US Party Preselection

[ShiftingGears]

I thought this was worth a thread.

I'll start off the comments...I hope Hillary does not beat Obama. I haven't seen anything from her suggesting that she is a better orator and candidate than Obama. If anything it appears to me that shes riding off her Clinton name.


Thoughts?

[L5->R5/CR]

I thought this was worth a thread.

I'll start off the comments...I hope Hillary does not beat Obama. I haven't seen anything from her suggesting that she is a better orator and candidate than Obama. If anything it appears to me that shes riding off her Clinton name.


Thoughts?



Hillary's problem is that the elections in the US are decided by the independents, and there isn't a more polarizing person in politics of the presidential scale than Hillary.

Obama's strong showing in Iowa shows that he resonates much stronger with the more moderate Democrats. A strong showing in New Hampshire (where independents can participate) should give him a definitive swing the momentum. If the Dems want to win they need someone other than Hillary (see first comment).

[Rollo]

The thing I find really infuriating about the process is that even after you vote for the President, the voter has no say in who the executive of the country is. You can throw any name forward for pre-selection and still be none the wiser as to the people who will be making up the cabinet which is where a great deal of the policy lies.

Hilary is likely to have the same sorts of people in her cabinet as Bill did for the simple reason that she moves in the same rough circles.
Barack on the other hand is somewhat of an unknown, because we have no idea of the sorts of people backing him, nor of who would fill the spots in his cabinet.

Couple this with a system where they aren't directly elected anyway (because the president is elected by the electoral college) and where the public aren't compulsorily required to vote in the first place, the whole system smacks of underhandedness.

Still, that's true democracy for you :D

[Mark]

It is any surprise? I'd thought Ombama has been leading Hillary since the start. The only unexpected thing is the size of his lead.

Still, as proved last time around the front runner at the start of the nominations isn't always who gets it.

PS. 5th February is the day of the California Presidential Primary, which is always exciting :p

[Rudy Tamasz]

What if Dems beat the hell out of each other and Republicans end up an unlikely winner? The whole world is gonna LTAO.

[Mark]

What if Dems beat the hell out of each other and Republicans end up an unlikely winner? The whole world is gonna LTAO.

The beating the hell out of each other is pretty much finished by March isn't it? Then the Democrats and Republicans slug it out in the election proper.

[BTCC Fan#1]

Having watched several of the debates it's obvious the Republicans shouldn't stand a chance in hell of winning the election, compared to the Democrats their candidates look like they're on a different planet.
McCain, who was systematically destroyed by Bush and the Rove dirty tricks machine 8 years ago, yet still embraced the President and many of his policies, Rommney, who has had to abandon every position that got him elected governor of liberal Massachusetts in order to gain any Republican support nationally, & who seemingly 'flip-flops' with the best of them, Huckabee, who is clearly Bush Mk2, god-fearing and 'the guy you want to have a beer with', & Giuliani, who continually trumpets 9/11, but who's record other than that frankly stinks. As for Fred Thompson... Well, why is he even running?
The only interesting Republican is Ron Paul, who's appeal really is that he's so anti-establishment it's difficult to imagine what a potential 'Paul administration' would look like.

This groundswell of support behind Obama (who may be short on ideas, but not on vision) clearly signals Americans really do want that magic word; 'change'. He's young, not a Republican, nor a Clinton or a Bush. Hillary has run an arrogant campaign, acting as if she was automatically the nominee, but I think she's finally realising she's misjudged the mood. As for John Edwards, his allying with Obama 'against the status-quo' may well push Clinton into 3rd nationally.

Obama - Edwards 08 anyone?

[Storm]

This is the second time that I have followed the US elections for a bit...especially the primaries and the debates...and although its entertaining , its also not very fair either...

I am pretty sure from recent comments that the Republicans are going to find it really tough if Obama wins the Democratic vote. They have no strategy for him apart from his inexperience.

[Mark]

They have no strategy for him apart from his inexperience.

I think that's counting in his favour in this election, "no baggage", "fresh approach" kind of thing.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I think that's counting in his favour in this election, "no baggage", "fresh approach" kind of thing.

No matter how fresh his approach is, he won't be able to reinvent the human nature. He'll bump into same old obstacles and will make same old mistakes. He still may deserve a chance, though.

