Sciavo and Congress

[13788]

carolinacurious: "He brought to light some things Americans should know about their pres., his family and their ties to the Bin Laden family, and what is happenning in our government."

I agree totally. From memory, my biggest problem was that it didn't put forth a very coherent argument, (not so much the slant) which is fine for an entertainment movie. I probably need to watch it again. I'm not really prepared for an in depth discussion on Farenheit 9/11.

For me, "Bowling for Columbine" had much the same problem. I remember feeling several times during the movie, "Now wait a minute, how does this relate to your central proposition? doesn't it disprove it?"

But anyway, both movies were filled with interesting and important information. Many of the things presented were powerful, undeniable, and stood on their own merit whether they fit into M. Moore's argument or not. And M. Moore deserves major credit for getting things out there where our newsmedia is failing us horribly and shamefully.

For me, if you could just get people to sit down, watch the "infamous nine minutes" and then watch the NBC special where they purposely edited it out and allowed Andrew Card to do a voiceover that "remade" history...the questions that that should raise...I just don't get it.

Thank-you Michael Moore!

It's a shame that so many who would criticize them didn't see them.

SwiftVets were actually coming right out and saying they were protesting the fact that Kerry came home and *gasp* told the truth!

That, I don't have so much of a problem with. Unfortunately that's not all they did, they represented that they were on a boat they were not on and saw things they couldn't have seen. They didn't point out that when Kerry was testifying before Congress that he was reading the statements of many others as well as his personal accounts. That's not all they did either but we can leave it there for now.

Oh, why don't I have a problem with them bitching about him telling the truth?

Well for one they did accuse him of lying and two, if my enemies want to come at me and say, "Well, that sum-bitch is a goddam truth-teller!", I can take enemies like that all day long. Of course, that wasn't really the way it went down.

 

[mindseye]

Originally posted by carolinacurious@Mar 25 2005, 01:40 AM
Please fill in the blanks:

10. "The Swift Boat Veteran's for Truth" is to Republicans as __________ is to Democrats.

[post=293869]Quoted post[/post]​

If you're willing to go all the way back to 1964 -- immediately after the Bay of Pigs, Johnson aired some awful ads insinuating that electing Goldwater would result in nuclear holocaust.

In "Ice Cream", a young child eats an ice cream cone, while a voice-over says, "Now children should have lots of vitamin A and calcium, but they shouldn't have any strontium 90 or cesium 133. These things come from atomic bombs and they are radioactive. They can make you die."

In the even-more-notorious "Daisy", another girl is counting the petals on a daisy, "one, two, three, four...", while the camera closes in and an off-camera voice is counting backwards, "five, four, three, two...". When the off-camera voice reaches zero, the camera has zoomed in on the little girl's eye, and in her eye, you can see the reflection of a mushroom cloud exploding. "Vote for President Johnson on November 3rd. The stakes are too high for you to stay home."

Considering what a war-monger Johnson turned out to be himself, these ads were both hypocritical and misleading.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious: Well, if it weren't for Nixon, Johnson probably would have gotten us out of Viet Nam but yes, those ads were terrible.

11 more to go...actually #13, which is alluded to in the first sentence of this post is the most unforgivable one of all...

come on HockeyTiger.


On edit: "Ice Cream" never actually aired. It all happened before I was born. I tried to research the actual Goldwater statements, all I can get is heavily edited quotations and what people say he said. Some people say he did advocate using Nukes in Vietnam, allowing NATO to use nukes and for the US to not be afraid to use our Nuclear arsenal against Russia; some people dispute (including Goldwater) that he actually advocated using Nukes in Vietnam.

So, I'm not really sure that the two are equivalent.

 

[Freddie53]

I have read most of the posts here. Not all. There are two areas that the Democrats are dropping the ball on that could hurt Democrats bad.

FIRST:

The deficit. Why on why during the election didn't the Democrats run ad after ad showing how STRONGLY the Republicans wanted a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT and would pass one AS SOON AS THEY GOT CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT? Remember the Contract with America in 1994?

The real story. Clinton balanced the budget. Doesn't matter how is happened, It happened. The Republican's have not only completely dropped the Balanced Budget Amendment that was promised in the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA in 1994, but since winning both houses and the White House have run up the largest deficits in the history of the Republic. The Democrats could have pointed out that the same would be true for the Gay Marriage Amendment and the promise to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Heard much about either from the Republicans lately. All I have heard is that George Bush is in favor of civil unions just not marriage. This will all sit and collect dust until the spring of 2006. Meanwhile the lesbian daughter of Dick Chaney is on the victory platform. Strange she made no appearance BEFORE the election. Personally I don't care, but it is a bit two faced.

