to their TVs to watch the bombing of Baghdad. Last week's box-office take was down 14 percent over the previous two years. The theaters quickly inaugurated a discount-ticket promotion called "Greetings From Broadway."
They're counting on local theater lovers like Goldstein, who attends "three or four times a month," to help pull them through. She is especially looking forward to the "Encores!" series at Lincoln Center, which presents old Broadway musicals. "Talk about escapism," she says. "There's nothing better than sitting there for 2-1/2 hours watching great dancers and great singers."
With the Major League Baseball season under way, and the NCAA basketball tournament heading into its Final Four weekend, Americans are beginning to be lured away from war coverage by two traditionally powerful sports draws. Early ratings for CBS's NCAA tournament coverage were down 24 percent from the previous year, something the network said it had expected because of the war. If baseball gets off to a slow start, pundits will have to decide if it's the effect of the war or merely a continuation of the diminished interest of last season, when the World Series drew the lowest TV ratings ever.
In popular music, only Darryl Worley's pro-war anthem "Have You Forgotten?" seems to have found a broad audience. It's the No. 1 song on country charts. A number of other groups, from Fleetwood Mac to the Beastie Boys, have released songs protesting the war, but are reportedly having trouble getting airtime.
Sorensen, the Iowa resident, is finding that music from the 1950s has fresh appeal for her. "Not the rock 'n' roll I grew up with, but from before that; it's more soothing, not as harsh," she says.
But David Lubin, an art history professor at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., says that while he loves music, he's loath to reduce it to a sedative. "I don't look at the arts as a kind of pharmacy, a dispensary, that I have this problem today, and I'll turn to a Beethoven symphony [or] I'll listen to a little Mozart."
Interest in Islamic art
Professor Lubin, for one, isn't sure that the conflict in Iraq will have a huge cultural impact - unless it becomes a long-term war like Vietnam. For example, he says the 1991 Gulf War didn't create a lasting impression on the arts - certainly nothing compared with the effect of Sept. 11, which, he says, "caused a lot of soul-searching on the part of artists and filmmakers and creative individuals.... With the Iraq conflict, it's way too early for people to have gone through that soul-searching." He adds, "The situation is not the same as 9/11. In 9/11, the homeland was attacked."
He believes one long-term effect of the war on terror will be to make Americans more interested in Middle Eastern culture. "More students are going to be ... opening themselves up to what's being produced in other parts of the globe ... to get outside a provincial, chauvinistic value of what is art." For example, sales of the Koran rose immediately after Sept. 11.
In the meantime, Americans may be ready to take the advice of writer Anne Lamott, who wrote recently in Salon: "I am going to walk to the library. It's so beautiful out. The hills of my town are lush and green and dotted with wildflowers.... I am going to check out books by P.G. Wodehouse, some 'Goon Show' scripts, and a collection of Mary Oliver poems."
You just haven't read (or don't want to read) the facts. Felons who weren't really felons were taken off the rolls to decrease the black vote. This was in the thousands.Eric, you on the Left are just going to have to get over this. There has been NO EVIDENCE presented that the election in Florida was rigged, and people have been looking for it.
It might be true that people might get tired of this argument. On the other hand, it might be too bad Gore is not running. If people get fed up with Bush (which is a good possibility considering how things are going) they might have wanted to vote for the guy who really won. Another Democrat might be able to use this. I wouldn't emphasize the issue too much, but just put it in the back of peoples minds.
Ahhhhhh stick it in a lock box, Eric.You just haven't read (or don't want to read) the facts. Felons who weren't really felons were taken off the rolls to decrease the black vote. This was in the thousands.
It might be true that people might get tired of this argument. On the other hand, it might be too bad Gore is not running. If people get fed up with Bush (which is a good possibility considering how things are going) they might have wanted to vote for the guy who really won. Another Democrat might be able to use this. I wouldn't emphasize the issue too much, but just put it in the back of peoples minds.
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"
Bob Butler sounds very thoughtful as usual, and he is. I just repeat again my caution about every attempt to "moderate" between different sides, especially in America today.
Just because there are a number of people who believe a certain way, does not mean that their ideas are worth taking very seriously or compromising with, or given equal weight. Compromise is not always the answer. Often one side is right and one side is wrong, and history proves it so.
These days, I submit, the right wing in this country is wrong, and history will prove it so.
Listening is good; but at the end of the day, you have to decide where the truth lies, and it is not automatically in the middle. Noone should assume so.
Nor can you demand that everyone listen to what everyone has to say. Nor can I demand that everyone listen to what I have to say. People are free to listen or not. They may have reasons for not listening; they may have already heard enough. Maybe they don't have to listen to the same ol' thing again and again. Discussion doesn't win over too many people anyway. It takes something deeper to really change minds; something which another person often cannot supply.
Your reference is quite apropo, isn't it? If Gore had won, our social security money would not be being raided to support tax cuts for the rich, wars, etc.
hahahaha........ good one..... the rich are the only ones who pay taxes, why shouldn't they get a cut?Your reference is quite apropo, isn't it? If Gore had won, our social security money would not be being raided to support tax cuts for the rich, wars, etc.
