»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Dean and the DNC
| The Alley |
|
Dean and the DNC |
|
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
As Howard Dean prepares to take over leadership of the Democratic Party with his election-in tomorrow, there are many questions regarding what Dean will mean for the Democrats. Howard Dean, the governor of Vermont, suffered an upset in the Democraic primary early last year when he finished third in Iowa, where he made his infamous "scream speech" which may very well had a resonating effect that jaded his shot at a presidential nomination. Now, he has made a significant comeback in rising to become the new Democratic Party chairman. According to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, the following was revealed in interviews conducted by telephone January 27-February 8, 2005, with 223 of the 447 members of the Democratic National Committee. * When asked about the Democratic Party's approach to winning major elections, 56% believed major changes must be made, 34% believed minor changes should be made, 8% called for a complete overhaul, and 2% were undecided. * When asked if the Democrat Party should become more liberal or moderate, 52% believed the party should become more moderate, 23% believed the party should become more liberal, with the remaining 25% not sure. * When asked about the key to future victories, 61% believed it is attracting swing voters, with 30% believing in mobilizing the base and 9% not sure. * 63% see Dean doing an "excellent" job as chairman, with 27% believing he'll do a "good" job, 5% a fair job, 1% poor, 1% terrible, and 3% not sure. * When asked what factor was most to blame for losing the 2004 election, 49% believed it was because they were up against a wartime incumbent, 20% believed it was the inability to match the Republicans' grassroot efforts, 16% believed John Kerry was a weak candidate, 7% believed it was their positions on some key issues, and 8% were not sure. *********************************************** Howard Dean is being most praised among Democrats currently for his excellent grassroot mobilization skills (he raised a record $41 million in one year) and his colorful camera-friendly personality that can appeal to young voters. However, Dean is often criticized for using his tongue too much, and needs greater discipline with his role and speaking. (a.k.a the scream speech) Dean is also argued for being too liberal, though he's often considered more centrist among others. Is Dean one step forward or one step backward for the Democrats? Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Nadia Lockheart - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Personally, I feel this is a plus for the Democratic party, and I can understand how others may doubt that right now. In my experience, I've known many, including a few Passions poets here, who said they were tempted not to vote to re-elect Bush in 2004, but decided to vote Bush either because they saw Kerry as a bad candidate or because they saw the Democrats as just a clone of the Republicans without discussing values as loudly, or hadn't offered a viable alternative. I've known a considerable number of individuals via Indymedia who refused to vote because they wanted to elect Bush out of office because of the war mostly, but refused to vote because Kerry was seen as pro-war to them as well, and basically Bush's brother on a number of other issues as well. I think it's definitely a plus that Dean believes work needs to be done to distinguish the party from that of the GOP, and show there is an alternative, there are options. Dean is a man who voted against the war in Iraq from the beginning, and never backed down from his position, which "meaning what you say" or "knowing where you stand" is one plus given to Bush a lot. There are a few things Dean certainly has to take seriously, however. One is Tim Roemer's warning. The reminder that Democrats lost the South, the Midwest and 97 of 100 of the nation's fastest-growing counties. The 2004 election was not about letting 60,000 Ohio votes slip away, but rather about a failure to solidly connect with voters in all but 15 blue states on the East and West coasts. He must allow Roemer's message to resonate within the DNC, as he is a strong centrist who has served on the 9/11 Commission and the need for Democrats to run a "bigger bus," attracting back Catholics, Hispanics and women that they lost grip of in 2004. That sort of dialogue is just what many in the center desire hearing and Roemer should be judged not by his unique stance on abortion among the party but by his credentials, which are impressive, including six House of Representatives terms. But in doing that, the party must also remain aesthetically diverse and contrast from that of the GOP. One thing I'm praying Dean can do is adopt some progressive values such as those Ten Values held dear by the Green Party and let these values earn mainstream recognition. The values must be spoken out as that was ranked the #1 important issue of the 2004 election among Bush voters. There's much work that needs to be done, and it won't be easy, but I definitely believe Dean is a plus overall for the Democrats and his ability to mobilize grassroots campaigns especially is just what can restore this party's image. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Could the GOP be right about Dean and the future of the Democratic Party? From Democracy Now! Howard Dean Supports Bush on Iraq The chair of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean has come out in support of President Bush"s current Iraq policy. In a speech earlier this week in Minnesota, Dean said, "The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there." Dean said a US pullout could endanger the United States in three ways: By leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran; by creating an independent Kurdistan in the north, with destabilizing effects on neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran and Syria, and by making the so-called Sunni Triangle a magnet for what Dean called Islamic terrorists similar to the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Dean was portrayed as an antiwar candidate in the media during the 2004 presidential race." * * Are these Dean's true colors? Is Dean a closet hawk? I have to say after this, I've developed a no-confidence attitude toward Dean here. The GOP may be right after all. They said with him the Democratic Party would be flushed further down the pipeline. Assuming Dean was the courageous anti-war voice I thought he was, I staunchly disagreed, but now with this, I feel they just may have it right...though maybe not in the way they necessarily meant, sadly, with the way Dean seems to be playing the same old card other Democrats, like Hilary Clinton, have been playing. Throughout the Democratic primary, not to mention throughout much of the 2004 campaign, Dean boasted on and on about how he was one of the minority Democrats to vote against going to war, and challenged his opponents like Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman for authorizing the war. Now, all a sudden, he comes out and says though he believes Bush has made a huge costly mistake on national security, he is basically signing his permission slip to continue