Max

Actually, I'm asking Max to be consistent, regardless of his political stripes. Have you read this thread, Juppiter? Back on October 11, Max said to me:

Brian, I concede that some of my messages are contradictory, and you have every right to call me out on it.

Those are his words, not mine. The point I'm making is that I see Max melt like butter when engaged in many debates - like a kid who did the report but didn't really think too much about when he did it, then stands up in front of the class to recite it but can't remember the facts of it.

I've known for years, back to WoST days, that Max tends to be all over the map with his viewpoints. We probably agree some 40% of the time (correct me if it's more like 50% or 60%, Max). I think I've known Max long enough to identify certain traits in not just his posting style, but the questionable attributes to his posting style, as well. Again, he can correct me if I'm way off base.

You tend misrepresent my personal views, Juppiter. The fact is that, like Max, I don't always agree with the Republican line and I'm probably more independent right now than Republican. I lean further right than Max - or at least the Max of today (he seemed more right-leaning a few years ago, frankly). My wife and I are both considering registering as independents.

Brian, what I meant (by the comment that you highlighted) was that my political philosophy was "contradictory" in the sense that I often depart from conservative orthodoxy. By stating that you had every right to call me out on it, I meant that you were free to criticize me for my beliefs. (If you recall, you chose not to initially criticize me, beacause--as you stated--you and I are the only non-liberals in this thread. While I appreciated your gesture of kindness, I felt that it should not prevent you from speaking your mind.)

I concede that I am not a strong debater, which is why I would suck as a politician. For me (unlike most others), it is not about "scoring points" against those whom I disagree with. Rather, I am looking for the best solution to our problems, and I have no problem praising somebody from the opposite party if what he is saying makes sense.

You are correct in stating that I'm not as conservative today as I was back in the WoST days. The only reason why this is the case is because (since then) some conservatives have done very stupid things like (1) insisting that Obama was born in Kenya and (2) nominating total nut-cases--like Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle--for senate seats that the GOP would have easily won otherwise. Right now, my number one priority is to defeat Obama, but many conservatives would rather nominate somebody who ins't "mushy" and "sticks to his principles" (but who nonetheless scares the hell out of swing voters) instead of nominating a right-of-center moderate who actually has a chance of getting elected.

And there you go again, Max... PANDERING. You're weak, dude.

Whatever the disagreements I have had in the past with Roman, at least he is intellectually honest and unwaveringly consistent. That much I give him. But you're all over the freakin' map, Max. If you, as the sole "conservative" voice in this forum, represent a more right-leaning point of view here, then those of us who truly lean right are not having that point of view accurately represented.

You dishearten me, sir; you definitely represent what is wrong in politics today - and that is MUSH. Yes, MUSH. Wishy-washy...

Brian, I wasn't pandering when I said Fox News had a right-wing bias; that is a simple fact (that most independent voters would acknowledge). Also, I'm not here to represent conservatives or even Republicans; I'm just here to represent my own views. I really am glad you are posting on here, because you are the only one who is a true conservative (and it is good to have diversity in opinion).

I'm sorry, but there is nothing wrong with being the one of the few (perhaps only) voices here whose is neither very conservative nor very liberal in his politics. If a person chooses not to blindly follow a political ideology, that does not make him "weak." Rather, it means that he is capable of thinking for himself, and realizing that some problems need a "liberal" solution while others need a "conservative" solution. (I'm not saying that all conservatives and liberals don't think for themselves, but I can't understand how one could find fault with someone who is not consistently conservative or liberal on every single issue.)

The major reason why this country is so fu*ked up right now is because both political parties are completely beholden to ideologues (and in order to win a presidential nomination, a candidate has to do a massive amount of pandering to the multitude of fringe interest groups that make up the base), and as a result meaningful compromise never happens. Moderates are partly to blame as well, because they almost always act like sissies, while those on the extremes scream and shout. It's unfortunate, but in order to re-establish political relevance, moderates need to be just as aggressive as hard core liberals or conservatives. With all due respect, moderates also have to refute this B.S. notion that they are "mushy" and somehow "lack principles and conviction," which is a line of attack that ideologues have always been hurling their way.

OK, so they are reporting the news, what is the problem? The situation with Fox and the Tea Party was different; they actively grew the Tea Party and MADE it a story.

