It's already "in the works" to have Fahrenheit on pay-per-view on election eve. It was my understanding the MM was going to try and get this on as many stations as possible, not just PPV, but I haven't found any reports saying his efforts succeeded.
He won't be eligible for an Oscar under the documentary category, but I guess he doesn't care.
If Bush loses this election I would expect history to look at the first debate as the reason why.
I would tend to look at the fact that I live in a red state and, as of the Democratic primaries, I couldn't find a single person other than myself that wanted to vote for Bush. I know he's an incumbent and that it's difficult to unseat an incumbent, but a lot of people really, really despised him this election year. I seriously don't know how Kerry has managed to screw the race this badly, he should be far and away ahead by now.
The Washington Post had an interesting article today. Here it is. It's basically a critique of Bush's tax cuts.
It all boils down to this: Bush wanted lower taxes. He lowered all the brackets that were in effect in 2000 and added a 10% bracket (details and comparisons can be found here). This ends up 'costing' the nation money, because the revenue that would have come from the additional taxes isn't going to be there. Whenever you see 'Bush's tax cut cost $X.YZ billion over 10 years', that's what it means. Also, some tax cuts are temporary. Congress passes them for a window, say 10 years, and then they have to be made permanent down the road.
Clinton presided over a ridiculous boom in the economy, one that caused the market to surge and provided us with a surplus. When I got out of school in 2000, I was coming into the job market at the tail end of the boom. People were handing out jobs like candy, and salaries were ridiculous. It's debatable what caused that surge to end, but it had to. If you look at numbers, and I don't have any handy, but looking at the numbers from the first part of 2001 on (when Bush was innaugurated), it's pretty clear that everything had slowed down and was continuing to slow down. September 11th happened, more bad news for the economy. Whenever stuff like that happens, the markets get shaken up and tend to go down.
Additionally, there is a tax loophole that allows multinational corporations to shift tax burdens around and decrease the amount of taxes they pay in this country. Some people claim this leads to outsourcing, since it's cheaper for them to pay workers in other countries, claim profits across multiple countries yet still claim expenses here. This article is a little lengthy but explains that more.
Jobs aren't really part of the job of president, but unemployment is seen as a bad thing. The president (really, him combined with congress) can only "promote" job growth by giving companies tax credits for new hires, or by reducing their tax burden or by making it more profitable to hire people here rather than other countries (ie, outsourcing). Kerry's economic plan (read it here) wants to drop that loophole above and use it to give corporations a 5% cut in corporate taxes (that's important...not all companies PAY corporate taxes, only about 8% do). He also wants to give a two-year new jobs tax credit to companies.
If you're a Kerry supporter, Bush has a net loss of jobs, is running a deficit because he cut taxes for the rich (he cut the top tax bracket from 39.5% to 35%, saying last week on O'Reilly "Nobody should pay more than 35% in taxes") and is a spendthrift on the war.
If you like Bush, a lot of this was bound to happen anyways. The war is contentious, obviously, but tax cuts are typically viewed favorably by Republicans because money back for everyone is a good thing.
That's my take on the economy. And as a caveat, I'm a Bush supporter. I don't think Kerry has the money to enact half the things he wants. If you look at his website, he wants a "Pay as you go" policy, which means that if he gives a 5% tax cut for corporations totalling $12billion over 10 years, we need to cut something or raise taxes so that it's on the books...no deficit spending. It's a great idea...it also rarely gets talked about in his speeches and, to me, sounds like a cop out so that next year he can say "The Republican Congress wouldn't reduce spending here, so I can't give you health care like I promised. Sorry."
If bush doesn't deserve to be bashed, why did you predict it yourself?
It's not really a prediction at this point...nearly any newspaper you pick up, or any Democrat you listen to, openly blames Bush for the economy and job loss. It's partisan rhetoric, since there's very little effect presidential actions have on the economy until at least half way through their term. Their economic policies and budgets don't go into affect until almost a year after they're elected.
That being said, this is the 13th consecutive month of net job gain.
Ha! Hillary stands no chance. I feel pretty comfortable saying the entire Republican electorate would be against her, and I seriously doubt she could get the Democrats to unanimously back her either. She's too harsh and not very likable...kinda reminds me of Teresa Heinz, actually.
get a earful from political commentators about how great this whole war thing is.
I'll bite, what channel are YOU watching? I watch a lot of FoxNews, which many on this site would argue is the equivalent of an RNC talking head, and nobody is talking about how great this war is. The most common questions asked revolve around "Is this war actually winnable?" and "Is the situation worsening?", and neither of them are rhetorical in either direction.
I flip to CNN and MSNBC on occasion as well, and those channels are both more pessimistic about the outcome. So unless you live in a remote, Republican controlled section of Texas, wtf?
It's not just the south, it's the midwest as well. I had this ongoing argument with an ex-girlfriend about why the midwest would vote predominantly pro-Bush in 2000, and the death tax was the #1 issue, I thought. Looking at predictions, it would appear to be the same this year.
Sen. Kerry and President Bush also differ sharply on estate taxes. Under current law, the basic exclusion from federal estate taxes this year is $1.5 million. That exclusion is scheduled to rise in stages, reaching $3.5 million in 2009, while the top tax rate, now 48 percent, is set to decline in stages. The estate tax is scheduled to vanish completely in the year 2010 -- only to reappear in 2011.
Sen. Kerry favors raising the basic estate-tax exemption to $2 million "immediately," Furman says, and also setting an exemption of $10 million for a small business or family farm. The exemption would grow with inflation. President Bush wants to kill "death taxes" completely.
I'm still trying to determine how an estate tax is fair at ALL. I get taxed on my income, I get taxed on my interest, I get taxed on profit from my property when I sell it...how many times do I need to get taxed? The fact that the estate tax is 45% is also a killer.
It doesn't really have to, the Globe is known to be one of the more respectable but left-wing papers in the country, next to the LA Times. Not surprising considering Boston, and the entire state of MA, tends to be rather left-wing itself. Remember the Globe is also the paper that first fubar'd and ran all the CBS memo stuff like it was gospel.
If Iraq has WMD's, why weren't they used to save the country from USA's invasion (you know, that's the whole point of having them)?
Actually, no country in its right mind would use WMDs on forces that are within its borders. Destroying your own country and making it unlivable defeats the point of the weapons themselves. They're offensive, used when you're trying to destroy someone ELSE's country.
Hell, US forces were able to find Saddam from a hole in the ground in some remote location
Once again, you're using faulty logic. The US found Saddam through tips that they were given by people in the country who wanted Saddam found. Within finding Saddam, many people in the country still feared him coming back to power and punishing them for their (not to sound like Dr. Evil) insolence. The weapons creators/hiders, however, had no such reason to reveal where weapons were. They've been questioning "Dr. Anthrax" and "Dr. Nuclear" or whatever her name is, and they're coming up with very little (that we know of). They have no reason to tell what they were doing, since telling will only convict them under international law.
instead of waiting and letting the inspectors to do their job?
This was, in my opinion, one of the biggest reasons to go to war...the inspectors weren't being allowed to DO their jobs. They weren't allowed to talk to Iraqi scientists and weren't given the information they needed. They had been kicked out of the country before without completing their job, ergo the question became what was Saddam hiding?
We have only so many resources. Hussein was a known problem, we'd tangled with him before. Afghanistan was taken down before Iraq. Libya laid down its arms recently, and you can argue whether that was because of our invasion or other mitigating (sanctions?) reasons. Iran and North Korea are being dealt with.
Let's look at this like a game of Starcraft...when playing against 3 other people, do you attack all 3 simultaneously, or do you attack 1, stabilize it, then attack another? While Starcraft is a far reach from the real world, my point is that overextending yourself is bad. Dems are already accusing Bush of overextending our forces. While I think we're capable of both walking AND chewing gum, let's not get ourselves too spread out.
I think you're giving Republicans too much credit. Spin machine? It could have been that some people, myself included, didn't feel comfortable with Gore on the issues. I went into the debates firmly voting for Gore, but then saw Bush tear him apart and no longer felt confident. That's why the debates are important and why i think it's stupid for anyone, left or right, to announce, even in jest, a "winner" before they take place.
If this "War Room" is used to respond to questions while carefully identifying themselves as Bush spokespeople, then it might be a neat new idea
I'm not sure how fond I am of this "War Room", but to answer your question, it's on Bush's website and is being heralded as a way for them to "address every lie that Kerry tells".
It'll be interesting, though I don't think the bloggers need it. They've been pretty adept at spotting inconsistencies, if for no other reason than there are so many of them. Read a few of the conservative blogs and see how many are "live blogging" the debate tonight...I think all the ones I read have indicated they plan to.
Lord. He corrected at least twice (once on the radio, once on tv) immediately after Franken corrected him. Have you ever looked at the context in which he misspoke?
Each time, he was defending his previous employer, Inside Edition, by saying that it was a legitimate show. Check this link for a pretty good summary of what Franken has said vs. what O'Reilly has said. He misspoke in defending his old show, in an interview where Inside Edition wasn't the topic of conversation. This wasn't a researched talking point; this was him talking off the cuff trying to defend something someone else was attacking by calling a "tabloid show". If he had researched it and it was the subject of the discussion, I'd call that sketcy. This, though, was just a passing remark. And, remember, it was corrected...he says that himself at the book signing, the video of which is linked to from the site aforementioned.
Another point, he never said he won a Peabody...he said we, meaning Inside Edition. While I don't think it needs a correction, he's acknowledged that the award was won after he left, the "we" was referring to his team at Inside Edition.
You can't separate "making war" and "seeking peace" quite that easily. Were we just "making war" when we entered into WWII? How about the Gulf War? How about the Civil War? How about the Revolutionary War? Wars are fought for all sorts of political reasons; removing an obstruction to peace can, and should, be a good enough reason, IMHO.
And as you mentioned, he apologized. I'm not sure how you want him to express distrust, but he doesn't give the president a pass on anything. Watch his interview with him tonight, he questioned the president on the WMDs. He questioned him on his service record, the Swift Boat Vets, etc. He's not going to burn GW's picture on national television, but will he "trust" him again as he did at first? Neither you nor I can say that, we can just judge him in the future and bring this up.
This is another one documented in Franken's book.
He explained it: "When I registered in Nassau to vote in 1994, there was not a box for an independent. I left all the boxes empty. Somehow, I was assigned Republican status." And Franken fails to mention that O'Reilly corrected the registration issue the day after he was told he was registered Republican. If you want to believe that he registered as a Republican and is lying about it to seem more to the center, there isn't a lot that I or he can do to convince you.
Your reply is, I think, the most civil I've had today defending O'Reilly:)
I might cede the point that everyone with an agenda has used 9/11 for that agenda in some ways. I'm just not sure what O'Reilly's agenda is, per se. If he's not a Republican or a Democrat, and he doesn't advocate one candidate or the other, does he have an agenda past his ratings?
Bush I's decision to leave troops in Saudi Arabia was a direct cause
If you look at the transcripts, Glick wasn't saying that Bush's actions were a direct cause..he's saying that Bush, as the head of the CIA, trained them:
GLICK:... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.
You can argue that Bush's actions could have caused these men to be recruited, but to say that Bush himself (or the CIA, which he was head of) recruited them is a bit much.
I'm not sure the definition of "coup" has changed much, even in the last 5-10 years.
How, exactly, do you prove you grew up in a blue-collar, middle class town? I grew up in a middle class family, but short of providing my parents' tax returns, I don't know that I could prove it.
Franken's challenge to O'Reilly was that he lived in Westbury. O'Reilly says he lived in the Westbury part of Levittown. If people accept that Levittown was a blue-collar, working class town then the proof is in the deed.
Isn't this exactly what the conservatives have done?
Do you mean conservatives or Republicans? I'll grant you that O'Reilly leans conservative, but not Republican. We can argue this one if you want, but he's a registered independant and while he happens to agree with many Republicans *because* they're conservative, he has opposed the Bush administration on issues (in other words, he's not a talking head like Hannity).
A coup doesn't have to be violent
I would argue you're not even technically correct (from Websters, "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics"), being that there was no use of force in the election, but people on both sides have beat that horse to death.
Bush I was indeed the inspiration for the training of 100,000 Moujahadeen
"Inspiration"? That's your argument? Are you agreeing with me that Bush *didn't* train them or are you saying he did? Glick said Bush trained them, I disagree and call Glick a liar. Address that point, don't prance around the issue by saying it's subtlely implied in a roundabout sort-of fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
It's already "in the works" to have Fahrenheit on pay-per-view on election eve. It was my understanding the MM was going to try and get this on as many stations as possible, not just PPV, but I haven't found any reports saying his efforts succeeded.
He won't be eligible for an Oscar under the documentary category, but I guess he doesn't care.
--trb
If Bush loses this election I would expect history to look at the first debate as the reason why.
I would tend to look at the fact that I live in a red state and, as of the Democratic primaries, I couldn't find a single person other than myself that wanted to vote for Bush. I know he's an incumbent and that it's difficult to unseat an incumbent, but a lot of people really, really despised him this election year. I seriously don't know how Kerry has managed to screw the race this badly, he should be far and away ahead by now.
--trb
And no sooner do I finish my post when this comes across SharpReader: Framing the Economic Debate.
:)
Complete with pretty pictures
--trb
The Washington Post had an interesting article today. Here it is. It's basically a critique of Bush's tax cuts.
It all boils down to this: Bush wanted lower taxes. He lowered all the brackets that were in effect in 2000 and added a 10% bracket (details and comparisons can be found here). This ends up 'costing' the nation money, because the revenue that would have come from the additional taxes isn't going to be there. Whenever you see 'Bush's tax cut cost $X.YZ billion over 10 years', that's what it means. Also, some tax cuts are temporary. Congress passes them for a window, say 10 years, and then they have to be made permanent down the road.
Clinton presided over a ridiculous boom in the economy, one that caused the market to surge and provided us with a surplus. When I got out of school in 2000, I was coming into the job market at the tail end of the boom. People were handing out jobs like candy, and salaries were ridiculous. It's debatable what caused that surge to end, but it had to. If you look at numbers, and I don't have any handy, but looking at the numbers from the first part of 2001 on (when Bush was innaugurated), it's pretty clear that everything had slowed down and was continuing to slow down. September 11th happened, more bad news for the economy. Whenever stuff like that happens, the markets get shaken up and tend to go down.
Additionally, there is a tax loophole that allows multinational corporations to shift tax burdens around and decrease the amount of taxes they pay in this country. Some people claim this leads to outsourcing, since it's cheaper for them to pay workers in other countries, claim profits across multiple countries yet still claim expenses here. This article is a little lengthy but explains that more.
Jobs aren't really part of the job of president, but unemployment is seen as a bad thing. The president (really, him combined with congress) can only "promote" job growth by giving companies tax credits for new hires, or by reducing their tax burden or by making it more profitable to hire people here rather than other countries (ie, outsourcing). Kerry's economic plan (read it here) wants to drop that loophole above and use it to give corporations a 5% cut in corporate taxes (that's important...not all companies PAY corporate taxes, only about 8% do). He also wants to give a two-year new jobs tax credit to companies.
If you're a Kerry supporter, Bush has a net loss of jobs, is running a deficit because he cut taxes for the rich (he cut the top tax bracket from 39.5% to 35%, saying last week on O'Reilly "Nobody should pay more than 35% in taxes") and is a spendthrift on the war.
If you like Bush, a lot of this was bound to happen anyways. The war is contentious, obviously, but tax cuts are typically viewed favorably by Republicans because money back for everyone is a good thing.
That's my take on the economy. And as a caveat, I'm a Bush supporter. I don't think Kerry has the money to enact half the things he wants. If you look at his website, he wants a "Pay as you go" policy, which means that if he gives a 5% tax cut for corporations totalling $12billion over 10 years, we need to cut something or raise taxes so that it's on the books...no deficit spending. It's a great idea...it also rarely gets talked about in his speeches and, to me, sounds like a cop out so that next year he can say "The Republican Congress wouldn't reduce spending here, so I can't give you health care like I promised. Sorry."
--trb
If bush doesn't deserve to be bashed, why did you predict it yourself?
It's not really a prediction at this point...nearly any newspaper you pick up, or any Democrat you listen to, openly blames Bush for the economy and job loss. It's partisan rhetoric, since there's very little effect presidential actions have on the economy until at least half way through their term. Their economic policies and budgets don't go into affect until almost a year after they're elected.
That being said, this is the 13th consecutive month of net job gain.
--trb
I'll bite...
The registration process ain't about preventing fraud -- it's about preventing voting.
How so?
--trb
Ha! Hillary stands no chance. I feel pretty comfortable saying the entire Republican electorate would be against her, and I seriously doubt she could get the Democrats to unanimously back her either. She's too harsh and not very likable...kinda reminds me of Teresa Heinz, actually.
--trb
get a earful from political commentators about how great this whole war thing is.
I'll bite, what channel are YOU watching? I watch a lot of FoxNews, which many on this site would argue is the equivalent of an RNC talking head, and nobody is talking about how great this war is. The most common questions asked revolve around "Is this war actually winnable?" and "Is the situation worsening?", and neither of them are rhetorical in either direction.
I flip to CNN and MSNBC on occasion as well, and those channels are both more pessimistic about the outcome. So unless you live in a remote, Republican controlled section of Texas, wtf?