to go about his business. THAT'S why I'm NOT a Democrat. That is NOT anti-war behavior. If you're truly anti-war, you're not going to let your anti-war guard down at any point in the game. I'm telling you, and as a liberal, that the Democrats are just going to keep losing election after election until they recognize two things. One, that they understand why millions even bother to embrace their party every four years in the first place. The fact is, Iraq was a more serious issue among Democrats than it was among Republicans. In exit poll results, 73% of the overall 15% who thought Iraq was the most serious issue to them were Kerry voters, which Kerry voters almost unanimously disapproved of the war. THAT'S why many Democratic voters even bothered to go out to the polls November 2nd, for they believed the Democrats would sharpen up to become the oppositional party voice of this country on issues like that. Secondly, the other thing Democrats must realize is that the GOP have wandered far away from their roots, and, learning that lesson, try to cover up some ground they've retreated from, on values like veteran care, state rights, small government, the minimum wage, issues which the GOP have turned their back on as of late. And there continue to be pockets of dissent within the party, like on the cloture bill, where some Democrats even joined the GOP on making it harder for families to file for bankruptcy. And they don't even bother talking about the GOP backing away from state rights and such. I really am not confident in Dean now after this. I believe I was right about one thing in particular, however. That Dean has excellent grassroots mobilization skills. The only problem is, he's using them to rally in the wrong idea. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
And then there's Dean portaying Rush Limbaugh as a cocaine addict during his speech to the ACLU. Head of the DNC with the ACLU. Surprised? I'm not. And I do consider what he did to be slander and something he should be above doing. He's the head of the DNC afterall and should be setting a higher standard for others to follow, not playing to guttersnipes with such escapades. The DNC cozying up to the ACLU does worry me though, since they are a PAC as well as rabid liberal lawyers hell bent on destroying rights for the many so that the few can get their way. For some daft reason, they truly believe our country is a Democracy (few outweigh the many), not a Republic (many outweigh the few). |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Dean said, "The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. Quite an amazing statement there. If there had been no security problem before, how did 9/11 happen? How did the nine major terrorist attacks between 1990 and 2001 occur? A man would have to be an idiot to make this statement. The security problem was ALWAYS there. We simply chose to ignore it until it came to an action that could not be ignored. On the other hand, the point that turns you off, Noah, is the one point that makes me respect him. He is intelligent enough to accept that we ARE, right or wrong, in Iraq and must act accordingly and responsibly, not just tell the Iraqi people "see ya later. Deal with it." At least he can understand that and I don't understand how anyone could object to those thoughts. When asked what factor was most to blame for losing the 2004 election, 49% believed it was because they were up against a wartime incumbent As a conservative, these words are music to my ears. The Democrat inability to understand the American people and point at all the wrong reasons why they keep losing will insure that the Republicans remain in power for some time to come. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
If Dean continues to move in this direction, you're absolutely right, Balladeer. There's some Republicans out there who believe the real way in renovating the Democratic Party is to elect someone like Zell Miller for the Democratic presidential election. I actually consider that the LAST thing the Democratic Party should be thinking about, and that would be an even greater mistake for the party. Some conservatives accuse the Democratic Party of simply having no ideas at all, nothing positive to offer the country. I don't fully agree with that, as I find the GOP too is dry of solutions rather than privatization and incorporation, but I do believe they're not acculturating as much as they should. In fact, they're being more like the GOP in enculturating rather than acculturating. The problem is, conservative values center around faith and traditional dogmas, and the Democrats aren't really seizing that ground either. I believe one solution here for the Democratic Party is that they should begin breaking from the corporate party paradigm and acculturate with the interests of the Greens, unions, etc. These are groups who often fantasize of the Democratic Party they'd like to see, so they should go out there and relate to them. Simple as that. Most average Americans relate more to the Democratic Party on most domestic issues still. 4 in 5 Americans would like to see not only a minimum wage increase, but a living wage, and almost exactly the same percentage agree it should be happening now too. Most Americans believe our government is simply too soft on corporate crime, which I consider one of the worst crimes of all because it can affect massive numbers of people. Most Americans believe one way or another we must immediately break away from our obsessive dependence on fossil fuels and seek alternative energy ideas. Things like that. I believe the Democratic party is incredibly myopic when they just can't seem to get that through the donkey's head. There really shouldn't be anything hard about picking up on that by now, or four years ago. Clinton took that for granted often. I also still criticize Dean, by the way, for struggling to discipline his tongue. Saying things like "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for!" are certainly not going to win over any fence voters, and even shy me away from contact with him. Besides that, that statement obviously isn't true if he's supporting Bush in Iraq, the single greatest polarizing issue in the nation right now. The bottom line is, both major parties have walked far from their roots. Do they even notice it? Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
They notice it, Noah. Sometimes I think they are just hoping that WE don't... |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