MSNBC isn't just reporting the story. Its talking heads--including Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Martin Bashir, and Dylan Ratigan--have been praising this movement.

Now max, let's call it down the middle. Fox actively promoted the Tea Party for the last year or so. Now, I'm trying to call this down the middle, but Max, if you're going to call out MSNBC, then be fair and call FN out as well. Now, you get on posters who you say are one-sided in their political views, but your statement about MSNBC seems rather one-sided considering you did not mention FN doing the very same thing. All I ask is let's be fair and call it down the middle. there is already enough of this division going on in American politics. All of them need to be held accountable, not just one side or the other.

Roman, you are absolutely right about Fox News promoting the Tea Party. I despise Fox News just as much as MSNBC. Bais in the media has no place, and is equally wrong whether it is conservative or liberal bias.

the thing that irked me, Max.... is that many in the conservative movement were screaming like it was the end of the world when it was suggested that the top tax rate go from 38 percent to 46 percent.... really? Personally, I wouldn't go over 50 percent income tax... but we had rates up in the 60's and 70's in the 50's when the economy was booming. How do conservatives reconcile that fact? I actually am very fiscally conservative...I think the cuts should not go to programs that help people, but waste and the military.

I can certainly understand some of your frustrations, Alphanguy. Unlike most conservatives, I believe that there is waste in military spending, so we should cut it. (And the current War on Terror doesn't require the same expensive weaponry that the Cold War did.) However, given that people are living much longer now that they did in 1935, we should also raise the age at which one starts to receive Social Security; IMO, doing so hardly qualifies as "throwing Granny under the bus" (as some liberals have implied).

But is MSNBC actively organizing and promoting Occupy Wall Street rallies, like FoxNews did with Tea Party rallies?

MSNBC may not be organizing these rallies, but they are certainly promoting them; just everytime I flip my TV to that channel, one of their talking heads is mentioning them. Nor is this just limited to MSNBC: late last week, on the NBC Nightly Snooze with Brian Williams, the very first headline was about these protests. One of the NBC News correspondents mentioned that 37% of Americans support this movement (and acted like this represented an overwhelming number of people), and didn't even bother to mention the percentage of Americans who oppose Occupy Wall Street. (No wonder NBC is Obama's favorite "news" organization.)

If I made a salary of 500,000$ a year, would I mind paying 60% in taxes? Hell no. I would gladly do it.

Alphanguy, because you are a man of integrity, I have no doubt that you would walk the walk on this matter. What bothers me is those that are in a position to do so--people like Warren Buffett who say they are not paying enough taxes--don't need to wait for the government to raise their taxes; they can feel free to give as much of their income to the government in the form of charitable contributions. (Somehow, I doubt Buffett is doing this.)

As you suggested, I do believe that their is a lot of greed among the rich. However, greed is not the only reason why a wealthy person would oppose high taxes: the other reason has to do with the mixed record of success regarding "big government" programs. (Social Security and Medicare have been effective, but the government's 1960's pledge to eliminate poverty was a failure.) Among those rich people who are not greedy, they would like to have the option to give much of their income to religious or private charities, which they believe would be more effective in helping the poor. (If they had to fork over 60% or more of their income to the government, then they would have much less to give to charity. But if some of these folks believe that government would do a better job than anybody else, they could always make a big charitable contribution to it.)

I have NEVER heard anyone claim that Hollywood has no liberal bias, LOL. But I don't doubt you, I guess. That said--recently, you must admit, the scandals involving politicans who "sext", etc, are conservative--it adds to the scandal if they're not being true to their ideals--by havign affairs, or being secretly gay, etc. Also creator Mike Kelly si openly gay and democratic--he did Swingtown--and I think it's his right to write his show the way he wants. (Of course I admit I'm biased--if I lived in the US I would never vote for a conservative plotiican).

To the best of my knowledge, there have been two sexting scandals in the United States: one involving former Republican Congressman Chris Lee, and the other involving former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner. However, both you and Alphanguy are right in the fact that having the evil Senator be conservative makes it all the more jucier.

Eric, you also make a great point regarding how unrealistic it would be to have a girl alone with a therapist in a youth asylum. I guess that we'll all have to disregard Revenge's many unrealistic plot points when it comes to enjoying this show.