[Roamy]

it is all just bullsh!t until we get a major 3 party and supporting people to change the house and senate we will stay paralyzed. the dems pad their pockets while playing to the poor people while the repbs play to the rich and christians. They should let Arnold run!!!! on a independent ticket

[CCFanatic]

I thought this was worth a thread.

I'll start off the comments...I hope Hillary does not beat Obama. I haven't seen anything from her suggesting that she is a better orator and candidate than Obama. If anything it appears to me that shes riding off her Clinton name.


Thoughts?

I would say she is using her name, and trying to have her husband help her campaign will hurt (yah for me) more than help.

[CCFanatic]

Having watched several of the debates it's obvious the Republicans shouldn't stand a chance in hell of winning the election, compared to the Democrats their candidates look like they're on a different planet.
McCain, who was systematically destroyed by Bush and the Rove dirty tricks machine 8 years ago, yet still embraced the President and many of his policies, Rommney, who has had to abandon every position that got him elected governor of liberal Massachusetts in order to gain any Republican support nationally, & who seemingly 'flip-flops' with the best of them, Huckabee, who is clearly Bush Mk2, god-fearing and 'the guy you want to have a beer with', & Giuliani, who continually trumpets 9/11, but who's record other than that frankly stinks. As for Fred Thompson... Well, why is he even running?
The only interesting Republican is Ron Paul, who's appeal really is that he's so anti-establishment it's difficult to imagine what a potential 'Paul administration' would look like.

This groundswell of support behind Obama (who may be short on ideas, but not on vision) clearly signals Americans really do want that magic word; 'change'. He's young, not a Republican, nor a Clinton or a Bush. Hillary has run an arrogant campaign, acting as if she was automatically the nominee, but I think she's finally realising she's misjudged the mood. As for John Edwards, his allying with Obama 'against the status-quo' may well push Clinton into 3rd nationally.

Obama - Edwards 08 anyone?

I think that is what 99% of the world know him for. He overall is just like McCain, being a Democrate, who rides the Republican party to get votes.

I'll go out and say, yes Huckabee is my guy for President, but saying that, I feel, just his name alone, Huckabee sounds something you would not associate with politcs, as you'd see that name more with the head of a mom and pop super market.

[Mark]

So Hillary wins in New Hampshire :eek: . Theres a turn up, although it's only 2% over Omama, it means she's still in the race.

[pvtjoker]

A Republican will win the Presidency. Hillary and Obama are weak on the issues, paricularly when it comes to foreign policy.

[pvtjoker]

I think that is what 99% of the world know him for. He overall is just like McCain, being a Democrate, who rides the Republican party to get votes.

I'll go out and say, yes Huckabee is my guy for President, but saying that, I feel, just his name alone, Huckabee sounds something you would not associate with politcs, as you'd see that name more with the head of a mom and pop super market.

McCain, relies on independents and the small number of "liberals" in the Republican Party, not true conservatives.

[pvtjoker]

I would say she is using her name, and trying to have her husband help her campaign will hurt (yah for me) more than help.

sniff, sniff...but she has a history "30 years of change" (sarcasm).

[pvtjoker]

it is all just bullsh!t until we get a major 3 party and supporting people to change the house and senate we will stay paralyzed. the dems pad their pockets while playing to the poor people while the repbs play to the rich and christians. They should let Arnold run!!!! on a independent ticket

I hear Ron Paul may team up with Dennis Kucinich for a possible independent bid.

[pvtjoker]

The beating the hell out of each other is pretty much finished by March isn't it? Then the Democrats and Republicans slug it out in the election proper.

If Romney and Clinton are the nominees, the fun will just be starting. Strap in, it'll get good.

I'd like Barak to win.

But only because the election slogan could be....

"OBAMA VERSUS OSAMA - THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL"

Otherwise, not being a citizen of the US, I don't really have enough knowledge of US politics to voice an opinion.

Well, except that anybody who has Chuck Norris on his campaign team is not what the world needs.

[pvtjoker]

^^^^^^^^^^^


or as "sauced" Teddy Kennedy calls him, "Obama Osama".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqtKR_BrELU

[Garry Walker]

I hope that none of the democraps wins, but barack would be a worse candiate than Hitlary even.

[pvtjoker]

I hope that none of the democraps wins, but barack would be a worse candiate than Hitlary even.

I'm in total agreement. God help the US if either win.

[Schultz]

I don't know a whole lot about the nominees, but it seems not many of them have very clear identities and clearly show what they stand for in a obvious way.