--trb
It's not just the south, it's the midwest as well. I had this ongoing argument with an ex-girlfriend about why the midwest would vote predominantly pro-Bush in 2000, and the death tax was the #1 issue, I thought. Looking at predictions, it would appear to be the same this year.
--trb
Sorta. From the Baltimore Sun:
Sen. Kerry and President Bush also differ sharply on estate taxes. Under current law, the basic exclusion from federal estate taxes this year is $1.5 million. That exclusion is scheduled to rise in stages, reaching $3.5 million in 2009, while the top tax rate, now 48 percent, is set to decline in stages. The estate tax is scheduled to vanish completely in the year 2010 -- only to reappear in 2011.
Sen. Kerry favors raising the basic estate-tax exemption to $2 million "immediately," Furman says, and also setting an exemption of $10 million for a small business or family farm. The exemption would grow with inflation. President Bush wants to kill "death taxes" completely.
I'm still trying to determine how an estate tax is fair at ALL. I get taxed on my income, I get taxed on my interest, I get taxed on profit from my property when I sell it...how many times do I need to get taxed? The fact that the estate tax is 45% is also a killer.
--trb
From the Lowell, MA paper: Endorsement: George W. Bush for president
--trb
It doesn't really have to, the Globe is known to be one of the more respectable but left-wing papers in the country, next to the LA Times. Not surprising considering Boston, and the entire state of MA, tends to be rather left-wing itself. Remember the Globe is also the paper that first fubar'd and ran all the CBS memo stuff like it was gospel.
--trb
A paper with a circulation of 425, no less. Nevermind the Lowell Sun endorsing Bush, though.
--trb
If Iraq has WMD's, why weren't they used to save the country from USA's invasion (you know, that's the whole point of having them)?
Actually, no country in its right mind would use WMDs on forces that are within its borders. Destroying your own country and making it unlivable defeats the point of the weapons themselves. They're offensive, used when you're trying to destroy someone ELSE's country.
Hell, US forces were able to find Saddam from a hole in the ground in some remote location
Once again, you're using faulty logic. The US found Saddam through tips that they were given by people in the country who wanted Saddam found. Within finding Saddam, many people in the country still feared him coming back to power and punishing them for their (not to sound like Dr. Evil) insolence. The weapons creators/hiders, however, had no such reason to reveal where weapons were. They've been questioning "Dr. Anthrax" and "Dr. Nuclear" or whatever her name is, and they're coming up with very little (that we know of). They have no reason to tell what they were doing, since telling will only convict them under international law.
instead of waiting and letting the inspectors to do their job?
This was, in my opinion, one of the biggest reasons to go to war...the inspectors weren't being allowed to DO their jobs. They weren't allowed to talk to Iraqi scientists and weren't given the information they needed. They had been kicked out of the country before without completing their job, ergo the question became what was Saddam hiding?
--trb
We have only so many resources. Hussein was a known problem, we'd tangled with him before. Afghanistan was taken down before Iraq. Libya laid down its arms recently, and you can argue whether that was because of our invasion or other mitigating (sanctions?) reasons. Iran and North Korea are being dealt with.
Let's look at this like a game of Starcraft...when playing against 3 other people, do you attack all 3 simultaneously, or do you attack 1, stabilize it, then attack another? While Starcraft is a far reach from the real world, my point is that overextending yourself is bad. Dems are already accusing Bush of overextending our forces. While I think we're capable of both walking AND chewing gum, let's not get ourselves too spread out.
--trb
I was referring to the vote to go to war. It was unanimously passed in Congress.
--trb
I think you're giving Republicans too much credit. Spin machine? It could have been that some people, myself included, didn't feel comfortable with Gore on the issues. I went into the debates firmly voting for Gore, but then saw Bush tear him apart and no longer felt confident. That's why the debates are important and why i think it's stupid for anyone, left or right, to announce, even in jest, a "winner" before they take place.
--trb
If this "War Room" is used to respond to questions while carefully identifying themselves as Bush spokespeople, then it might be a neat new idea
I'm not sure how fond I am of this "War Room", but to answer your question, it's on Bush's website and is being heralded as a way for them to "address every lie that Kerry tells".
It'll be interesting, though I don't think the bloggers need it. They've been pretty adept at spotting inconsistencies, if for no other reason than there are so many of them. Read a few of the conservative blogs and see how many are "live blogging" the debate tonight...I think all the ones I read have indicated they plan to.