You see, sometimes I find it's a little of both. That suddenly, largely due to the washed out officialdom media in particular, many of us can't even identify the traditional roots of these two parties, but somehow not even those in the parties themselves are aware or suddenly have gotten caught up in this climate and have forgotten. I keep in touch often with my grandparents, who have voted Democrat since 1992 (they voted for Reagen and Bush Sr. the first time) and consider themselves conservatives generally, but feel distanced from the GOP because of what I said, straying from their roots. They feel they're spending like crazy and have been dangerously aggressive with federal policy rather than state policy. I don't know what it is, but our two-party system is in desperate need of reform or one side is always going to abuse their power and the people who relate more to the other side will be shut out time and time again in this cultural tug-of-war. I'm just startled we didn't get to the heart of this matter decades ago already. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Sorry, Mike, but you've seriously misread that quote. Take a look at it again. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before Read it again..still reads the same to me. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, then, you need to go back to English class. Definite an indefinite articles are difficult for non-native speakers, but they shouldn't be for natives. What's your first language? |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Although not an article, "NONE" looks pretty definite. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Definite an indefinite articles English, Brad. What's yours? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Not my fault. Article refers to the usage of 'a' or 'an' (the distinction is called euphonic) as opposed to 'the'. I sweat over such questions when I write a poem ( Gee, Brad, maybe that's why you haven't written anything in a while.) The distinction is simple. Did he speak as an idiot or was he trying to use the language as it is. Grammatically, either you or he is an idiot. He didn't make the mistake you think he made. If you say 'sorry' I'll end this right here. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! Well, far be it from me to profess not to be an idiot, especially if misreading a quote automatically puts one in that catagory, but I have to confess that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, in all sincerity. The quote that I highlighted from Dean appears to be straitforward to me and I havent understood any of your cryptic remarks so far. Yes, English is my language but only when it's PLAIN English. If you would care to try using that, perhaps I'll have a better chance at understanding whatever point you are trying to make. I'll take the hayseed out of my mouth and sit quietly at attention so I don't miss anything...promise. Otherwise, you can continue imitating your hero who came out with the famous line that will live forever in judicial circles - "That all depends what "is" is.)  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Geesh, guys. Why don't you just make up you own quotations and be done with it. It would be a lot easier, I should think, than twisting this one to fit your own agendas? In my opinion, Brad, definite versus indefinite has very little to do with the meaning of the sentence. If anything, we're talking about specific versus generic articles, which can be applied to both the definite (the) and indefinite (a, an). All three articles can be used to indicate that a noun references a whole class, in which case the usage is called generic (from the Latin word meaning class). The difference between the indefinite a and an and the generic a and an is that the former means any one member of a class, while the latter means all the members of a class. "A Mercedes is in my parking space." This typifies the use of an indefinite article that applies to a specific noun. "A Mercedes is nothing but a status symbol." In this case, the same indefinite article references the whole class, not a specific member of the class, and is therefore a generic article. So, did Dean mean a specific security problem or a generic one? More importantly, Brad, does it really matter whether the President created THIS enormous security problem or just any old enormous security problem? Definite, indefinite, specific or generic, how you want to read the usage of the article in question changes the meaning very little. On the other hand, Michael, do you really think that "where none existed before" means Dean believes the U.S. has never had a security problem? By taking the phrase literally, you're essentially taking it out of the context of reality. Dean may well have worded it better, but any reasonable individual not out to ridicule will know he clearly meant "where none existed here before." As is pretty typical of politicians, Dean really didn't say anything meaningful at all. Every President in history has created new security problems, if for no other reason than keeping them physically safe is a security problem that didn't exist until they were elected. The implication might be that generic security problems should never be created, in which case Dean is clearly the idiot in question, or the implication might be that a specific security problem should never have been created, in which case Dean is just being characteristically vague. A politician with nothing to say doesn't surprise me in the least. What does continue to surprise me, and I'm not even sure why any more, is that reasonably intelligent men get frustrated when they can't prove the unprovable and instead resort to insulting each other. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
quote: Well said Ron. But isn't it fair to say that Dean is generally "out of the context of reality?" Actually, you are right, of course, about politicians and their statements, in general.  Pete |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
By taking the phrase literally, you're essentially taking it out of the context of reality. Yep, I have a bad habit of doing that, I guess. Taking things literally is unfair to the speaker, I suppose. We should try to take the time to figure out what they mean instead of what they say...alrighty then. As far as the insults, here I thought I did pretty well. After being questioned about what my native language was (in a way that was meant to be antagonistic) and presented with the possibility that I had at least a 50% chance of being an idiot, I figured I showed some restraint there - guess not enough. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Hey, it is not that easy being a politician and it is definately not that easy to say something that sounds meaningful when you have nothing to say. Just look at some of the things I've said. The key is to say nothing but make people believe you are saying something, and if you are really good, saying nothing that will appear to have different meanings to different folks who all believe you are supporting their position. Dean isn't that good in that he certainly can confuse, but it his hard to misinterpret his true feelings. Clinton (and this is a positive politically and not meant as a negative) can say something that really means nothing and have some think he is a liberal and some a moderate. That is why he so good as a politician. Bush doesn't get the hang of it and says what he truly thinks and not so artfully. I haven't really said anything in this thread, so I guess I am a confirmed politician. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Either that or you should have been on Seinfeld, Tim! Nicely not said.... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Actually Tim, here's some political advice for you from your buddy Newt Gingrich; quote: http://www.newt.org/index.php?src=news&submenu=speeches&prid=991&category=Speech%20Transcripts Which is an attitude nearly as condescending as Dean's. [edited to replace actual quote and source] |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