While this is by far the best new show this fall, I have two more complaints about Revenge.

The first complaint is that they made the evil Senator a conservative. Why is it that the villians are far more often made Republicans than Democrats? (And yet there are still some who maintian that Hollywood has no liberal bias.) And the writers of this show obviously have zero understanding of how New York politics works, since a pro-life politican could never win a statewide election there.

The second complaint is that the last episode involved hacking into a DVD presentation. IMO, this is just too similar to the prior episode whereby Emily hacked into the Senator's E-mail speech. Hopefully, future schemes won't repeat one another.

The Anita Perry comments were absolutely laughable, especially her statement that God told her that her husband should run for president.

The Wall Street protesters are the Tea Party of the left. But when the Tea Party organizes and holds rallies, they are classified as uncivilized, rowdy, and disrespectful. However, in the mainstream (non-Rupert Murdoch) media--which many Democrats insist has no liberal bias--rarely (if ever) are such terms are used to describe the anti-Wall Street crowd.

What's even more baffling is that the Wall Street protesters are all fired up and ready to support Obama's re-election. While Obama is doing a great job at pandering to this crowd, the fact of the matter is that he has taken tons of Wall Street money for years (and has relationships with Wall Street lobbyists). If the anti-Wall Street crowd wants somebody who truly believes in their cause, they should support Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, or Bernard Sanders. (I purposely did not mention Ralph Nader as a realistic option, since these people hate him more than they hate Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld combined.)

I don't remember Granholm being all that popular with liberals.

Actually, as recently as 2009, some on the left mentioned her as a potential Attorney General or Supreme Court Justice.

Carl, you're right that Christie's endorsement of Romney won't likely change many voters' minds. However, the reason why the endorsement was important was because it now gets the GOP establishment (and money) fully behind Romney.

Roman, as you said, we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, please keep on posting, because you are so articulate, and I really enjoy reading what you have to say.

Just today it was announced that former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm will be getting a new primetime show on Current TV (Al Gore's network). Many liberals have long held Granholm in great esteem, which I find completely baffling and hypocritical. That's because they rightly trashed Arnold Schwarzenegger for his s#itty tenure as governor, despite the fact that Michigan was/is one of the few states to be in even worse economic shape than California.

Well, you and I will just see things very differently. I will not vote for any Republican candidate. The bigotry that most of them that I have seen to have is really sad. That's from Herman Cain, to Rick Perry and so forth. Also, i personally can't say that the percentage of racist Republicans is small. IMO, it's too large to consider anything else that comes from the Republicans that I have seen in the public eye. To add, the Democratic Party had a shift starting in the early 1950s with Harry Truman running for his second term. the Dixiecrats left the Party and joined the Republican Party after being Independents because Truman made a stance for civil rights (as he spoke of during a speech to the NAACP) and the Dixiecrats would have none of that. To also add, I am one Independent who has voted Democrat who had a problem with RB's racist past. I also seem to remember that he atoned for it in his later life and, judging by his voting record up until his death, seemed to me to have made strides in making changes in his life. To say that liberals had no problem....well, I don't purpose to know all liberals like I don't know all conservatives, so I will not say what any of they think or do.

The GOP, IMO, has a very big problem right now in where they have taken the Party. A moderate voice is no longer welcomed in that party. John Huntsmann maybe the only Republican I would consider for the GOP ticket, but he has been shoved down so much by the MSM and his own party because of some of his moderate views, on top of going after his own party for some of the rhetoric that has been coming out the past years. These candidates and the Party in general needs to regain a much more moderate voice, if they have any chance of climbing out of the hole they've dug themselves into. I really hope they can, because with this US Congress we have now, we need more voices of moderation instead of what the nation has been getting.

JMO.

Roman, I really commend you for stating that you had problems with Byrd's racist past. However, given that Byrd said the "N-word" in public as recently as 2001, I highly doubt that he ever fully gave up his racist ways. I do believe that Byrd tried to atone for his racist past, but so did Strom Thurmond (yet I've never seen a Democrat give Thurmond the benefit of the doubt, and I can only imagine the s#itstorm that would have happened if he used the "N-word" in 2001). Please note that I am not at all trying to defend Thurmond, as I believe that both men were racist (and remained that way to a lesser extent in their later years) dinosaurs who should have left the Senate decades before they actually did. (This is a big reason why I support term limits for members of Congress, though I concede that elected GOP officials have been major hypocrites on this issue.)

Please forgive me for my rudeness, but the Dixiecrats still very much remained in the fold even after Truman made strides in civil rights. For instance, in the 1952 & 1956 elections, Stevenson captured the Deep South despite the fact that he was far more liberal on social issues than Eisenhower. The first time a GOP candidate made huge inroads in the South was in 1964, when Goldwater did really well in the region as a result of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. (Although Goldwater was wrong on his position, it is a myth that he opposed the Civil Rights Act because he was a racist. Rather, his opposition was due because he believed that civil rights was an issue that should be left for the states to decide.)

In 1968, George Wallace carried several Southern states (and it is reasonable to assume that Wallace took more votes away from Humphrey than Nixon, given regional voting patterns at the time). While Nixon did carry every Southern state in 1972, this was due to the fact that McGovern was perceived as being too far to the left (as opposed to any race-based issue); consequently, McGovern lost every state except Massachusetts. In 1976--a quarter century after Truman made his advances in civil rights and twelve years after LBJ signed major Civil Rights legislation--native son Jimmy Carter won every single Southern state except Virginia.

Thus, it was not until the Reagan Revolution of 1980 that the South became a solidly Republican region in presidential elections. At the Congressional level (and with other local races as well), this transformation did not occur until 1994. And as I stated earlier, issues such as abortion, gun owners' rights, and school prayer contributed to Republican domination of the South (in addition to racial issues).

If you don't mind, there's actually one more thing that I would like to point out: in contrast to "common knowledge," Romney is actually to the left of Huntsman (whom I support). This is because Romney has a past of raising taxes, pushing government-run healthcare, and being pro-choice and pro-gun control. Huntsman, on the other hand, has always been consistently conservative on those issues. The fallacy that Huntsman is to the left of Romney persists because (1) Huntsman is less partisan and (2) Huntsman committed the "Cardinal Sin" of working for Obama.

Sometimes your statements baffle me, Max. Do you really feel the need to associate Cain's rise with a true anti-racist sentiment in the GOP? Seriously? I like the man's message - his skin color makes no difference and I see no need to make it an issue - well intentioned or not. It's about policy, plain and simple!

But those last few words of your post is what really kills me... Max, there are just as many racists in the Democratic party, Green party, etc. You tend to pander a little bit to our friends on the left in this forum... most of which are fair-minded enough to accept the fact that racism isn't owned exclusively by those on the right.

Besides, I believe that those who go OUT OF THEIR WAY to point out the color of a person's skin are generally the ones with racist tendencies in their heart.

Brian, I concede that some of my messages are contradictory, and you have every right to call me out on it. The reason why I mentioned the fact that there are racists in the GOP was because if I did not do that, some liberal on this board would have likely chimed in and "reminded" us just how much the GOP hates black people. (Thus, you could say I was shamefully pandering.) The fact that Cain is doing so well is proof positive that the GOP is not a party full of racists (as I previously stated).

As you mentioned, there are indeed racists in the Democratic party. For instance, the late Robert Byrd--who served as Senate Majority Leader as recently as the late-80's--was once a member of the KKK. However, liberals had no problems with Byrd's racist past. This is in stark contrast to how they treated Trent Lott after he made his infamous comments at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. With Democrats, the song is always the same: liberals who have a racist past are completly reformed, but conservatives with such histories still hate black people with the same intensity.

However, I do regrettably belive that there are probably more racists in the GOP than in the Democratic Party, and this is not pandering on my part. (But the percentage of racist Republicans as a whole is relatively small.) However, when the Democrats suggest that the Republicans captured the South mostly on issues of race, such a statement is very simplistic on their part. The fact of the matter is that Republican dominance in the South is also due to the Democratic Party's leftward position on other social issues such as gun owners' rights, abortion, and school prayer.

Cain keeps rising.

I would hope that Cain's continued rise tells Democrats that the GOP isn't a party full of racists (although we do have some).

Carl, you should be commended for praising a Republican (who is a conservative, unlike Mike Castle).

In interesting news tonight, the Republican Governor's Association spent $2.5 million in the West Virginia gubernatorial race. They ran a barrage of ads saying that if you vote for the Democratic incumbent, you're voting for Obama. In spite of this, the Democrat won.

But don't worry - the "liberal" media still made their spin clear.

Historically, WV has been one of the most Democratic states in the country. And while it has voted for the Republican nominee for president three times in a row, the Democrats still dominate the state and local government there (so this most recent victory is no surprise). In most statewide elections, the Democratic nominee tries to distance himself as far away from the national party as possible (and from Obama in particular, given his piss poor approval rating there). (For instance, in last year's Senate race, Joe Manchin won by campaigning against cap and trade and ObamaCare. And once in office, Manchin proved to be a complete coward: he refused to vote one way or the other when it came to repealing DADT, saying that he had a family Christmas party to attend instead.) The fact that Politico said Obama was in trouble in WV despite a Democrat winning is completely accurate, and hardly indicates that Politico is a member of the "conservatively-biased" media.

Who is considered the most responsible for GH being knocked out of the #1 spot? (And how much were the then heads of ABC Daytime to blame?) Becuase back in the early-80's heyday, it appeared as if GH would be #1 for at least twenty years (as was the case for ATWT and Y&R).

Adam, you make such great points above.

Below is an article (posted on cnn.com) that is written by a political science professor:

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

Its message is one that has been made by Qfan all along: that the Democrats made the wrong choice in nominating Obama over Clinton.

Roman, welcome back! I hope you are also doing well, and I am so glad that you are re-joining the conversation.

Soapsuds, you are so funny!

Regarding Huckabee, he would make a strong opponent against Obama (because Huckabee is a great communicator who has the likability factor going for him; this would completely negate Obama's strength in these areas). While it would be hypocritical if he changed his mind and decided to run, it wouldn't be nearly as damaging for him as it would be for Christie; that's because Huckabee only once said he wouldn't run, whereas Christie said it countless times. I personally don't think that Huckabee will run (though I hope he does change his mind), because he made the same calculation that Christie did: to sit 2012 out (thinking Obama will be too tough to beat) and wait for 2016.

I don't even know where these liberals in the media are at this point.

With all due respect Carl, this is such an absurdely incorrect statement, given the leftist journalism going on at Talking Points Memo (whom you just cited) and MSNBC.

On another note, I am happy it appears Perry is stumbling, he peaked too soon. I am seriously thinking the eventual nominee STILL is not in the race. The current field I just don't know how any of them can beat Obama, but the way the race has been going, it may be discouraging to some from getting in. In which case, the US will be stuck with Obama for another four years. There are worse things in the world, but he does not deserve another term, he just doesn't.

Adam, what is really disgusting is that Obama knows that his re-election is highly likely (due to the weakness of the Republican field), and as a consquence is not even trying to be an effective leader (since he doesn't have to be in order to get re-elected). Instead, all Obama is doing is just demonizing the opposition in order to switch the subject as to just how incompetent he truly is.

There's only one Republican in the race who terrifies Obama, and that is Huntsman. Although I previously believed that he has zero chance of getting the nomination, I am beginning to re-evaluate that assessment. The fact that Perry has stumbled so badly is one reason for this change in opinion. Furthermore, Huntsman is now at double digits in NH primary polls (where he was at only two percent a month ago), so he clearly has momentum on his side. If the Republicans want somebody electable, they don't need to settle for the phony Romney (who would still have an uphill battle against the president, although he at least would stand a chance). Instead, they can choose a mainstream conservative like Huntsman who has never flip-flopped on issues such as abortion, gun-owners' rights, and government-run healthcare.

I find all of this speculation over whether or not Christie will run to be absolutely disgusting (given that he has made tons of denials in the past, and made another denial again last night). I believe that liberals in the media are fueling this speculation because they want to point out just how dreadful the current crop of GOP candidates are (which, of course, is intended to make Obama look good by comparison). Likewise, I believe that conservatives in the media are fueling this speculation simply because it is wishful thinking on their part, given how dreadful the current crop of GOP candidates are (except for Huntsman, who has no chance of winning the nomination).