--trb
The fact you got a +2:Insightful for this makes me cringe.
Bush started a war for profit not liberty.
And I will wholeheartedly agree with you, when you or people like you provide a shred of grounded evidence supporting your point.
It's high time we let people vote for or against war.
We do, like we vote for most everything else, through our elected officials. I believe it was unanimous.
--trb
Lord. He corrected at least twice (once on the radio, once on tv) immediately after Franken corrected him. Have you ever looked at the context in which he misspoke?
Each time, he was defending his previous employer, Inside Edition, by saying that it was a legitimate show. Check this link for a pretty good summary of what Franken has said vs. what O'Reilly has said. He misspoke in defending his old show, in an interview where Inside Edition wasn't the topic of conversation. This wasn't a researched talking point; this was him talking off the cuff trying to defend something someone else was attacking by calling a "tabloid show". If he had researched it and it was the subject of the discussion, I'd call that sketcy. This, though, was just a passing remark. And, remember, it was corrected...he says that himself at the book signing, the video of which is linked to from the site aforementioned.
Another point, he never said he won a Peabody...he said we, meaning Inside Edition. While I don't think it needs a correction, he's acknowledged that the award was won after he left, the "we" was referring to his team at Inside Edition.
--trb
You can't separate "making war" and "seeking peace" quite that easily. Were we just "making war" when we entered into WWII? How about the Gulf War? How about the Civil War? How about the Revolutionary War? Wars are fought for all sorts of political reasons; removing an obstruction to peace can, and should, be a good enough reason, IMHO.
He lied when he told Good Morning America...
And as you mentioned, he apologized. I'm not sure how you want him to express distrust, but he doesn't give the president a pass on anything. Watch his interview with him tonight, he questioned the president on the WMDs. He questioned him on his service record, the Swift Boat Vets, etc. He's not going to burn GW's picture on national television, but will he "trust" him again as he did at first? Neither you nor I can say that, we can just judge him in the future and bring this up.
This is another one documented in Franken's book.
He explained it: "When I registered in Nassau to vote in 1994, there was not a box for an independent. I left all the boxes empty. Somehow, I was assigned Republican status." And Franken fails to mention that O'Reilly corrected the registration issue the day after he was told he was registered Republican. If you want to believe that he registered as a Republican and is lying about it to seem more to the center, there isn't a lot that I or he can do to convince you.
--trb
Your reply is, I think, the most civil I've had today defending O'Reilly :)
... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.
I might cede the point that everyone with an agenda has used 9/11 for that agenda in some ways. I'm just not sure what O'Reilly's agenda is, per se. If he's not a Republican or a Democrat, and he doesn't advocate one candidate or the other, does he have an agenda past his ratings?
Bush I's decision to leave troops in Saudi Arabia was a direct cause
If you look at the transcripts, Glick wasn't saying that Bush's actions were a direct cause..he's saying that Bush, as the head of the CIA, trained them:
GLICK:
You can argue that Bush's actions could have caused these men to be recruited, but to say that Bush himself (or the CIA, which he was head of) recruited them is a bit much.
I'm not sure the definition of "coup" has changed much, even in the last 5-10 years.
--trb
How, exactly, do you prove you grew up in a blue-collar, middle class town? I grew up in a middle class family, but short of providing my parents' tax returns, I don't know that I could prove it.
Franken's challenge to O'Reilly was that he lived in Westbury. O'Reilly says he lived in the Westbury part of Levittown. If people accept that Levittown was a blue-collar, working class town then the proof is in the deed.
--trb
Isn't this exactly what the conservatives have done?
Do you mean conservatives or Republicans? I'll grant you that O'Reilly leans conservative, but not Republican. We can argue this one if you want, but he's a registered independant and while he happens to agree with many Republicans *because* they're conservative, he has opposed the Bush administration on issues (in other words, he's not a talking head like Hannity).
A coup doesn't have to be violent
I would argue you're not even technically correct (from Websters, "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics"), being that there was no use of force in the election, but people on both sides have beat that horse to death.
Bush I was indeed the inspiration for the training of 100,000 Moujahadeen
"Inspiration"? That's your argument? Are you agreeing with me that Bush *didn't* train them or are you saying he did? Glick said Bush trained them, I disagree and call Glick a liar. Address that point, don't prance around the issue by saying it's subtlely implied in a roundabout sort-of fashion.
--trb