Someone needs to help me out here... Is it normal for party candidates to put forward specific policy measures at this stage of the campaign, or is it just plenty of rhetoric that appeals to supposed American ideals - Be that religious/family value ideals or democratic/liberalist ideals?

For me, I would be more inclined to vote for someone like Barack, Hillary or even Kucinich (even though most Americans seem to treat him like a madman). The only Republican that remotely attracted me is Guilliani, but it is true that there are only two things mentioned in a sentence from him - 9/11 and 9/11... Though he is pretty quick to trumpet his success in lowering crime in NYC.

[Garry Walker]

For me, I would be more inclined to vote for someone like Barack, Hillary or even Kucinich (even though most Americans seem to treat him like a madman). The only Republican that remotely attracted me is Guilliani, but it is true that there are only two things mentioned in a sentence from him - 9/11 and 9/11... Though he is pretty quick to trumpet his success in lowering crime in NYC.

Why would anyone vote for democraps and their crazy ideas, especially on immigration?

[Magnus]

Ok, no one sees me, so i throw it in :eek:
I hope the democrats win, preferably with Hillary or Obama.

[Schultz]

Why would anyone vote for democraps and their crazy ideas, especially on immigration?

Well because there are people who believe in less restrictive immigration practices and who believe that immigrants should be given a better start once they enter the country.

Why even make a comment. 'Democraps' - such a beautifully put argument :rolleyes:

[Garry Walker]

Well because there are people who believe in less restrictive immigration practices and who believe that immigrants should be given a better start once they enter the country.
1) These people are morons
2) Immigrants are getting a good chance already, one could easily say too good a chance.

Immigration must be restricted and every illegal immigrant, along with every immigrant who committs a crime, should be deported at once.



Why even make a comment. 'Democraps' - such a beautifully put argument :rolleyes:
I have zero respect for their crazy policies, so I will call them as I please.

[Schultz]

1) These people are morons
2) Immigrants are getting a good chance already, one could easily say too good a chance.

Immigration must be restricted and every illegal immigrant, along with every immigrant who committs a crime, should be deported at once.


I have zero respect for their crazy policies, so I will call them as I please.

Great.

Wonderful ideas right here. Let's see what happens if every single illegal immigrant in America was deported 'at once'. Great that you have this strongly held ideological view, but when try and apply that to the American context, I'm sure you will find that getting rid of ALL illegal immigrants (even if it was possibly to track down all said people) would be a catastrophe for the US economy that one bank has already described as being in a recession!! Are you mad, or just option number one?

The fact is, the illegal immigrants in America are occupying a large number of the unskilled jobs that Americans just won't touch. How do you suggest we fix this problem without having a steady flow of immigrants enter the country, genius?

[Roamy]

what
we need chuck norris for PRESIDENT

[pvtjoker]

1)
I have zero respect for their crazy policies, so I will call them as I please.


Yep, call'em for what they are..."crap". They may be "nice" people, but their agenda just isn't right (literally) for the country.

[SOD]

I'm really sorry that the Upper crust Americans are gutting the middle class. Keep voting for the upper crust if you expect things to get better :dork:

Anyone who thinks that Hillary is weak on foreign policy, she'll gladly send you or your kids to fight against Iran. Don't forget that flip flop Mitt thought that Nam was too sqeamish for him, think he'll be sending his sons to the front line? Or Huckabee, Huckabee is running because Pat Robertson is unavailable and he's a novice on foreign policy.

And illegal immrants, just be lucky they arent killing 1 million Americans as an act of illegal war. You might want to oil those gates on your gated community tonight.

I have never ever heard in my life, people who demand to be indentured servants. the joke is on you, and keep paying that inflation tax and those dollars to Chairman Mao.

[Tomi]

what
we need chuck norris for PRESIDENT

well, he would have a good chance to get the religious freaks and the banjo players votes.

[Malbec]

Why would anyone vote for democraps and their crazy ideas, especially on immigration?

Sounds like you haven't bothered to look into Obama's views on immigration then.... They're right up your right wing alley.

[Malbec]

1) These people are morons
2) Immigrants are getting a good chance already, one could easily say too good a chance.

Immigration must be restricted and every illegal immigrant, along with every immigrant who committs a crime, should be deported at once.

For a self-proclaimed 'right-winger' your understanding of free-market economics appears rather limited.