another tactic equally effective and unfortunately the norm by both the left and right is to associate your opponent with a "recognized evil" and therefore, no matter the position, you are cooked cabbage. For instance, why would you refer to Gingerich as my buddy other than to somehow insinuate a negative that has no benefit other than at an emotional level? In simplest terms, in poli sci 101 you wrap yourself in the American flag, mother and apple pie. Not hardly a Gingerich novel idea. Clinton did have a very effective and now accepted variation, triangulization in which you attach yourself to an idea that no one can attack and let the two parties fight it out while you are above the fray on the side of mother, apple pie and the flag. Clinton can be a darling of the left and say he is a moderate because he is not involved in the fray and can take credit on both sides. Gingerich wasn't quite as effective and perhaps should have followed his advice and paid more attention in 101. If truth be known, while I don't agree with all of his policies, the politician I respect most is Lieberman because he is a man of principle notwithstanding his policies. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
How do you spell condesenSHUN? quote: Which is not bad for a start -- but then he winds up with; quote: http://www.memphisflyer.com/content.asp?ID=7120&ArticleID=2 |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I refer to Gingrich as your buddy Tim because he's on your team... at least policy wise. Personally -- I'd rather vote for people I respectfully disagree with than people I despise and agree with. And, no points off Ron or Brad for ending a sentence a preposition with. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...and be careful not to dangle your participle around here, Reb  |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
another lesson in poli sci 101, public image is very important also as people will not vote for what is right, but rather who they like. agree with Gingerich on some things and disagree on some others, I agreed with Clinton on some issues and disagreed with some others. I can't say I am impressed with either as a person although both were and are good politicians in a political sense. Don't really consider myself on either one of their teams, but what the hey, if you want to think I am a Gingerich Republican that is your perogative. I am fairly certain in my own mind I fall in the moderate Republican range and that most people who know me personally would concur. As far as Dean, the chair of the party is supposed to be the attack dog, Dean fits that role very well. I do not think he fully comprehends the views of the "silent majority", but then again, I think that is a failing of the left that only the Clintons are apparently able to discern. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: And that's the very condescension that Gingrich and Dean exhibit here -- excepting that Gingrich only says "we don't need to explain it to them" and Dean says "we CAN'T explain it to them." In reality there are (basically) two kinds of voters, ideologues and swingers. The mind of the swinger isn't set on who they 'like' but is rather a matter of who they find they respect more -- regardless of position. If we can put a good leader in office (and I would argue that the best leaders are the least ideological) then he or she is going to more than likely act in the best interest of the electorate (and align themselves with interest groups that are willing to come to that table). That's why Congressional leaders are so rarely good executive material -- because caucases usually gravitate toward extremes in picking leaders. It's really Reid's job to be attack dog -- not Dean's -- Dean needs to be the guy raising money and picking candidates to back. If you have an R behind your name Tim -- you are an R. I haven't noticed you exhibit any non-partisan positions. Deere -- I fully plan to keep my participle undangled... ! |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
The chair's job is certainly to raise money and recruit candidates. You do that by appealing to the base and you appeal to the base by being the attack dog. Clearly the role of the chair who doesn't have to be concerned with upsetting the opposition. That is why Dean is pretty well suited for where he is at. Mistletoe's complaint appears to be primarily that Dean is not a pacifist. The job of Reid is not to be an attack dog. The Republicans would love to have him perceived as such. The job of Reid is to keep his Senators in line and get legislation passed. You need to have the respect of the other side to be a good leader in a legislative body. People don't generally respect people they don't like. I do not disagree a lot of people vote for people they like and therefore respect notwithstanding the candidates' positions. But then you can't come back and complain about politicians who recognize to get elected you have to get people to like you. I have said that before in another thread, people do the voting and get the type of politician they demand. A principled statesman has little chance of being elected in the present political climate for the very reasoning you give of the "swing voter." Finally, only non-Republicans can be fair and independent minded? All Republicans must be linked to Gingerich and all Democrats must be linked to Michael Moore and Al Sharpton? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: This is a point on which (I hope) reasonable people may simply disagree -- but if you don't think Frist and Delay are attack dogs then -- you're truly partisaned Tim. Recent memory of mild mannered Tom (Daschle) and the resultant translocation of attack dog function to surrogates like James Carville or Terry McAuliffe have certainly blurred the lines -- but in days of yore -- probably 95% of the electorate couldn't have even told you who the party chair was -- like back in the 70's -- does anybody even remember Bill Brock? Chair of RNC from 1977 to 1981? Or better still, without looking it up -- who is the chair of the RNC TODAY? Reid should be the defacto 'Leader' of the Democrats -- but he isn't really suited for the traditional role -- especially with higher profile Rock Stars like Dean, Clinton (Senator), Kennedy, Biden and the like who are all too ready to jump in front of a camera. The shout-show and 24-hour news cycle have also served to dilute the spokesperson function of Senate party-leader now too -- but that's another topic which wouldn't be a bad one to get into. quote: Wrong answer. Let's take these two statements and look at what's going on -- you said them both; quote: You're left with the dilemma Tim of voting for someone who is 'right' and you don't trust/respect -- or voting for someone whom you do respect and trust but who isn't promoting the ideas you think are 'right'. If you don't trust or respect someone -- even if they are saying the 'right' things -- how can you be sure to get what you think you're voting for? The problem comes for anyone to be fair and independent minded when they think they are voting for 'right' ideas -- the question becomes -- is it just a matter of political DNA for someone to be a Republican or a Democrat? Had you been paying attention you'd know that my respect and criticism cuts both ways.. for instance -- here /pip/Forum6/HTML/000998.html I explicitly say quote: Last time I looked he was an R (that still associates him with Newt Gingrich). And as long as he wears a Lakers uniform -- all the Lakers are associated with Shaq. Ringo, Paul, George, and John -- associated. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