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"
You are right Mr. Meece I am right and you are wrong
so, mom, are you rich or do you not pay taxes?
TK
I'd rather he wouldn't. Enema bags are hard to come by!You might change your mind if you come over to the Orgy thread. ;-)
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."
If I recall correctly, the House of Representatives does not vote the normal way (one vote per member) but instead votes one vote per state (majority of each state's delegation deciding) when voting for the President. That would look entirely different from what you're describing.okay... so the margin is 212-221? All that would be needed would be for nine Republicans (maybe 10 depending on how the independents ran) in moderate districts (who might very well need the support of a good number of moderates or even Democrats) to abstain from the vote, risking angering their party base a little in exchange for appealing to the moderates (especially since it was still a 3T...)I probably should have qualified my words, in theory they could have chosen someone else. But in practice, it would have been a majority GOP House in a bad mood toward the Dems. The practical chance of them picking anyone other than GWB would less than 1%. Far less. Especially since it would anger their own party base so much that they'd be committing political suicide.
?The Senate, now, is a slightly different story, as I've noted. The SCOTUS may, just may, have actually affected the identity of the Vice-President.
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."
I agree with Marc. ;-)Honestly, what is the point here? Why argue either way? If the Democrats wish to base the future on the past, why get in their way? So what if he's "wrong"? Ever heard of the "switch in time saved nine"?David, we've been through this before, and you were shown to be wrong.
It reminds me of that scene in the movie Bladerunner, "Move on, move on, move on..."
Vince is right, but I recall that the R's had enough state delegations to win.If I recall correctly, the House of Representatives does not vote the normal way (one vote per member) but instead votes one vote per state (majority of each state's delegation deciding) when voting for the President. That would look entirely different from what you're describing.okay... so the margin is 212-221? All that would be needed would be for nine Republicans (maybe 10 depending on how the independents ran) in moderate districts (who might very well need the support of a good number of moderates or even Democrats) to abstain from the vote, risking angering their party base a little in exchange for appealing to the moderates (especially since it was still a 3T...)I probably should have qualified my words, in theory they could have chosen someone else. But in practice, it would have been a majority GOP House in a bad mood toward the Dems. The practical chance of them picking anyone other than GWB would less than 1%. Far less. Especially since it would anger their own party base so much that they'd be committing political suicide.
?The Senate, now, is a slightly different story, as I've noted. The SCOTUS may, just may, have actually affected the identity of the Vice-President.
We don't pay taxes.so, mom, are you rich or do you not pay taxes?
TK
We live on a single income of approximately 40,000 a year. I stay home with the 3 kids. Every year we break almost even. Usually the gov. gives us back about 400.
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"
I'll be damned. That third kid must make all the difference. I made just over 40K last year, and lost just over a third of it to taxes. Even after all is said and done, I think I ended up with 7-8K less than my contract with my employer says I should.
But are income taxes withheld from your husband's paycheck? Is the $400 that "the government gives back" a tax refund (meaning that too much was withheld) or do you qualify for the Earned Income Tax credit? If it is a refund, then you do pay taxes equal to the amount withheld minus the refund.We don't pay taxes.so, mom, are you rich or do you not pay taxes?
TK
We live on a single income of approximately 40,000 a year. I stay home with the 3 kids. Every year we break almost even. Usually the gov. gives us back about 400.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
Deal with in Meece this isn't me talking here it is the only Democrats that have been able to win in the last 20 years.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid...ntentid=251439
New Dem Daily | April 1, 2003
Good Night, Vietnam
The onset of the war in Iraq has created a dilemma for those Democrats who opposed last year's resolution authorizing military force, and this year's decision to use force when the United Nations could not come up with an alternative means of disarming Saddam Hussein.
Former Gov. Howard Dean, whose antiwar rhetoric has made him the unlikely darling of liberal activists in Iowa and elsewhere, has been visibly struggling to criticize the war without appearing to undermine the troops. He vowed not to "personally" attack the president on the war, but has instead continued to attack his Democratic rivals who voted to authorize force.
But one antiwar Democrat has refused to change his rhetoric at all, and is supplying a fascinating exhibition of the Left's "Vietnam Syndrome": the tendency to interpret any military conflict through the nostalgic lens of the political struggle against the war in Vietnam.
Like rock musicians, antiwar protesters tend to keep going back to the 1960s and early 1970s for role models and inspiration. But few are as fearlessly faithful to the Vietnam War era of protests as presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who made a speech on the first day of the war in Iraq that consciously echoed George McGovern's "Come Home America" acceptance speech at the 1972 Democratic Convention.
"Come home, America," said Kucinich to the National Newspaper Association on March 20. "Come home and fix your broken streets and mend your broken dreams.... Come home and establish a living wage.... Come home and provide single payer, guaranteed health care for the forty-one million Americans who suffer illness without relief.... Come home and provide guaranteed social security for generations to come without privatization and without extending the retirement age, which would be devastating for minorities.... Come home and make non-violence an organizing principle within our society through the creation of a Department of Peace, America!"
The Kucinich campaign is sort of the Unclaimed Freight Outlet of Democratic politics, retailing every failed or outdated lefty idea with a fierce and touching passion.