Cheap disposable labour helps drive economic development whether in the US or the UK. Kick the immigrants out and be prepared to pay a local two to three times what you'd pay the immigrant (assuming you'd find locals willing to do dirty unpleasant jobs for minimum wage) and be prepared to see the rise in costs filter through to the consumer.

[Malbec]

For me, I would be more inclined to vote for someone like Barack, Hillary or even Kucinich (even though most Americans seem to treat him like a madman). The only Republican that remotely attracted me is Guilliani, but it is true that there are only two things mentioned in a sentence from him - 9/11 and 9/11... Though he is pretty quick to trumpet his success in lowering crime in NYC.

I think Giulani has missed the boat. He gambled by ignoring the earlier primaries but now he's lost by being totally off the radar. He also won't be able to appeal to a lot of the religious right with some of his views which are closer to the Democrats than Republicans.

Huckabee might get votes in the bible-thumping areas but he'd have difficulty targeting mainstream US voters.

McCain seems more like the old-school Republican that George Bush Sr was which is no bad thing. Having said that his views on the use of US military power seem a tad simplistic and may not play well with people tired of war.

Obama is interesting. He seems to be riding the crest of a wave at the moment, the question is whether he can capture the black American vote and not push away the Hispanic vote with his stance on immigration and the Mexico fence.

The thing about Hilary is that you either love her or hate her, there isn't an in-between. She comes with so much baggage that she'll find it difficult to convert people either way. Also polls show that undecideds look upon Obama much more favourably than they do Clinton so that needs to be put into the mix too.

[SOD]

Abortion in the late 1960s was probably the reason why the crime rate in NY declined.

[Malbec]

Abortion in the late 1960s was probably the reason why the crime rate in NY declined.

Or Giulani's no-tolerance policy to crime... It may have filled the prisons up but it did work.

[TOgoFASTER]

I'm in total agreement. God help the US if either win.

The military industrial complex, Blackwater, Halliburton and more than a few other loose nuts will have to sell more arms in the hot spots to break even... and earn that retirement lobby gig.
Heavens of Hells and such.
Watch out for your precious bodily fluids.

[TOgoFASTER]

Why would anyone vote for democraps and their crazy ideas, especially on immigration?

Floyd R. Turbo has been here.

[anthonyvop]

I'm really sorry that the Upper crust Americans are gutting the middle class. Keep voting for the upper crust if you expect things to get better :dork:

Anyone who thinks that Hillary is weak on foreign policy, she'll gladly send you or your kids to fight against Iran. Don't forget that flip flop Mitt thought that Nam was too sqeamish for him, think he'll be sending his sons to the front line? Or Huckabee, Huckabee is running because Pat Robertson is unavailable and he's a novice on foreign policy.

And illegal immrants, just be lucky they arent killing 1 million Americans as an act of illegal war. You might want to oil those gates on your gated community tonight.

I have never ever heard in my life, people who demand to be indentured servants. the joke is on you, and keep paying that inflation tax and those dollars to Chairman Mao.

Hey SOD!
The Hippies from 1967 Haight/Ashbury called. They want their silly, tired, rhetoric back!

[Garry Walker]

The fact is, the illegal immigrants in America are occupying a large number of the unskilled jobs that Americans just won't touch. How do you suggest we fix this problem without having a steady flow of immigrants enter the country, genius?

are you talking about illegal immigrants or just immigrants. Because if you support illegal immigrants in USA or in any country, then you are in my biggest idiot of the year list at once and leading it as well.
But lets get talking about legal immigrants now.

There is still a lot of unemployment in USA, amongst non-immigrants. If you took away the dole money, I am sure some of the current unemployed people would be willing to do a few jobs here and there. But why bother to work when you have no ambition and the state pays you (that is really popular a thing in Germany and in scandinavian countries)?

Steady flow of immigrants puts a HUGE financial and manpower pressure on hospitals, education system and many more institutions. Where do they get the people for it? oh yes, more immigrants. Wonderful. That is a real fix for sure.
Immigrants also cause a huge amount of money to leave the country they are at, back to their home-country. UK for example is losing almost 2 billion quid a year because of that. Additionally, immigrants are far more likely to committ crimes, which creates another problem, requiring more manpower and time.
The european heaven for immigrants, UK, is losing almost 3 billion quid overall a year due to them.

Fixing problems with immigrants is like curing headache with a bullet to the brain.