SECOND:

Social Security. So the plan will start drawing more out in 2017 then it does now. Bush and Democrats agree on this. So we will start pulling part of it out for private accounts. It takes an absolute fool not to realize that one: social security will go down the tubs right now not in 2042 when it is scheduled to go broke or there will be a massive cut in benefits and WHEN RIGHT NOW!

You all know which way the Republicans plan for it to go. Of course cuts in benetits and when - right now. Have the Democrats actaully put the figures on the table so taht the average American can see how his Social Security is going to be destroyed. Oh no. That information has not been actively pushed by the Democrats.

And the simple solution. Raise the cap that Social Security taxes are based on. Right now the top that can be taxed is $90,000. Raise it up to say $100,00 and presto Social Security will be solvent for some additional years.

Now how many voters voting Democratic will be hurt by this little extra tax. Not many.

The Republicans as usual are pushing something they know will destroy a pension plan for the average wage earner who will NOT work for a single compnay and draw a company pension as was true in the past. Workers worked 40 years for GM or Ford, etc. The number doing that is dropping.

And those private accounts: They are called IRA's and the ones who can afford it can do it now. No one has told just how much the management of those private accounts will cost and which insurance companies will make a killing of of it. NO one has mentioned what happens when John !. Citizen has invested all his private account in Enron.

We are talking about making the elderly totally destittue unless they become independently capable of maintaining a middle class status without social security or a good company pension.

Yet, who is voting Republican? Folks who think the Repubicans are going to cut waste in government, balance the budget. pass a federal marriage amendment, save Social Security, oulaw abortion except for the rich, and bring our boys home from war as great winners in a little war in Iraq.

And the only one that stands a chance of happening is bringing the boys home winners in Iraq. That may happen. Even that is doubtful. But we can always declaRe victory and pull out.

WHEN THE DEMOCRATES PUT IT ON THE TABLE IN DOLLARS AND CENTS WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING, THEN MAYBE THE DEMOCRATS WILL START WINNNG ELECTIONS IF THEY CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE ELECTIOONS HAVN'T ALREADY BEEN RIGGED.

Just my thoughts. Democrats long ago quit explaining thigns the Republicans wnat to do in ways that foks maknig uder $100,000 can understand. If those folks really understood, they would not be voting Repubican. People vote their pocket books in the end. that is if they know what is in their pocket books.

 

[jonb]

The Swifties were lying through their teeth. I actually got a spam from them telling me that, as a Vietnam vet, I should sign on to them talking about Kerry.

They must've calculated my age on one of those Diebold machines; I was born in 1983.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious:

They must've calculated my age on one of those Diebold machines; I was born in 1983.

Sure, they had you down as 18181 years old!


Freddie,

Why on why during the election didn't the Democrats run ad after ad showing how STRONGLY the Republicans wanted a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT and would pass one AS SOON AS THEY GOT CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT? Remember the Contract with America in 1994?

My guess. The conventional wisdom is that the in the American psyche, the Republicans have the upper hand when it comes to the economy. (Don't F'n ask ME why, OK?&#33 And you can't change that, all you can do is change the subject. The thinking is no matter how hard you work to show them how bad the Republicans have been for the economy and the average working man all you end up doing is putting the ball squarely in the Republicans home field territory.

I don't know if the conventional wisdom has it right or wrong on this one. I do think Kerry shot himself in the foot in the week before election by going on an on about the missing explosives in Iraq. He was trying to show how Bush really wasn't all he was cracked up to be on the fighting terrorism angle and all he did was remind Joe six-pack that he was more comfortable with Bush fighting the terrorists.

One might have thought that Bin Laden's video coming out the weekend before the election might have been a thorn in Bush's side, since they still haven't caught this guy but you would have been wrong.


I know I prefer your way of thinking, Freddie, I don't know if it can work.


HockeyTiger, where are you? come out, come out .....

 

[13788]

gamma_phi:

Originally posted by KinkGuy@Mar 22 2005, 12:45 AM
Should I ever, God forbid, wind up in a horrible situation such as this and someone doesn't pull the plug?

I AM COMING BACK TO HAUNT YOUR ASS !!![/COLOR]

Close enough. That whole shouting emphasis thing backfired.

[post=292863]Quoted post[/post]​

Advanced Directives and Living Wills "should" keep that from happening.

 

[madame_zora]

Living wills are free to fill out, and getting them notorised (usually $1) makes them official. They can still be challeneged in court, but so can one drawn up by an attourney, so there's no real benefit to spending the extra money. It is a forward thinking and compassionate thing to do for our families, and if you do it, please let your family know what your decisions are so they won't come as a shock when and if the time comes.
Keep this, and all documents that your family will need to settle your affairs at home, NOT in a safety deposit box at the bank! If for whatever reason, you are declared incompetant, your assets may be frozen and your family may not have access to the things you need most.

