Good News for Fox News
 

I can't stand his interviews

Form 180?
 

In case you missed it, it's still there.

You realize this whenever you are unable to park anywhere between 38th and 45th streets on the East Side.

Good News for Fox News
 

I was speaking to someone yesterday who was criticizing him, and I realized that I've never actually watched him do his show. Ever. My friend was sort of amazed.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Maybe to people not paying attention, but I think everyone who is following this knows that Bush has been trying to use the "crisis" to take the opportunity to divert money to private accounts. For the Lochner crowd in the GOP, this is their chance -- if not now, then when? If there's a reform that shores up SS, that removes the phony crisis that they'd like to use to destroy the social insurance aspect of the system. So: reform that strengthens the finances is a defeat for Bush.

Doubtless Bush will try to spin it as a victory in any case. That's why he's all about not negotiating with himself, as he puts it. But inside the Beltway, everyone will know the score, and Bush will be a lame duck that much sooner.

Form 180?
 

Right.

When was the last time the Security Council passed a resolution condemning Israel?

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Isn't he one now? Or is there another definition I'm missing?

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

Here's a military pay calculator that will show eqivalents. Here are the
poverty level guidelines. At E-4, salary is likely below the poverty level but you have to also add in the housing allowance. I don't know the AFDC guidelines, but have also heard that many military get AFDC benefits.

Good News for Fox News
 

Save your time. Next time you're travelling, look for his column in USAToday. You'll get the idea. Or just wait til you see Norm Macdonald's portrayal of him on SNL. It's pretty much dead on.

Good News for Fox News
 

Twenty years ago, he was kinda fun to listen to on late-night radio. Now, I have taught my children to run screaming from the room when he appears on the screen.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

There's some magic moment when he turns from being the newly re-elected President with political capital to burn in his pocket, to being a lame duck. It's never clear when that happens until it happens. But if Bush takes his shot at SS, and whiffs, it's happening a lot sooner.

Good News for Fox News
 

See, now I'm really starting to feel uninformed. I don't watch Larry, and I leave the USA Today outside the Sheraton door in the morning.

(Who ever thought of the concept of a newspaper with no comics? I mean, why bother?)

Wow.
 

• To Americans desperate for good news from abroad, the Beirut Spring is the apotheosis of a Middle Eastern perestroika. To the White House, and many American pundits, the crowds in Martyrs' Square have vindicated the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. The image of Iraqis voting freely, so the narrative goes, struck a chord in other Arabs that finally gave them the courage to reach for the prize. NPR's Daniel Schorr argued that President Bush "may have had it right" when he said, "A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region." Dennis Ross, writing in the Financial Times, attributed Lebanon's uprising to the "Iraq effect." Washington Post columnist David Ignatius made the same point, citing Lebanese opposition leader Walid Jumblatt, who told Ignatius, "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. ... When I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt's quote caromed across the Internet, cropping up on numerous conservative blogs and in other columns. In The New York Times, David Brooks quoted Ignatius quoting Jumblatt and concluded, "People around the Arab world look at voters in Iraq and ask, 'Why not here?'"
  
  There's just one problem. The idea that the Lebanese were inspired by the Iraq war doesn't have much currency in Beirut. "I've never heard it from anybody except Walid Jumblatt," laughs Jamil Mroue, editor-in-chief of Beirut's Daily Star newspaper. "I've heard the Lebanese say, 'What the heck, are [the Syrians] going to take us back to the Stone Age?' They're saying 'Fuck it, we're not going back. And, if it means demonstrating in the streets, and if it means changing the government, then so be it.' But I don't think they thought, 'Oh, the Iraqis voted, so we can, too.'" In actuality, some Lebanese have been struggling for reform for decades, hating their Syrian overlords. "Lebanon has been the only satellite state in the world since the end of the cold war, and no one lifted a finger," says Farid El-Khazen, a political science professor in Beirut. "It was business as usual until 9/11, and U.S.-Syria relations began to deteriorate. Internally, there was a movement all along that pushed for an end to the occupation. ... There is a linkage, if you like, with Iraq, in the sense that American policy has changed toward Syria due to their interference in Iraq. But [the Lebanese opposition] has been going on for a long time."
  
  Because the Beirut Spring happened so soon after Iraq's election, and just as Hosni Mubarak said he would allow opposition parties to run for office in Egypt, the foreign press has linked the so-called Cedar Revolution to these other events. What has happened in Lebanon, however, is fundamentally different from events in other parts of the Middle East. Unlike other Arab states, Lebanon is not a dictatorship and never has been. It already has a civil society and a democratic infrastructure--the freest press in the region, a long history of relatively free elections, and a tradition of pluralism. D. Roman Kulchitsky, a political science professor at the American University in Beirut (AUB), says, "People here have been experimenting with democracy for a very long time. But there's always been so many external forces getting involved."
  
  Indeed, for years, the United States was complicit in the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. After the 1989 Taif Accord, Syria became the main power broker in Lebanon, an arrangement accepted by the United States in the interests of "regional stability." At the same time, Washington invested relatively little in promoting liberalization in Lebanon: In 2003, the National Endowment for Democracy spent less than $700,000 on democracy promotion there; by comparison, the United States spent nearly $2 million on democracy promotion in the Ukraine. "The Lebanese not having a democracy was partly the American government's decision in supporting the Syrian hegemony over Lebanon," says Mroue.

Annia Ciezadlo, from Beirut, in The New Republic

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

AFDC no longer exists. It's Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) now. I wonder how many military are timing out of it? Or is there an exception for them?

An honest, though partisan, question
 

It happens after the mid-terms.

Incidentally, has anyone been watching Terry McCaulliffe as guess host on Fox News this week?

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Incidentally, has anyone been pounding roofing nails into their knees?

Form 180?
 

May 19, 2004. UN Resolution 1544.

Form 180?
 

Oooooh, burn.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

That is when I believe it happens.

No - what did I miss?

An honest, though partisan, question
 

I'm reasonably confident you're right. One of two (or maybe both) things will happen:

1) all gains will be taxed (i.e., you have a basis equal to what you put in)

2) there will be a "surtax" designed to equilibrate the actual tax rates, so that if you put in at 24%, and current tax rates are 32%, there will be a 8% tax on withdrawals (or something like that) so that you end up paying the tax you "should have" paid.

One possible problem with implemenation--once any idea of this is floated, won't everyone drain their roths before congress acts? I suppose they could make it retroactive, but they do have to get reelected.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

I think there are early withdrawal penalties. Maybe that link you posted (the one I'm shunning) discusses this.

Equilibrating (is that a word? probably not) would be administratively a pain in the ass, if not impossible -- having to pull tax records from 15 or more years ago.

Do you have kids?

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

The issue I was identifying was the across-the-board increase in pay rates. That has little to do with specific pay grades. If you want to get into a discussion of who should be paid what for what type of work, then we can have a lengthy debate--low-level enlisted should get more at the bottom end. Lawyers should get more at the top end. If Bush wanted to raise the pay of the lowest in the military, he could do that with a one-time increase, on teh ground that the military is underpaid. But that's not the rhetoric he's been using.

Form 180?
 

Read the text. This hardly helps your point.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Sure, it's a pain the ass, so you start there, but end up like you do with SS, which is include 85% in income, if your income is above a certain level. IIRC, originally it was 50%, which was justified on the basis that the 50% your employer paid in was not part of your income then, so you should pay tax now. Now it's 85%, and I'm not sure why, but maybe because they just wanted to take more.

What's the relevance of kids? That I care about their tax rates? Or are you paigow?

Good News for Fox News
 

He was in detroit about 10 years ago for the crisis of the moment. Next morning i'm on the 6 AM DC flight- First Class of course!
All of a sudden I feel a grip on my shoulder from behind making his way up the aisle grabbing seats or passengers as he goes is Larry. He looked like Skeletor then. Through 2009? My ass.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

I'm paigow. Do you object to answering the question?

An honest, though partisan, question
 

No, I object to your asking it.

Form 180?
 

This is a UN resolution. They don't write resolutions threatening to bust a cap in yo' ass.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Okay then. I most sincerely apologize. I was just curious.

Form 180?
 

Following is the full text of the UN Security Council Resolution No. 1544 (19/05/2004):

“The Security Council,

“Reaffirming its previous resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 1322 (2000), 1397 (2002), 1402 (2002), 1403 (2002), 1405 (2002), 1435 (2002), and 1515 (2003),

“Reiterating the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of
12 August 1949,

“Calling on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law,

“Expressing its grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967,

“Condemning the killing of Palestine civilian that took place in the Rafah area,

“Gravely concerned by the recent demolition of homes committed by Israel, the occupying power in the Rafah refugee camp

“Recalling the obligations of the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel under the Road Map,

“Condemning all acts of violence, terror and destruction,

“Reaffirming its support for the Road Map, endorsed in its resolution 115 (2003),

“1. Calls on Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, and insists, in particular, on its obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law;

“2. Expresses grave concern regarding the humanitarian situation of Palestinians made homeless in the Rafah area and calls for the provision of emergency assistance to them;

“3. Calls for the cessation of violence and for respect of and adherence to legal obligations, including those under international humanitarian law;

“4. Calls on both parties to immediately implement their obligations under the Road Map;

“5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

http://www.jerusalemites.org/facts_documents/un/32.htm (emphasis added)

Burn, burn, burn.

Form 180?
 

You keep saying "burn, burn" as if paigow gave you a bad case of jock rot.

Explain to me how any of this is consistent with the 17 resolutions imposed upon Iraq, and, more importantly, how the US is failing to assist the UN enforce this particular one.

Form 180?
 

You would know more about this than I would. I'll take your word for it.

You're the one looking to the UN for legitimacy in supporting the invasion of Iraq. Why don't you tell me?

Form 180?
 

You asked when was the last time the SC passed a resolution condemning Israel. I answered it.

Now you're asking different questions. I'm impressed by your ability to ask questions, but why don't you instead demonstrate why this is inconsistent with the Iraqi resolutions, and how the US is assisting the UN in enforcing 1544? I've got work to do.

Form 180?
 

that condemns both. We'd need one that singles out Israel before we'd invade.

Form 180?
 

I read it differently, but maybe that's just me. Seems that other than generally wailing about violence bad and calling on both parties to pursue their obligations under the Road Map, it's all about Israeli acts.

Form 180?
 

Actually, no. In repsonse to my point re the invasion of Iraq:

"How about Saddam's utter disregard of over 17 UN Security Council Resolutions over a 12 year period?"

you responded

You then point to a UN Resolution which, in part, requires Israel to condemn the killing of some civilian, to stop dismantling homes, and for both Israel and the PA to adhere to the road map and refrain from violence.

Bush has, on many occasions, reiterated that Israel must return to the road map. He has condemned the destruction of homes and establishment of new settlements - and Sharon has complied. What more can and should we - or the UN - do?

Perhaps you mean the continued violence by the PA?

Form 180?
 

"Right.

When was the last time the Security Council passed a resolution condemning Israel?"

http://lawtalkers.com/forums/showthr...309#post162309


Buuuuuuuurn.

Form 180?
 

Hmmm. I prefer the podunk schtick.

Form 180?
 

That's very nice of you to say so.

Form 180?
 

A wise man told me- "if you want friends- be friendly!"

Form 180?
 

Can you have him share that with the adminstration?