For a self-proclaimed 'right-winger' your understanding of free-market economics appears rather limited.

Cheap disposable labour helps drive economic development whether in the US or the UK. Kick the immigrants out and be prepared to pay a local two to three times what you'd pay the immigrant (assuming you'd find locals willing to do dirty unpleasant jobs for minimum wage) and be prepared to see the rise in costs filter through to the consumer.
And in the end this cheap "disposable" labour creates more problems long-term, as it really is not that disposable at all. You fix problems for a moment, but then they too will start wanting more money and their families will put extra strain on educational systems and NHS. It will also drive up the cost of real estate and that sure is always really good, huh?
So what will you do then, more immigrants? This is not a sustainable economic growth, Mr.Friedman.
Solutions are in other places, not in immigration. And as I have already said, immigration in UK is costing UK 3 billion a year.


Sounds like you haven't bothered to look into Obama's views on immigration then.... They're right up your right wing alley. Oh are they? They seem pretty left-winged and stupid to me.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_dem1.html

Here are the republican ones, that is a bit better to look at, although Giuliani is a disaster.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html

[Rudy Tamasz]

Great.

Wonderful ideas right here. Let's see what happens if every single illegal immigrant in America was deported 'at once'. Great that you have this strongly held ideological view, but when try and apply that to the American context, I'm sure you will find that getting rid of ALL illegal immigrants (even if it was possibly to track down all said people) would be a catastrophe for the US economy that one bank has already described as being in a recession!! Are you mad, or just option number one?

The fact is, the illegal immigrants in America are occupying a large number of the unskilled jobs that Americans just won't touch. How do you suggest we fix this problem without having a steady flow of immigrants enter the country, genius?


Immigration isn't only about economy. Freemarketeers say that immigration is good for growth and they may be right. But immigrants also upset the cultural and political balance within the destination country. Any country has the right to choose who to let in.

[Malbec]

And in the end this cheap "disposable" labour creates more problems long-term, as it really is not that disposable at all. You fix problems for a moment, but then they too will start wanting more money and their families will put extra strain on educational systems and NHS. It will also drive up the cost of real estate and that sure is always really good, huh?
So what will you do then, more immigrants? This is not a sustainable economic growth, Mr.Friedman.
Solutions are in other places, not in immigration. And as I have already said, immigration in UK is costing UK 3 billion a year.

Sure, getting layabouts in council estates to work more for less money is a solution but it isn't going to happen is it?

I like the old myths about the NHS being brought to its knees by immigrants. FACT - the vast majority of healthcare spending is on people in their last few decades of life or on the very small number who have difficulties in the first few days/weeks. Most immigrants are young adults and don't fall into either category. If you want to remove a population group thats costing the NHS dear I suggest you target pensioners.

If you're looking at the tax picture immigrants are a bargain. We don't have to pay for their healthcare during childhood or their education, the country they come from does that. They've got a long way to go before they start drawing pensions from our tax burden, assuming they even stay that long. They pay income tax on their earnings and they pay VAT on everything they buy.

You claim immigrants cost the British economy $3 billion a year, how much do they contribute by providing labour? How much in extra taxation?

Immigrants make up a substantial proportion of the top 500 richest British citizens. They've done so by producing economic activity, employing other British citizens and paying substantial amounts of tax, both corporate and personal.

Don't take this personally but when it comes to the contribution of immigrants to the British economy I'd rather listen to the Economist than you.

As for America, I both respect and fear them because their more open immigration policies allow them to remain scarily competitive in a lot of fields. Can't remember which American industrialist it was who when asked about Asian competition replied "I'm not scared because our Asians will beat their Asians". Sums it up for me.

[anthonyvop]

If you're looking at the tax picture immigrants are a bargain. We don't have to pay for their healthcare during childhood or their education, the country they come from does that. They've got a long way to go before they start drawing pensions from our tax burden, assuming they even stay that long. They pay income tax on their earnings and they pay VAT on everything they buy.

That may be true in the UK but in the USA it is a different story. Some of our schools are crammed with the offspring of illegals(Which makes them illegal as well). In California the Hospital system is on the verge of collapse from so many Illegals.

You claim immigrants cost the British economy $3 billion a year, how much do they contribute by providing labour? How much in extra taxation?
Again it is different here. In the USA most illegals are paid cash. No Tax. To pay and income tax or for it to be withheld you need a Social Security #. Illegals don't have that.
I am in know way against immigration. In fact I am 100% in favor of it. It is what made the USA the greatest Nation in the world. I am the child of Immigrant parents myself.
I am all for controls and and enforcement of immigration laws. Estimate range from 12 million to over 20 million Illegals in the USA. That is unacceptable from a economic, security and moral point of view.

[Malbec]

I am in know way against immigration. In fact I am 100% in favor of it. It is what made the USA the greatest Nation in the world. I am the child of Immigrant parents myself.
I am all for controls and and enforcement of immigration laws. Estimate range from 12 million to over 20 million Illegals in the USA. That is unacceptable from a economic, security and moral point of view.

anthony, my post refers to legal migration. The post I was replying to appears to refer to both legal and illegal migration. I agree that strict restrictions are required against illegal migration but I find the arguments against legal migration rather thin at best (and I'm being charitable).

I don't think we differ much in our viewpoints.

[SOD]

Hey SOD!
The Hippies from 1967 Haight/Ashbury called. They want their silly, tired, rhetoric back!
LOL, best you got?

[anthonyvop]

LOL, best you got?
Nope!
Not nearly my best but it seemed to have done the trick.

[TOgoFASTER]

Hey SOD!
The Hippies from 1967 Haight/Ashbury called. They want their silly, tired, rhetoric back!

Your speil goes back to the glory days of straight up McCarthyism.
You should be so proud.
Better talk to those conservative business owners that indenture them illegals. That a far higher set of crimes friend.
Root cause intervention would be a far better solution. White collar criminals need real and hard jail time.

[anthonyvop]

Your speil goes back to the glory days of straight up McCarthyism.

Thank you for the flattery!!!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17401

Most-hated senator was right
Scholars: Joseph McCarthy's charges 'now accepted as fact'
Posted: February 8, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon Basil Utley
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON -- Although Joseph McCarthy was one of the most demonized American politicians of the last century, new information -- including half-century-old FBI recordings of Soviet embassy conversations -- are showing that McCarthy was right in nearly all his accusations.

"With Joe McCarthy it was the losers who've written the history which condemns him," said Dan Flynn, director of Accuracy in Academia's recent national conference on McCarthy, broadcast by C-SPAN.

Using new information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in Moscow and now the famous Venona Intercepts -- FBI recordings of Soviet embassy communications between 1944-48 -- the record is showing that McCarthy was essentially right. He had many weaknesses, but almost every case he charged has now been proven correct. Whether it was stealing atomic secrets or influencing U.S. foreign policy, communist victories in the 1940s were fed by an incredibly vast spy and influence network.

The conference, a gathering of old McCarthyites and younger scholars, commemorated the senator's first speech, in Wheeling, West Virginia 50 years ago, when he first held up a list of names of employees of the State Department whom, he said, were major security risks. McCarthy questioned how, in six short years after America's winning of World War II, the communist world was triumphant and had expanded to include 800 million people.

Of the lists, a key one consisted of 108 names from a House Appropriations Committee report, of persons declared as "security risks" in the State Department -- the Lee List. The House committee chairman had complained that State wasn't bothering to do anything about the suspects. Details of the list and its accusations were presented at the conference.

Speakers detailed many of the cover-ups used to smear McCarthy. Veteran journalist and teacher Stan Evans, director of National Journalism Center, told of the Tydings Committee, which had investigated McCarthy's charges of communists in government. Its report had exonerated everybody. Among the accused it stated categorically that there was no evidence against Owen Lattimore, a man McCarthy said was a major figure in the communist conspiracy. Lattimore had been Roosevelt's key advisor on China policy. Yet Evans showed evidence from 5,000 pages of FBI files on him -- files released only a few years ago to the public, although the White House had access to them.

However, evidence before the committee showed that Lattimore had supported Soviet policy at every turn, even declaring that the Stalin purge trials in Russia, "sound like democracy to me." With then-Vice President Henry Wallace in Russia, Lattimore compared concentration camps to the Tennessee Valley Authority, and later urged Washington to abandon China to communism and to withdraw from Japan and Korea. FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, who had fed information to McCarthy, broke with him afterwards, fearing McCarthy would prejudice FBI sources of information for its criminal prosecutions.