we will have to respectfully disagree as we have differing views on how the political system operates. besides having different understandings of the workings of the system, our cynicisms come from different perspectives as I view your position not that unlike those you criticize of Dean and Gingerich. You wrap yourself in integrity and then say I am on the side of rightousness and goodness. I have little doubt if you took a poll from across the political spectrum you would get the same response as yours from both extremes of the spectrum and would suspect Mistletoe and Denise would both indicate they vote for integrity and the candidate and not the party. I also have little doubt that a majority of folks if polled would indicate the same. If we are all voting for the right reason, then how come we don't have politicians we can all look up to and respect. Where are the Hubert Humphreys, McGoverns, Goldwaters, et al.? Why wasn't Carter a great president? It would be hard to say he wasn't a man of intregrity. Also, we can respectfully disagree on the role of party leader in the Senate which is not the same thing as the leader of the party or the party chair. Guess we just have different backgrounds. Bottom line, if I am going to decide if someone is right, I look at the facts and not ultimately whether I like or respect the person. Intergrity is a factor, but not the deciding factor. I wouldn't necessarily invite the person over for lunch, but then again there are plenty of people I like and respect I wouldn't want making decisions that effect my life. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Sorry for the delay I was out buying halo polish -- they're having a sale at Big Lots -- you should check it out. Well, this is absolutely the first time, I mean, I've been called names before -- but, never, never, has anyone ever accused me of having integrity. How dare you? I demand satisfaction. En gaurde Sir. [Kit, I need a couple of smileys smacking one another with gloves and fencing with foils to insert here] Or were you accusing me of feigning integrity? As insults go on the whole this was slightly better than the usual 'you have no core values'. Either way -- my attitude is entirely the OPPOSITE of Dean and Gingrich as evidenced by my continued participation in these forums directing people to objective information whenever I can. I've yet to figure out exactly what's in it for me -- but for some reason I keep doing it with no discernible personal gain. Bottom line -- I don't think it isn't important for the electorate to be informed nor do I think it incapable of understanding the issues. Although I will admit to feeling it's difficult to get the public interested in understanding the issues -- that, is my, and their (Gingrich and Dean), common failing -- of being able to find a way to interest the public in the complexities of the issues (but I don't make fun of people for saying Nuance-- the issues aren't simple and are extremely reticulate). And certainly if you ask the average Jane she'll tell you she thinks the government is screwed up -- but if you ask her about her own Representative or Senators -- she'll most times say they aren't the problem. But if said Jane merely pulls the levers on one side of a ballot from top to bottom we obviously get what we have. There are Navy Seals I know that I wouldn't want to have over to the house for dinner but I trust them to break things and kill people as may be required from time to time. Why you would VOTE for someone, that's making decisions that will effect everyone, you wouldn't invite to dinner is beyond imagination though. I absolutely do have a different understanding of American party politics -- I understand the tradition that if a party has the White House -- the President is the party leader. If not -- the party leader, be it minority or majority, in the Senate is THE party leader. Totally different job from being chair. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
[chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp] Nothing quite like wonk talk to clear a room. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I am more and more beginning to view it all, the political parties, the candidates, the platforms, the causes, the movements, as nothing more than a diversion for the masses to involve themselves in, to keep their minds occupied and to make them feel as if they in some way have a voice in being governed, while the 'governors', the powerful and wealthy, do as they please to do, and occassionally throw a bone to the dogs to keep their allegiance through the pretense of self-government. The day that a non-wealthy, non-connected person, from amongst the pack, runs for office, and wins, is when we will be self-governing. Until then our strings are just being pulled, in one direction or the other, by the puppet masters. It doesn't really matter what you are, left, right, centrist, whatever. You just play the game and dance to the current tune that is being played. Until you get too tired to play or dance anymore, and you cut the strings. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: When voting, I generally try to consider a candidate's position, integrity, and ability (though probably not in that order). While it's at least possible I could be convinced to vote for a non-wealthy, non-connected person, I really don't think it would happen very often. They would certainly have to convince me there was a valid reason why they failed to excel in private life before I would give them a chance at what I would have to assume would be an equally mediocre public life. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Good point, Ron, but maybe that's part of the problem. Maybe too many people, even subconsciously, equate 'excelling' with wealth (even the inherited old money or marital varieties) and elite social connection, and perhaps place too much emphasis on those factors when evaluating the worth of a candidate. What other qualities might someone possess besides wealth and social connection, I wonder, that would be indicative of one's ability to effectively represent the voter? Or do effective leaders inevitably rise to the top in the economic and social realms? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I doubt it's inevitable, but I do think it's so common as to perhaps appear inevitable. Just as we must satisfy base needs before pursuing higher needs, I suspect we typically satisfy close needs, tied to self and family, before addressing extended needs. Those still struggling with the former aren't likely to be much better at the latter. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