Cremation- if you want to do this, please let your family know in advance so it won't add to the shock of your death, which is already traumatic enough for a family to cope with.

Wills- understand what they are! A will is a request to a judge to divide your property as you request. It is NOT a legally binding contract in ANY way! I've heard many people say (in ignorance) "They have to do it, it's in my will!". A will cannot compel anyone to do anything, it is simply your last request, the laws of your area will still come into play, and your family can contest ANY will written for any reason! Judges and attourneys stand to make a lot of money by helping people contest wills, so they like nothing more than to see families at odds during the probate process. To repeat, a will must necessarily go through probate court, it is a letter to a judge! Many people mistakenly believe that a will circumvents probate court, NOT TRUE! Probate court will eat away anywhere from 5% to ALL of your assets! Average is probably close to 10 to 12% of total assets going to attourneys and "court costs"- sorry, your death hasn't incurred any expense to the courts so why should you have to pay court costs for dying? It's bullshit.

Living Trusts- for anyone whose gross assets exceed 100k, a living trust is worth looking into. It is a legal way to bypass the probate process and keep more of your net worth going to the people you want it going to, and to keep your grieving relatives out of the courtroom following your death. It is relatively inexpensive for what it will save your estate in the long run, both in dollars and headaches. Trusts are harder to contest, as anyone who is not specifically mentioned in a trust is automatically excluded (although you should verify this by having similar language written into your trust). There are tons of books on the subject, and I personally feel this is an important part of estate planning.

No one plans to fail, they just fail to plan. Good families who love each other dearly don't take these simple steps mainly because of (guess what?) Marketing! That's right folks, the reason YOU fear death RIGHT NOW is because the Funeral Directors union wants you to! If death can remain creepy and mysterious, more people can be victimised into spending more than they should on final expenses. No one pays attention to these people behind the scenes, but the average funeral director (now, I'm talking the old school owner-operators) makes far more than a doctor or attourney, so this is a very powerful political lobbying force that is relatively unseen.
We will all die one day, it's no big deal. Facing reality will help you understand what your life is all about, and teach you to get the most out of every day. Living with archaic fear-based stigmas only leads one into depression and belief in witchcraft and nonsense of the like, don't be a moron. Don't volunteer yourself or your family for death care abuse. FWIW, there are good, honest funeral directors and cemeterians out there, don't hesitate to shop around! I'm serious. If anyone ever makes you feel like you need to show how much you love someone by how much you spend, get out!
Obviously, this can only happen if you are pre-planning- at the time of a death, you'll take whatever is suggested, believe me. Very rational people become psychotic and unable to make the simplest decisions at the time of a death, and unfortunately will still be in a position to HAVE to make some of the largest financial decisions of their lives. Very few of us are accustomed to making $6,000 to $20,000 decisions in a hour or less, especially under the extreme hardship of grief.

Obviously, this is an issue about which I care deeply. "Til death do us part" means we will either divorce each other or bury one another. Remember, only one of you will have the support of the other, the second one to go will have no one. Please do this together and in the sharing of your love, so this can be another of life's rituals and not a cause for suicidal depression. Take care of each other and love often. Jana

 

[Freddie53]

Living wills are free to fill out, and getting them notorised (usually $1) makes them official.
Wills- understand what they are! A will is a request to a judge to divide your property as you request. It is NOT a legally binding contract in ANY way! I've heard many people say (in ignorance) "They have to do it, it's in my will!". A will cannot compel anyone to do anything, it is simply your last request, the laws of your area will still come into play, and your family can contest ANY will written for any reason!
Living Trusts- for anyone whose gross assets exceed 100k, a living trust is worth looking into. It is a legal way to bypass the probate process and keep more of your net worth going to the people you want it going to, and to keep your grieving relatives out of the courtroom following your death. It is relatively inexpensive for what it will save your estate in the long run, both in dollars and headaches. Trusts are harder to contest, as anyone who is not specifically mentioned in a trust is automatically excluded (although you should verify this by having similar language written into your trust). There are tons of books on the subject, and I personally feel this is an important part of estate planning.