Although most of McCarthy's cases involved actual spies and "security risks," the really important issue was that of communist influence over American foreign policy, argued Evans. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's closest advisor who lived in the White House, had regular contacts with Soviet intelligence. He helped bring about the disastrous Yalta and Pottsdam agreements. The Morganthau Plan, to prevent German reconstruction and starve the Germans to make them desperate enough to go communist, was the product of Laughlin Currie and Harry Dexter White at the Treasury Department. The abandonment of Chiang Kai-shek by denying military support was the product of "China Hands" led by John Stewart Service, John Patton Davies, and Lattimore. Evans described other major spy networks -- in England, the Burgess Maclean group which infiltrated Washington as well as London.

Reed Irvine, chairman of Accuracy in Media, told how he himself had been a leftist in his early career. He had been against McCarthy, but McCarthy's speeches had made him think and start to read "evidence that I had avoided." He described how all during his military career as a Marine officer and later in Japan with the U.S. occupation he had never hidden his leftist views and later had even been offered a job at the CIA. Irvine argued that real communists were only in the hundreds, but that thousands of leftists, such as he, all feared McCarthy and had wanted him discredited.

Pulling all the latest evidence together was luncheon speaker Professor Arthur Herman. His new book, "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator," and featured in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, shows the vindication of most of McCarthy's charges. Herman, who is also coordinator of the Smithsonian's Western Heritage Program, said that the accuracy of McCarthy's charges "was no longer a matter of debate," that they are "now accepted as fact." However, the term "McCarthyism" still remains in the language.

Asked whether McCarthy had understood all the forces arrayed against him, Herman said no, that McCarthy hadn't realized he'd be fighting against much of the Washington establishment. President Truman was fearful that exposures would reflect on key Democrat officials, he said, and big media and the academic world were very leftist, a heritage of the Depression and World War II. High government officials also feared investigations of their past appointments and associations with people who turned out to be communists or sympathizers.

That was the reason McCarthy was so demonized, he said.

Joe McCarthy had been a Marine air gunner, an amateur boxer, a county judge and towards his end, under constant attack, he began to drink heavily. Herman said he certainly was over his head and his fall came about after sweeping attacks on General Marshall and the Army. Senator Taft and other key supporters began to draw away from him.

If Robert Kennedy, his competent and well-connected co-counsel, had stayed on, McCarthy might have behaved more carefully, said Herman. An argument with other co-counsel Roy Cohn left Cohn in charge, but Cohn and staffer David Schine were disastrous for McCarthy. Still, McCarthy's original charges helped bring about Eisenhower's electoral victory and the defeat of the Democrats and key leftist Democratic senators such as Tydings of Maryland. Four years after his original charges, Joe McCarthy was censured by the Senate and died shortly thereafter.

There is more evidence to come. Herb Romerstein, another speaker, who started out with the old House Un-American Activities Committee, is writing a book about the Venona FBI intercepts and their links to other evidence from his comprehensive study in Russia of Soviet archives, made available to Westerners since the fall of communism. His book, The Venona Secrets, will be released by Regnery Gateway this fall.

[Alexamateo]

...
Again it is different here. In the USA most illegals are paid cash. No Tax. To pay and income tax or for it to be withheld you need a Social Security #. Illegals don't have that.
....


As someone who brokers product to the construction industry, I do not find this to be true at all. Indeed every legitimate business takes the info given to them for the I-9's, and takes out the appropriate witholding, social security and medicare. Most are using forged documents (papeles suecos) and fortunately the law does not require us to be document experts. To be honest, most times I cannot tell the difference between my wife's real green card and some of our friend's forged ones. The only fraud (tax) I see is that oftentimes too many dependents are claimed in order to minimize witholding. I have only run into a couple of people paying folks under the table in cash, and truthfully I don't sell to those people because if they are shady in one area, they are typically shady in others (like paying their vendors!:eek :)

Because I am fluent in Spanish and have a good understanding of the culture, people are usually pretty frank with me about actual status and how things are. One thing I have gleaned from all this was that border enforcement got tougher in the early 90's. The unintended consequence of that was that illegal immigration increased. Before, one could cross back and forth almost at will, but then it became too risky, so people did two things, they moved further into the interior of the country to areas that traditionally had not had hispanic immigration, and they brought their whole families. The answer lies not with enforcement and border fences, it is in allowing people who want to work a chance to register that is easy and accessible. For all the problems of the former braceros program, it was a way for people who wanted work to come to the US. Some type of program like that now could really ease border enforcement, because with a legal, accessible avenue for work, there would be no need to sneak across the border, and anyone caught there would more than likely be up to no good rather than people looking for a better opportunity.

