georgesbluegirl

You know, there's protocol for pardoning and commuting sentences. You'd think Bush could have at least followed that (i.e. waiting till the appeals process was over). Nope.

Ah, "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind."

What exactly are you saying?

Two quick thoughts: 1) It's not Congress's job to shut up. They're elected to SPEAK for us, and about 70% of the nation want us out of Iraq, according to the latest Pew poll. 2) I'm glad Pelosi is critical - duh - but she needs to show a little more backbone. I expect more from a Baltimore woman.

Okay, I know he's done some dumb things in the past, but I actually respect Al Sharpton a good deal. I think he's a lot smarter than many people give him credit for - check out his "Hardball" appearance with atheist Christopher Hitchens, author of "God is not Great." The first section is the best - it's nice to see Sharpton lay back and figure out how to reasonably attack Hitchens's argument, and then nail him on a few points as Hitchens consistently dodges questions. Seriously, enjoy! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ (That's the link to the Hardball front page - the videos are under "More from Hardball.")

I think the above point raised about adoption is good. While a two-parent household is ideal, I don't think we should necessarily criticize a woman or man who chooses to take in a child if she or he has the means to support the child.

I say it's fair game!

Haha, there is something fun about that, isn't there? I know a lot of people who have met Barack (he's big with college kids, obviously), and I think I'd just be speechless in the event. I know, I know, he's not a rock star...but he has a lot of star power (not that he's not quite substantial as a candidate, clearly....otherwise I wouldn't support him). My boyfriend is working in a student group on his campaign, so maybe one day...haha.

What I've heard is that it does nothing new, but it puts a lot of existing technologies together in a really convenient way with a great user interface. Plus, it's sooo pretty.

If Gore jumps in, he pretty much has the presidency. My dream is a Gore-Obama ticket, but we'll see... As for Obama, an FYI - historically, previous experience has never been an effective gauge for how well a president will perform.

I agree that she'd be a tougher sell because of all her negative associations. But I do like a lot of what she says. The bottom line is that she's not "unelectable." None of the major Dem candidates are, which puts the party in a good place.

That may be what you think of our candidates, but I - and many other Democrats - beg to differ. Though "the spouse" is an issue with Hillary, it's belittling to keep writing her off as just the wife of Bill, regardless of how you feel about her. Edwards isn't my favorite, but there's much more to him than the conservative spinmeisters who keep playing clips of him fixing his hair would like you to think. Al Gore, don't even get me started. He needs to get in on this race. And Obama "who?" Come on. He's hardly an unknown. He may have burst into the spotlight relatively recently, but he's pretty well grounded. And have you heard the man speak?

Haha, nice. (Especially if the nominee is Barack, yeah?...I have a huge crush on him.)

And I think to paint the Dems as "desperate" is a long shot too. This is a time to be picking a strong candidate - one who can appeal to centrists, obviously, but there seems to be less of a need to compromise, unlike in '04. After Bush, quite honestly, it's very much an uphill battle for the Republicans. A smart, articulate, engaging and issue-driven Democrat will have a much easier ride this time around. I think if there was a time for Hillary to be elected, it would be now (strategically speaking). That said, I have a number of problems with Hillary. I am for Obama (with hopes for Gore). But if she gets the nomination I will vote for her, and I think a lot of people feel that way - hesitant, but that she'd be better than anything the Republicans can come up with.

Marxism is the complete redistribution of wealth. There is a difference between complete distribution of wealth and having those who have benefited most from the system, pay their fair share and do more to support that system. THAT, my friend is moral.

Just a small correction: while Tolkien's war experiences absolutely colored many things in LoTR - particularly his experience of the trenches in the Somme - he didn't write the books during WWI. He did start "The Book of Lost Tales" shortly thereafter, but "The Hobbit" and then the trilogy were written while he was a professor.

No, it's an alternative to flat out impeachment - oversight. PS: Sorry for spelling "subpoena" incorrectly...

A conflict - indeed, several conflicts - like this has been brewing for quite some time. Right after Pelosi was elected to Speaker, she was asked what the most important aspect of gaining the majority was. Her response? "Subpeona power."

YES.

Sweet how the President can simultaneously say that no wrongdoing occurred but then refuse to hand over documents or allow testimony. Transparency, anyone?

Lewis is rather directly allegorical on a lot of points, though. Perhaps this is bad form, but I'll just quote another post I made on this topic not too long ago to save time: I did love "Chronicles" as a kid - my mother used to do this wonderful Reepicheep voice when she read them to us - but I have an immense amount of respect for the undertaking and execution of LoTR.

An all-over flat tax...yes. Right now, a lot of fat cats get away with not paying taxes because they aren't taxed on the money they make through stock gains in stock options, which discount fair market values. They only have to pay taxes if they actually sell any of it. So you can get a $15 million bonus in stock options and not pay a cent of taxes. So we should change that.

Remember this story? Jesus looked around and saw rich people dropping their gifts in the Temple treasury, and he also saw a very poor widow dropping in two small copper coins. He said, "I tell you that this poor widow put in more than all the others. For the others offered their gifts from what they had to spare of their riches; but she, poor as she is, gave all she had to live on." - Luke 21:1-4 Now, I'm not comparing directly this with how taxes work. But it's nice illustrative example that came to mind for what it tells us about giving - it's not about how much we give, it's about what it means to us to give. I think what's under Buffett's statement is that it wouldn't mean all that much to him to pay a 30% tax rate - he's already one of the richest men in the world. But for someone who has to worry about their income supporting a family, providing food and shelter, etc. while also paying taxes, 30% versus 17% might mean the difference between making your bills or not. You can't use a flat number of how much someone gives to understand what it really costs them.

Yes, *COUGH* indeed. Actually, that was a lot of coughing, Balance. Wait...they didn't slip you the mafia poison pills intended for Castro, did they? Wave if you're in danger from the CIA! Bark twice if you're in Milwaukee!

Has anyone else read any of the reports? Gets more ridiculous and scarier as you go...