Freddie's additions:

There is a saying that if you really want something to go to someone give it to them while you are alive. Of course you can't give away everything. But, family heirlooms, and stuff like that are sometimes best given before death. There can always be a piece of paper that states that you are "borrowing" or "renting" what ever it is that you want someone to have because you have already given it away. It is called a lifetime estate. You can give property and things to your heirs with a lifetime "estate" to the property. The thing is that if you do it within three to five years depending on the state you live in, you can keep the governments hands of your house and your personal items should you go to the nursing home. The down side is the potential of your heirs to declare bankruptcy. Usually with a life time "estate" in the house. The creitors of the "owners" cann't collect until you pass away. In an example of three children, one who has declared backruptcy, who now have legal title to the property, the house can't be sold until momma dies, then the creditors will get 1/3 of the value of the house. Of course any one of the children can buy out the others with mutual consent.

Jana you mentioned the $100.000 mark on living trusts. In some states, the legal fees are low enough for people with lot less than that to consider as an option.

And the funeral home. Played for so many funerals. It is sad to see people who don't have the money pay for the private limousines, the extra expensive caskets, and all the other extra effects that are beyond the customary "decent" funeral.

Caskets don't have to be extremely expensive to look classic. Cremation is an option and so is the old fashion way of allowing the body to return to dust.

Personally I think the stone marker is the most important item. It is what the family can view for generations if people are of so mine to visit graves. It seems a waste to spend $8000 on a casket that is going into the ground and never be seen again.

One plot can have a main marker and up to 10 or more small markers can be used to mark were the ashes of loved ones are buried. This is the best of both worlds. A grave to visit and the lowest cost of desposing of the remains is cremation if you use a wooden casket or in some states, no casket is required.

Main thing is to check up and know what the situation is in your state. Make the preparations that you can wish for and hope that it happens according to your plans. Some very well written wills have been totally destroyed and redone by the courts before. One rule is watch out for doing things way abnormal. Such as cutting one of the children out of the will. If it is a sizable will, a lawsuit over the will is almost going to be a certainty, especially if a law firm can get 1/3 of the assets or more. One would do better by being charitable to all and write a will that is less likely to be challenged. Now if there is a provable long line of problems with one child that goes back decades and there has been no communication for decades then that would probably pass court test of leaving that child out.

But if in the last year of your life you go and cut someone out of the will who has always been there, there is a courtroom waitng for your heirs. There will be the claim that you were coorced, you were mentally incompetent.

The most important thing is for each of us to know how we want to die. As for myself, I think it is cruel and immune punishment to keep someone alive aritficialy who is suffering greatly. If we administered pain that some feel in their last days and then kept them alive artificially the prison would be shut down for "inhumane treatment". I am not ready to endorse euthanasia, but I certainly do not believe in useing extraordinatry means to keep a "dead" person functioning for a few more days.

Always offer food and water, offer pain medication, and keep the dying in peace. And keep it to the doctor, patient and the person with power of attorney and the god of choice if there is one. Keep the rest of us out of it. We don't belong there.

And while I don't endorse euthanasia as a matter of law, if a dying person who is beyond any hope of recovery and is in severe pain dies with some questions, leave it alone. Why put a 82 year old grieving man in prison for pulling the plug of his wife who has begged him for days to do it as she is screaming in agony, totaly helpless and has less than a month to live if that long. Look the other way. Play dumb. And tell the grieving husband to keep his mouth closed. And for goodness sake don't call the authorities if you can find a way out of it.

 

[jonb]

There's an interesting history behind the balanced budget. The issue began under LBJ. But then Nixon flip-flopped, saying "We're all Keynesians now." Reagan made things worse in the 80s with supply-side economics. Here's how it works: As the tax rate approaches 100% or 0%, revenue approaches zero. Supply-siders claim the tax (especially for the top quintile) are too high. Combined with Iran-Contra and Star Wars, this made for a very poor situation. Clinton finally balanced the budget, but then Bush came up with "starving the beast", the hypothesis that if we cut taxes we'll have to cut spending.

So of course Republicans aren't going to support a balanced budget amendment; if the last 25 years indicate anything, such an amendment would put an end to their perpetual motion machines.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by jonb@Mar 28 2005, 02:02 AM
There's an interesting history behind the balanced budget. The issue began under LBJ. But then Nixon flip-flopped, saying "We're all Keynesians now." Reagan made things worse in the 80s with supply-side economics. Here's how it works: As the tax rate approaches 100% or 0%, revenue approaches zero. Supply-siders claim the tax (especially for the top quintile) are too high. Combined with Iran-Contra and Star Wars, this made for a very poor situation. Clinton finally balanced the budget, but then Bush came up with "starving the beast", the hypothesis that if we cut taxes we'll have to cut spending.

So of course Republicans aren't going to support a balanced budget amendment; if the last 25 years indicate anything, such an amendment would put an end to their perpetual motion machines.

[post=294480]Quoted post[/post]​

Well, it would be hard for them to profit personally from fiscal responsibility.