I hold Christie himself to be somewhat responsible for this media circus. Even though he obviously is not going to run in 2012, he never seems to miss an opportunity to upstage all of the declared GOP hopefuls. If Christie himself really believes that Obama's defeat is of the utmost importance to the future of the country (as he stated last night in his speech), then it is time for him to put up or shut up. However, in a political calculation that is completely repulsive and opportunistic, it appears as if Christie is hoping that Obama gets re-elected so that he himself can be perfectly positioned for 2016. In my opinion, this is extremely similar to how the Clintons were behaving in 2004: it seemed as if they were hoping for a Kerry loss so that Hillary could be a shoo-in for the presidency in 2008. (Perhaps like the Clintons, Christie's "perfect" plan will later come back to explode in his face.)

Emily said that knowing that Victoria would know her husband had an affair with Lydia.

I know that Emily's statement (and all of her other actions) was made on purpose. The part that I found to have been too coincidental was that Lydia just happened to be right next to Victoria the moment that Emily was introduced to Victoria. There's no possible way Emily could have pre-planned that.

I apologize for failing to make the above point clear in the first place.

In breaking news, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan has just dropped out of the presidential race:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110922/POLITICS03/109220448/McCotter-drops-out-of-race-for-GOP-presidential-nomination

McCotter has thrown his support to Romney. The Congressman was the second GOP candidate--after Pawlenty--to drop out.

McCotter's campaign never had a chance, because he never received the minimum of one percent in national polls required for one to participate in the debates. The other candidate plagued by this problem has been former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer. Also, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson just met this one percent threshold in time to participate for the last debate. Needless to say, all the other GOP candidates--Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Pawlenty, Perry, Romney, and Santorum--have been able to participate in every debate since their campaigns began and (in the case of Pawlenty) ended.

Sorry for going off-topic, but I just wanted to comment on a few of the 1984 commercials. (Thank you for posting these clips, Carl.)

As soon as I saw those ads for Macy's, I knew that these commercials had to have either aired on a San Francisco or Reno TV station. (There later was a commercial for ABC's San Francisco affiliate, thus confirming which area these spots originally aired.) In 1984, the now defunct R.H. Macy & Company (which filed for bankruptcy in 1992 and was purchased by Federated Department Stores two years later) only operated in the San Francisco, Reno, Atlanta, New York City, Philadelphia, and Baltimore markets. However, in the Atlanta area, all R.H. Macy & Company owned stores operated under the Davison's nameplate (which was replaced by Macy's in 1985), and all stores that operated in New Jersey and the Philadelphia and Baltimore markets operated under the Bamberger's nameplate (which was retired in 1986). Thus, all stores (aside from a lone store in Florida that also beared the Macy's name) with the Macy's nameplate only existed in New York State, Connecticut, and the San Francisco/Reno markets (and any commercials R.H. Macy & Company aired on NYC stations featured both the Macy's and Bamberger's names).

I absolutely loved the "There's More for Your Life" advertising campaign/jingle that Sears had at the time. I always knew that 1984 was the year the Sears "racetrack" logo debuted, but I was unsure as to the month; given that these ads aired in the summer, I now have a better idea as to the exact date the logo was first used. (It is interesting to note, however, that the commercial above still showed a shot of the classic, previous logo--on a shipping box, if I recall correctly--which was just the word "Sears" with a rectangle around it.)

I thought the Kmart ad was well done as well. It portrayed Kmart as a hip and happening store (home to a neat clothing line), which is the complete opposite of that store's image in recent times.

Finally, can anybody please elaborate on the AMC and OLTL commercials that aired? What storylines were they about?

Upon watching the pilot episode a second time, I thought it was flawed in the fact that too many situations happened just by chance (as opposed to a master plan by Emily Thorne). For instance, when Emily was first introduced to Victoria Grayson, Lydia Davis (Victoria's former best friend who had an affair with Conrad Grayson) just happened to be nearby; with Victoria in earshot, Emily asked Lydia how her "husband" was doing after being taken away by an ambulance from the South Fork Inn (where the affair took place), thus tipping Victoria off as to who her husband's mistress was.

Despite all these criticisms however, Revenge is the first prime time show in many years that has had me so excited.

I've been watching some of the 1980 episodes, and what I guess was the start of the parade of the new families that came and went from AW in the early 80's.

Carl, I searched YouTube and Google, but still cannot locate these 1980 episodes (that were the same episodes posted years ago on the defunct P&G Classic Soaps website). Could you or somebody else please tell me where I can currently find them? I would greatly appreciate it.