But Kucinich also reflects a persistent if small faction in the party that helps reinforce Republican claims that Democrats simply cannot be trusted with military leadership or with vigorous defense of our national interests. These come-home-America liberals are in many respects still fighting against the Vietnam War, and tend to react to any prospective use of military force by hauling out the same old signs and slogans. As a Pew Research Group poll recently showed, they are isolated from the rest of the U.S. electorate in their opposition to the war. If allowed to define the Democratic Party's approach to national security issues, they would undoubtedly drag the party back into the electoral hole it inhabited for much of the post-Vietnam era of the 1970s and 1980s.
Antiwar Democrats are entitled to their opinions. In fact, we share most of their concerns about the Bush Administration diplomacy that has made the drive to disarm Iraq such a lonely endeavor for the United States and the United Kingdom, without letting those concerns obscure the national interest in toppling Saddam. But antiwar Democrats do not have the right to claim, as Dean often does, that opposing the war is a matter of fidelity to Democratic tradition, or that antiwar Democrats represent "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."
The truth is that there's an enduring tradition of Democratic support for the principled use of force that predated and survived the tragedy of the Vietnam War. It was built by Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, who practiced and preached a muscular internationalism, often exercised over the protests of isolationist Republicans. This is the tradition that President Bill Clinton sought to revive, and that led him to lead NATO to military action in Kosovo, again over the protests of neo-isolationist Republicans. It supports active diplomacy, collective security and multilateral institutions, not in order to surrender our country's right to act on its principles, but because good allies and strong institutions of international law make us stronger as well. And it's the tradition that was reflected in a Congressional use-of-force resolution that demanded the Administration take its case against Saddam to the United Nations while preserving America's right to enforce international law against Iraq alone if necessary.
Some aging baby boomers may continue to view every military conflict as a reprise of the big war of their youth, and some politicians may opportunistically offer them a sort of battleground reenactment of the protests they fondly remember. But for the rest of us, the Vietnam War is long over, and it's time to reassert Democratic internationalism for a new era.
Possibly: except the fact that a majority of state delegations were either majority democratic or reperesented a Gore state (in addition, a majority were either majority republican or represented a Bush state); in such a 'divided state' how could you predict what would happen?Vince is right, but I recall that the R's had enough state delegations to win.If I recall correctly, the House of Representatives does not vote the normal way (one vote per member) but instead votes one vote per state (majority of each state's delegation deciding) when voting for the President. That would look entirely different from what you're describing.okay... so the margin is 212-221? All that would be needed would be for nine Republicans (maybe 10 depending on how the independents ran) in moderate districts (who might very well need the support of a good number of moderates or even Democrats) to abstain from the vote, risking angering their party base a little in exchange for appealing to the moderates (especially since it was still a 3T...)I probably should have qualified my words, in theory they could have chosen someone else. But in practice, it would have been a majority GOP House in a bad mood toward the Dems. The practical chance of them picking anyone other than GWB would less than 1%. Far less. Especially since it would anger their own party base so much that they'd be committing political suicide.
?The Senate, now, is a slightly different story, as I've noted. The SCOTUS may, just may, have actually affected the identity of the Vice-President.
Here is the truth about the 2000 election. The system counts on somebody winning by a point for a clear outcome. That did not happen this time. When nobody wins by more than a point little glitches do matter the problem is that for every one you can cite the other side can cite another. It comes down to procedure. Bush had a handful more votes than Gore by the first count, it gave him the advantage going in he pressed it he won. Had the shoe been on the other foot Gore would have played it the same way. Truth is I have no idea who really won because it was so close voter fraud makes a difference and guess what both parties do it.
Where your guy got out done was in West Virgina, Gore took it forgranted Bush fought there, Bush wont it. You guys blew it Gore carries West Virginia Florida does not matter. If Gore had fought a better campaign he would be president.
Let's see, we already did our taxes...finding them now...But are income taxes withheld from your husband's paycheck? Is the $400 that "the government gives back" a tax refund (meaning that too much was withheld) or do you qualify for the Earned Income Tax credit? If it is a refund, then you do pay taxes equal to the amount withheld minus the refund.We don't pay taxes.so, mom, are you rich or do you not pay taxes?
TK
We live on a single income of approximately 40,000 a year. I stay home with the 3 kids. Every year we break almost even. Usually the gov. gives us back about 400.
O.K, here it is....Wages 42,364. Fed. In. tx. wh. 979.27
Ammount refunded this year. 450.00
difference of: 529.00 taxes paid.
Our fed income withheld is so low because we declare 12 dependants.
We do that because of the child credit and take the credit throughout the year. We do not own a home. We do not qualify for the earned income tax credit. We do a straight 1040 form, we have no write off's other than "married filing joint" and "Child credit"
(That name makes me positivly cringe, "earned income tax credit" :evil: )
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"
(Sorry, Bubba)
Here is the truth about the 2000 election:
It's over.
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"
Taxx (if anything should be a four letter word...)
...Plus the interest you would have gained on the amount withheld and/or the opportunity costs of not having that money in hand.
edited for clarity.
Elisheva Levin
"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot
