Jon Stewart

[kimphil]

Originally posted by perchul
It actually not illegal to go to Cuba as an American, its illegal to spend over $50 dollars there (are something to that effect), but you can get and educational waiver for this quite easily. You can also go through foreign travel agencies that "sponsor" your trip meaning you give them the money that you want to spend there and they spend it for you. Its illegal to break the embargo we have with Cuba but its the US can't ban you from going there, though they can make it difficult. Another thing is a large amount of Cuban Americans go there every year to see family and have no problem.

Perchul is quite right. You can also get travel visas if you are a journalist, an athlete going to a competition sponsored by an international federation, or any number of other reasons. I'm obviously going off topic, but it's actually quite easy to sneak into Cuba. Why would someone want to sneak into Cuba you say? The Cuban women!

Room, you forgot two obvious Democrats -- Robert Rubin, Clinton's first Treasury secretary and perhaps the best one America's ever had (sorry Alex Hamilton). You also forgot his replacement, Larry Summers, who's career has gone downhill afterwards. What's he do now...oh, he's the President of Harvard. But hell, like Daedalus said, those Ivy league schools are overrated.

Jaxs170, you're being dishonest when you quote the "official" Florida results because that doesn't mean crap. I'm sure you know that after Bush was DECLARED President by the Supreme Court, all the ballots were recounted and Gore actually WON Florida. Besides, Dan Rather and CBS News didn't called Florida for Gore, the consultants reading goat entrails that they (and in fact every news network) were paying were telling them Gore won. It wasn't the best journalism, I'll admit, but it was the result of incompetence and not a liberal media bias.

Daedalus, why are you defending the unfair child tax credit when the President doesn't even publicly defend your viewpoint? You regurgitate all the Republican cliches--"stocks are double taxed!" "The rich pay more in taxes" and what I gather is your own personal take " I have yet to find a democrat who has taken a economics class."

You acknowledge the fallacy of your argument (well, if I say the PFC doesn't deserve the money, I look like an ass). The only way you can stay internally consistent in your argument and not look like a jerk is to give the PFC more income. Ironically, this accomplishes the SAME thing as a child tax credit would, ie, put more money in his pocket.

BTW, it wasn't communism that caused the collapse of the USSR, it was the Cold War!

 

[kimphil]

Originally posted by doubledown
Quote: "The majority of people in the military are white, so why would someone Asian, Latino, or African American want to go in? The majority of people in the service are men, so why would women want to go in? Most of the people in the service are Christian, so why would someone Jewish or Muslim want to go in? The real question should be "why do you ask something so stupid?"

Okay kimphil, you've got a point on this one...

Well, thank you!

As far as Micheal Moore, I consider him a discrace because he goes against what this country stands for. Free speech (which he so greatly enjoys), Gun rights especially. I did NOT watch Bowling for Columbine because I wasn't going to give my hard earned money to that slime ball. I did however go online and do a lot of research on it to see what it was about. I also read a lot of quotes from people in the movie that said that he tricked them into saying something and then edited it to have a anti-gun slant. Not to mention him on tv. He will slam the republican party only (and the liberal media allows him) and just ridicule the administration, which in many other countries he would dissapear.

Regardless of your opinion of Michael Moore, just because a liberal like Moore is covered by the media and allowed to slam conservatives doesn't make the media liberal. I've seen the same "liberal" media allow someone like Ann Coulter (but it could be Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) go on the air, accuse liberals of being traitors for believing in the New Deal or the Great Society, or simply criticizing the President's tax cuts or the war in Iraq, while simultaneously pimping her book. And, the so called "liberal" media lets her do this! I could make a prima facie argument that the media has a conservative bias based on my personal experiences alone.

I think its safe to say if you grew up in a household that only read the New York Times, watched PBS, listened to NPR, and read the New Republic, you'd conclude that the media had a liberal bias.

Conversely, if your household only read the Wall Street Journal, watched Fox News Network, listened to Rush Limbaugh and read the Weekly Standard, you'd come the the opposite conclusion.

We can trade anecdotes all day but that would only prove the diversity of the media, not its liberalism.

As far as the McCain issue, I loved that man until he came out with the McCain-Fiengold bill. I actually voted for him over Bush in the primaries. That bill limits speech on special interest group (i.e. NAACP, NRA, ect...) up to 90 days before an election. Number one, he's cutting the 1st amendment to say 90 days before an election, no one who has a following can say anything through commercials, or magazine articles ect... It does not limit the media however. They can talk all they want, and because they tend to slant to the left, they will speak higher of the liberal parties allowing the majority of the house, senate and even the presidency to turn democratic. How much funding do you think you'll get for the military?

For the record, I like John McCain. He asks the tough questions that other Republicans should be asking themselves and I respect him for that. However, McCain-Feingold favors the Republicans since it caps soft-money, leaving the Republicans with a big advantage in hard-money raising, their bread-and-butter.

 

[Daedalus]

Cheese eating surrender monkey: Why did we have the Cold War? I know you'll come up with some jibberish but it started over communism, and why did we win the cold war? (I'm sure you'll say we didn't win and the Russian economy is just fine) it's because of our financial strength and position (amoung other things) that comes from capitalism I hope you were sarcastic here I couldn't tell from your comment).
BTW congrats on grasping the whole tax thing finally, as for the child tax credit, are you saying I’m a jerk either way....If I think the PFC does not deserve a child tax credit (which I don't think you yet grasp, it's not a gift it's a CREDIT, did you ever study your credits and debits?)...or if I think the PFC deserves higher pay for his work, I am still a jerk because I am saying it to appease someone?

 

[Nikki]

Hmmmm...I am hispanic and no one treated me like a terrorist...fishy fishy lol..

 

[Jaxs170]

Kimphil:

Sorry you don't like the way our democracy works, but fact is Bush beat Gore in FL by 500+ votes. It's not crap sweetheart, it's called REALITY, which is something I think you may be running from.

Also, Bush was not declared the President by the Supreme Court. The SC simply put a stop to gore's illegal attempts to simply recount and recount until he won. He got his recount, he lost, he got another, he lost again. Last time I checked you were supposed to get only 1 recount, he got three, lost each time. It's a shame you don't like these facts, but again, if you'd face reality, they would be quite apparent to you.

 

[orthaj]

ditto

 

[kimphil]

Originally posted by Daedalus
Cheese eating surrender monkey: Why did we have the Cold War? I know you'll come up with some jibberish but it started over communism, and why did we win the cold war? (I'm sure you'll say we didn't win and the Russian economy is just fine) it's because of our financial strength and position (amoung other things) that comes from capitalism I hope you were sarcastic here I couldn't tell from your comment).
BTW congrats on grasping the whole tax thing finally, as for the child tax credit, are you saying I’m a jerk either way....If I think the PFC does not deserve a child tax credit (which I don't think you yet grasp, it's not a gift it's a CREDIT, did you ever study your credits and debits?)...or if I think the PFC deserves higher pay for his work, I am still a jerk because I am saying it to appease someone?

Why or why we didn't fight the Cold War has nothing to do with your orginal point, the USSR collapsed because of it Socialist government. I'm not going to enter a debate defending the ability of socialism to allocate goods or create wealth vs. capitalism because I don't believe in the superiority of socialism. The USSR lost its ideological battle with the West, and its socialist economy contributed to that, I won't deny that. However, if the US were paying what the USSR was for its military, the US could very well have been the loser in Cold War. Unsustainable military spending regardless of the nature of the economy results in economic ruin. That's the more appropriate explanation.

Had there been no Cold War, they very well may have been some version of a socialist USSR in existence today. I might also remind you that the capitalist economy of aparteid South Africa didn't save it when it fell on the wrong side of the United States.

As far as the child tax credit issue is concerned, your only defense is a semantic argument (can't give a tax credit to people who don't pay income taxes). Well lets call it a "furlough on payroll taxes for earners with dependents" or let's call it "Maurice." You are hung up on accounting minutia when you've already answered the question that's part of the big picture--should hardworking families (like the family of the PFC in Iraq) who arbitrarily fall below the threshhold set by law get a child tax credit to use on their children? Yes. And making a distinction between families implies that some children are less deserving than others, which is an argument I don't think you want to make.

 

[kimphil]

Originally posted by Jaxs170
Kimphil:

Sorry you don't like the way our democracy works, but fact is Bush beat Gore in FL by 500+ votes. It's not crap sweetheart, it's called REALITY, which is something I think you may be running from.

Also, Bush was not declared the President by the Supreme Court. The SC simply put a stop to gore's illegal attempts to simply recount and recount until he won. He got his recount, he lost, he got another, he lost again. Last time I checked you were supposed to get only 1 recount, he got three, lost each time. It's a shame you don't like these facts, but again, if you'd face reality, they would be quite apparent to you.

Whether I like or don't like how our democracy works is irrelevant. Gore won more votes in Florida. That's the REALITY. The "official" count ignores the undervote (you remember, pregnant and hanging chads). Gore asked to recertify the vote with a hand count of select counties, something he was well within his rights to do. The Bush side didn't argue against this, Bush instead asked for a statewide hand count. The Supreme Court went beyond its jurisdiction and voted Bush President strickly on party lines by ending the recount and certifying the machine count as the official result.

Long after Bush became President, a statewide recount was done, including a handcount of undervotes, and surprise! Gore won more votes. That's the REALITY you're running from.

 

[olpa9901]

and if gore were president we probably would have gone after china instead of bin laden and afganastan. Oh wait, He wouldn't have gone after china...he liked selling America's secrets to them.

 

[jdfairman]

This is the same Gore who wanted to NOT count several thousand votes from forward deployed and overseas troops. Correct???

 

[twidget]

I never heard a difinitive result come out on a hand-count, so after seeing the posts above I found this article.

http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/home.pat%2Clocal/3acca94c.510%2C.html

Looks like there never will be a black and white answer on this one.

Bottom line: The election is history, debating who won at this point is a waste of keystrokes. How big was the gash in the hull of the Titanic? Who cares! They're all sleeping with the fishes, and we've got Bush in office, for better or worse, till death do us part (quite literally for many service members).

Make the best of it while it lasts, and campaign for change if you don't like the way things are going!

 

[kimphil]

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. What do you think is going to happen with a punchcard ballot and 135 candidates for governor in Cali?

 

[twidget]

Obviously the obsolete voting systems were the cause of the recount debacle in Florida. I wasn't really saying that issue shouldn't be addressed. To me, the punch card problem was brought to center stage and debated to such lenghts that corrective action would be apparent to everyone. To continue the earlier Titanic analogy, your comments are akin to someone observing that ocean liners should not run into icebergs. While I was trying to bring and end to the pointless discussion about who got more votes.

We should focus more on finding common ground on the issues that affect the Navy and our country than this destructive partisan bickering. At this point, is either side likely to read a valid point with an open mind and say, "You're right, X really won the election"

 

[doubledown]

FYI to all those arguing about the ballots. We live in a Republic, not a democracy. We vote, the votes are counted and sent to the electorial college who can vote either direction. If Bush got more votes, and they felt Gore had more of a following, then they could vote for Gore. I guess they aren't supposed to do that, but....

In a true democracy, every vote would count, kind of like in high school government elections. Which, it really doesn't matter (in SGA, or US Gov't.) because it's all a popularity contest anyway. How many Americans actually do research before going to vote? You know there is a reason presidential candidates wear red white a blue (even if it is subtle); its for those saps sitting in front of the TV and subconciously they think this guy is more patriotic that this guy. The system is flawed, and anyone should be able to tell that by the fact that there is only 2 parties.

Maybe people should have to take a test before voting to make sure they know enough about the candidates.

 

[olpa9901]

in my opinion, if someone can't easily operate a punchcard, then they shouldn't even be allowed to vote...look sometime at your poll place and you see about 3500 signs on HOW to properly mark you ballot.....
lol, even in minnsota where you basically have to draw a line connecting two dots they have a dozen signs that show you that you can't scribble over the card and expect that it gets counted.