We certainly wouldn't have called Marie Currie or Albert Einstein at the top of economic or even social success. It depends upon what one's aims are. Jesus was certainly not at the top of economic or social success. It could be argued that only the most unscrupulous characters are going to make it into those circles -- but I don't think it would be fair to put Jobs, Gates, Edison, or Bell into that catagory. Then again -- Thomas Jefferson filed bankruptcy 5 times. Harry Truman was a failed habadasher. We could say too that those who inherit their money don't deserve position either -- but then we'd have to rule out a couple of Roosevelts who were both superior. It's all just too complex -- we have to look at these people and issues on a case by case basis. If you merely apply your cynicism to the entirety of the human race Denise -- instead of just politicians -- you'd come to see that it just isn't possible for a grand conspiracy to exist -- people will always fight to get to the top. The best thing we can do is keep checks and balances in place -- and part of those checks and balances is to see to it that the extra-constitutional dimension of party politics remains balanced as well. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Well, Ron, thanks for caring. You're still wrong, of course: "The Mercedes is parked in my parking space." If you don't or can't tell a difference then you can't hear it. Not yet. Look. I'm not really angry at this. I see it, I think Mike simply forgot what he can actually do (Does anybody remember that I actually like what he writes?). He's a good poet when he writes poetry, he's simply wrong when he tries to read someone from the Left. There are books on this stuff if anyone is interested? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ron, no offense meant, but if you can't come up with an example that works, you don't have an argument. Your turn. |
||
|
vlraynes Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229Somewhere... out there... |
Brad?... I know I have nothing to do with this conversation, and as a result, I fully expect to be insulted by you, just as you have insulted the others here... I have witnessed your attacks and insults in a number of threads, and I guess I just can't stay quiet anymore. With all due respect, what makes you think that you are so much better than the rest of us? Are you not merely human? What makes it acceptable for you to constantly treat others as if they are 'less than'? I'm sorry, but I don't see anyone else getting away with the kind of insults that you so readily dish out. Even if you sincerely believe that the person you are addressing isn't as well-educated or intelligent as you are, or even if you think him/her to be just plain 'wrong', EVERYONE still deserves to be treated with common courtesy and respect. So, there's my two cents. Do with it what you will. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I can tell the difference, Brad, and I can certainly hear the difference. I'm honestly a little surprised you can't? While your version certainly isn't wrong, using a definite article shifts the emphasis of the sentence, much in the same way we use inversion. You're talking about a very specific Mercedes, "the" Mercedes, and that therefore becomes the principle focus of the sentence. "Where is the company Mercedes today?" "The Mercedes is parked in my parking space." An indefinite article, on the other hand, shifts the emphasis away from the subject. In my version, it matters not at all which Mercedes is in my parking space, because that's not the focus of what is being communicated. "Why are you late?" "A Mercedes is parked in my parking space." Try answering the second question with the first answer and not only will it make less sense with the definite article, but the next question will inevitably be "Which Mercedes?" And that's not the response my statement hopes to elicit. Writers, I should hope, recognize that where the stress is placed makes a subtle difference. Good writers, I should hope, recognize that the subtleties matter. More importantly, Brad, to return to the real topic, the meaning of Dean's sentence does NOT depend on his choice of articles. Whether he's talking about a definite security problem or an indefinite one, the meaning is the same. If the sentence could be reworded to use a definite article (and not all sentences can), it would only shift the focus, not the meaning. And Brad? Vicki is right. Being curt is one thing, insulting is another entirely. If you are lacking either the time or patience to avoid casting insults, now might be a good time to explore why. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: And I have lowered the rhetoric around here ... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Let's see, a casual perusal on this board shows words like idiot, psycho, schmuch or some. Some? quote: --Ron Now, do I start quoting from the Schiavo threads? Am I being rude? Perhaps, but if I have a goal in mind, it's to slow down this rhetorical juggernaut of hatred. It's to make you look in a mirror. If that's condescending, so be it. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Glad you came back Brad and submitted a tad more appropriate postings. It does get frustrating trying to figure out the moods of the moderators from time to time in knowing what is going to be considered appropriate and what isn't, but, all of you are human beings with brain chemistry and stuff going on in real life and I'm just happy that you're all willing and able to spend the volunteer time to provide a web space where we can do this. And, I thank all of the Gods I'm agnostic about that I can participate without having to pull a tour of duty -- I've done enough of that kind of stuff and I know how troublesome dealing with people can be. But there is a reward too. It's like peeling an orange -- it gets sticky and messy -- but you have to go through that to get to the sweet stuff inside. Thanks to all of you for dealing with the peeling. I'll just say that in this case I don't think you took the most efficacious approach to making your point. The latest polls show some stunningly contradictory numbers -- that a majority of Americans are now not happy about the war in Iraq -- but at the same time -- a majority still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11. A focus on facts instead of grammar would have helped you to lead by example and may have informed those thousands whom click in and never say anything. I always look forward to reading what you, Ron, Mike, Denise, Tim, Cat, Noah (although I still wish he'd quit centering his prose and using eye straining colors), Jim, Christopher -- um -- just get out the member list -- have to say. I hope to see more of the old Brad getting back to the topic. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I don't know about that. If I had just pointed that Dean meant going into Iraq created a security problem where none was before (That is, in Iraq), it would have missed the point. Somebody would have pointed out that Iraq was a security problem already, everybody thought Iraq was a security problem anyway, and it doesn't matter because Iraq was always potentially a security threat. But you're right I need to calm down, take some time off (something I've been trying to do anyway) and get back to peeling.  |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Dean is not where he is at because he is articulate, makes sense, or holds consistent opinions. He is the attack dog of the Democrats and I suspect most serious professional Democrats aren't real happy about that fact. He is not doing too bang up of a job in raising money and is fairly proficient at sticking his foot in his mouth. Dean got his support from the non-professional, far left and pacifist wing of the party. His problem is, with exception of Iraq, he has never met a war he didn't support and there are a few he would like to see that haven't came about. He supported Clinton in ignoring the U.N. and going into Bosnia. He supported the first gulf war. He wanted us to go into Liberia. He states Iran and Korea are far greater threats than Iraq ever was and that Iraq was not a threat. Brad indicates a response would have been that Iraq was a threat. That would seem the fairly logical response. One could argue Iraq was not a threat. Dean's position in that regard is somewhat weakened by his willingness to support any other military action that comes down the pike. I see Dean as a fairly insignificant player right now other than giving Senator Clinton a foil to play off to show she is a centrist hawk. I still submit the interest political show is Reid who appears to be playing into the Republicans' hands and following Local Rebel's advice to be an attack dog rather than Senate Majority leader. The statement about President Bush being a loser had to bring a smile to the President's advisors. If you are a minority and have to rely on the moderate or more liberal wing of the opposion party, that certainly is a way to win their support. Reid is trying to do the right thing as far as working the system, but unfortunately, the paranoia that pervades the present political climate is forcing him to walk a tightrope. He has teetered a few times. [This message has been edited by Tim (05-08-2005 11:46 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting to pop back in and see what's going on... A man would have to be an idiot to make this statement. Brad, you may certainly point at this statement of mine as insulting but it was an insult at Dean, not anyone here, since the statement was his. That is no different that someone calling Bush insulting names, which has certainly been done more than once. I don't see where calling Dean and idiot somehow justifies you to use that as a comparison to your personal insults towards people here......but, then again, since I can't read from the left, I'm probably missing something |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Mike, Please remember, I still respect you. No, you're still wrong on this. But that's okay. Time off begins now. Hell, if it were someone else, I probably wouldn't have cause so many problems. |
||
|
vlraynes Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229Somewhere... out there... |
For the record... When I posted the above comments, I was not speaking as a moderator. I was speaking as a fellow human being and long-time member of this community, and that is the voice I will continue to use here. I have witnessed the insulting and condescending behavior on many occasions, and though I am not generally a confrontational person, I finally felt inclined to say something about it. Not surprisingly, Brad, you did not see fit to address me personally about my comments. Instead, you chose to bypass me completely, and respond to Ron... and with more of the same insulting behavior, no less. Yes, Brad... there have been inappropriate comments by others as well; however, what disturbs me about your behavior is the consistency with which you treat others as a lower life form. You said... "It's to make you look in a mirror. If that's condescending, so be it." With all due respect, Brad, perhaps it is you who should look in a mirror. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Believe me, you do not want to do this. I have accepted your comments, I have decided to leave. Why isn't that enoough? I generally do not respond directly to people who say they have no interest in the topic. I don't consider anybody who says that worth the time. Ron did. Sorry again. |
||
|
vlraynes Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229Somewhere... out there... |
"Believe me, you do not want to do this." I'm not sure what you're implying with the above comment... but yes, Brad... I believe I do want to do 'this'. If I hadn't wanted to, I wouldn't have. I'm not sure what your definition of 'this' is, within the context of this thread, but all that I have done is to question your treatment of others... nothing more, nothing less. You see, Brad... I respect you as a fellow human being, but your comments no longer scare or intimidate me. It's true that they used to, but no more. I never asked that you 'leave'. In my opinion, that solves little. Oh... and for the record?... regardless of my interest in or knowledge of a given topic, I AM 'worth the time'... as are you. Have a nice day, Brad. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Okay. Did or didn't Mike read the quote in question mistakenly? For the record, I have read many things in my life mistakenly. Why was there no mention of the second earthquake in SE Asia? I didn't post on that either. Why do people pretend to be above politics and then make a political statement? I've probably done that somewhere, I just can't remember where (Still another fault.) Do you or do you not see a succession of names in this forum that snowball from criticism to demonization? The Ward Churchill thread and the Kofi Annan thread are two examples. I know I've contributed to this mess. Perhaps that's why I want to fix it (Okay, I'm frustrated and want to run away at the same time.) You're probably right that I went about it the wrong way, but until I see your name protesting the Abu Gharib scandal, it's hard for me to take your concern for other humans seriously. I have no doubt you're concerned with yourself and with people that you consider your friends and that is something to be admired, you may have a cause or two that you contribute to, but don't elevate that to a level that no one can hope to attain. Why, when someone feels slighted, do they think that all the rules of courtesy and propriety disappear? Verdict on Brad: guilty. Where have I actually called anyone names? I have before, but I can't recall using 'idiot' 'ignorant' or any other words recently that directly question someone's character. I may have, I just can't remember. But if I have does that justify the reversal? --------- Is there any substance to any of the criticisms I've made? You're criticizing the way I've gone about things. Fine. But I don't see how that relieves you of the responsibility to address what we are talking about. Without that, it sounds more like you don't want to hear someone who disagrees with you or your friends and less a true concern with the respect of others. For when you wake up in the morning you're still going to go about your life in exactly the same way you did yesterday whether you have respect for people as people or whether you hate them as LoveBug said in the Schiavo thread. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: I'm not going to say you're wrong Tim -- but I think that in fairness I would have to say you're only partially right. Dean articulates consistent opinions that make sense to those partisans who happen to agree with him. And, I will stipulate that he makes a lot of gaffes and blunders -- but that was certainly true for 41, Dan Quale, and G.W. too -- and then there was the pratfall President -- Gerry. Certainly his statement in question of the current discussion was very shrewdly calculated so that he could appeal to those who would interpret it from extreme to moderate meanings. So I don't think it marks him as an idiot. But, Brad's statement "Somebody would have pointed out that Iraq was a security problem already, everybody thought Iraq was a security problem anyway, and it doesn't matter because Iraq was always potentially a security threat." illustrates how hard it is to defend any particular interpretation one may choose to hold -- which is why I'm glad I don't have to shill for anybody. I haven't seen Dean showing up on Sunday morning though -- or any of the weekly shout shows -- so apparently he is settling in for a more traditional role - which is what he should do -- they really only need to trot him out if, say, Nancy Pelosi gets in trouble with the House Ethics Committee over travel reimbursement issues. Reid does seem to be stepping up to the plate more now. But being the attack dog doesn't mean he's supposed to attack the President, he's supposed to attack the policy -- but -- he did what someone is supposed to do when going over the line -- which is to both acknowledge it as such and then apologize for it http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/May-06-Fri-2005/news/reid.html. He needs to study one of my favorite guys more -- Bob Dole, Bob Dole, Bob Dole-- who was the master at attacking and smiling about it -- can't wait to read his new book. Point of order for Brad, Deere, and Vicki: I think it has been well established, both in the legal system of the U.S. and within the generally accepted code of conduct in these forums, that celebrities, public officials, would-be public officials, et al are open to a different standard of criticism than what an ordinary citizen or forum participant would. I've certainly issued the word 'moron' at least twice in regard to the sitting President -- so I don't think Deere crossed any lines with idiot. (And I don't think there's any danger of someone thinking that I'm just trying to agree with my friend -- have Mike and I ever held anything back? (But we're still friends I think)). At the same time -- if Brad has the desire to try to see the tone of the forums be a bit more temperate then it's surely within his right to try to affect that change -- as it is Vicki's right to influence Brad's temperment if she sees fit to do so. There were a couple of posts that hit the cutting room floor (as well they should) that I was referring to when I made the previous post about moderators -- I've seen a few of mine fall into electron heaps in the distant past too -- I don't think it's a big deal. This makes me glad that I'm not a moderator -- but if I was one -- I'd say -- I don't think any of you has anything to gain by pushing this line of contention any further, and that you all have lots to lose. And that's something that would be terribly unfortunate. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LR...no, we haven't and yes, we are. Your final line sums it up well, I think. Everyone has expressed their thoughts and moving on wouldn't be a bad idea... |
||
|
vlraynes Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229Somewhere... out there... |
LR and 'Deer?... out of respect for you both, as well as your expressed desire that I 'move on', I won't bother to further defend my position. Those who know me, know where my heart is... and "I" know that my intentions were, and remain, true and sincere, and that my heart is in the right place... and I suppose that, ultimately, that's all that matters. Brad... I do want you to know that none of my comments were intended to start a 'fight' with you, or to make an 'enemy' of you. As I said earlier, I am not generally a confrontational person. I don't 'enjoy' confrontation, which is why, even when I do have strong feelings on the topic at hand, I tend to stay out of these types of discussions. Contrary to what you may think, Brad, I do respect you... not only as a fellow human being, but I also have a great deal of respect for your apparent knowledge on a number of various topics. I have no doubt that there is much that I, and others, could learn from you. I'd simply like to be afforded that opportunity, void of the voice of condescension. Anyway... I've already said more than I intended to say in this post. Bottom line?... I hope we can move on from this with no hard feelings, but perhaps with a bit more of an understanding of and a mutual respect for one another... because, Brad?... we are ALL worth the time. Peace, my friend. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." --Jimi Hendrix |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Peace to you, too, Vicky, and I didn't make the statement for "you" to move on but rather that was for all of us. Actually,I admire you greatly for coming out and speaking your mind and standing up for your thoughts, chips falling where they may. Have a great night.... |
||
|
vlraynes Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229Somewhere... out there... |
Thank you, 'deer... You have a great night too, my friend... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Uh, yeah, but, well ... Irk, ugh, ilk, nilk, smurf, furf. Okay, guys. Vicky, That's exactly what I meant when I said "You don't want to do this." I know you don't. That doesn't mean I'm better than you, it just means, I've been doing 'confrontations' for a lot longer. As Trevor said a long time ago, I'm not smarter than but I can outlast you. LR, I'm well aware of the law. That's not my concern. My concern is that the persistent use of rhetoric that inflames rather than analyzes, that uses innuendo rather than logical connection, is a recipe for disaster. I see it here everytime I pop in. I see it at National Review, and the WND, in the rhetoric of Ann Coulter and Michael Moore. I'm always struck by two things: There are times when I think people are attempting two things here, either their attempting the worst forms of 'deconstruction' (that is, deconstruction without any concern for history or intent); or we are returning to the political rhetoric of the nineteenth century. Neither of these things are good. |
||
|
vlraynes Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229Somewhere... out there... |
Well then, Brad... I guess it's a good thing I didn't consider it a competition. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: What I fail to understand, Brad, is why you choose to combat your concerns by embracing their cause? Your penchant for innuendo, insinuation and insult dates back to before these blue pages even existed, and has continued throughout much of this thread. As you say, you've been doing confrontation a long time, certainly throughout most of the six years I've known you. I honestly hope, Brad, you don't test your ability to outlast anyone around here. You'll discover, I promise, that your lasting power isn't nearly as great as you think. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What's the prize in a contest to see who can spend the most time away from thier kids, guitar, poetry, books, movies, cooking, exercise, recreation, ....?  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Sorry, Ron. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