PS a bigger fence is probably a waste of time, because by my estimate fully 1/2 or more of "illegal" immigrants enter the country legally from a recognized port of entry, with tourist or student visas.

[RyanBriscoe#6]

Your speil goes back to the glory days of straight up McCarthyism.
You should be so proud.
Better talk to those conservative business owners that indenture them illegals. That a far higher set of crimes friend.
Root cause intervention would be a far better solution. White collar criminals need real and hard jail time.

My father runs a buisness and is a staunch conservative. Does he hire Illegals? No. Does any other buisness man he knows? No. Not all conservative hire illegals. And IMO the reason the conservatives who get caught hiring illegals in such numbers, is not because they are greedy and hire the cheapest employee, but because conservatives seem to get out in the world and start up buisnesses, which liberals seem to not do much of. Liberals seem to just complain and become lawyers and politicians.

[BTCC Fan#1]

The sad fact is that when it comes down to it, the Democrats prove themselves to be little different to Republicans once in office. Since taking control of the House and (narrowly) the Senate in 2006, the Democrats really haven't achieved much at all, and the Republican minority has managed to do an awful lot of fillibustering. The Democrats also seem to have managed to pass legislation that looks little different to the paranoid Patriot Act introduced and trumpeted by the Republicans, effectively further eroding the Constitution.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19002.htm

What was the greatest failure of 2007? President Bush’s “surge” in Iraq? The decline in the value of the US dollar? Subprime mortgages? No. The greatest failure of 2007 was the newly sworn in Democratic Congress.

The American people’s attempt in November 2006 to rein in a rogue government, which has committed the US to costly military adventures while running roughshod over the US Constitution, failed. Replacing Republicans with Democrats in the House and Senate has made no difference.

The assault on the US Constitution by the Democratic Party is as determined as the assault by the Republicans. On October 23, 2007, the House passed a bill sponsored by California Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman, chairwoman of a Homeland Security subcommittee, that overturns the constitutionally guaranteed rights to free expression, association, and assembly.

The bill passed the House on a vote of 404-6. In the Senate the bill is sponsored by Maine Republican Susan Collins and apparently faces no meaningful opposition.

Harman’s bill is called the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.” [ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955 ] When HR 1955 becomes law, it will create a commission tasked with identifying extremist people, groups, and ideas. The commission will hold hearings around the country, taking testimony and compiling a list of dangerous people and beliefs. The bill will, in short, create massive terrorism in the United States. But the perpetrators of terrorism will not be Muslim terrorists; they will be government agents and fellow citizens.
People mentioned McCarthyism, looks like this could be the modern equivalent..

Not for the first time I find myself agreeing with fousto about this, the US really needs to break the 2-party system. It strikes me that there are quite a few people already in Congress and running states across the US who aren't really 'Democrat' or 'Republican' at all. Ron Paul, or Michael Bloomberg to name but two. In fact Bloomberg might even be running as a third party candidate: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080109/ap_on_el_pr/bloomberg2008;_ylt=AqQ1LUSDbvsER59t.23c.zKs0NUE

Would any of the Americans here vote for him?

[anthonyvop]

Michael Bloomberg to name but two. In fact Bloomberg might even be running as a third party candidate: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080109/ap_on_el_pr/bloomberg2008;_ylt=AqQ1LUSDbvsER59t.23c.zKs0NUE

Would any of the Americans here vote for him?
Bloomberg?
If I wanted to live in a Wussy, Nanny State I would move to Europe!

[SOD]

Bloomberg?
If I wanted to live in a Wussy, Nanny State I would move to Europe!

so says the nanny :laugh:


I'm sure you think that the USA has the right to barge into any country at will and demand that things be done to suit those folks in Washington. Who is the nanny, the world dont need a nanny.

[anthonyvop]

I'm sure you think that the USA has the right to barge into any country at will and demand that things be done to suit those folks in Washington.

Wow! You are finally thinking straight!

Who is the nanny, the world dont need a nanny.
By Nanny State we mean cradle to grave Government care. Socialize Medicine. Lifestyle regulation, Political Correctness.
Remember that Bloomberg is the one who started that banning of Trans-fat stupidity among other things.

[TOgoFASTER]

but because conservatives seem to get out in the world and start up buisnesses, which liberals seem to not do much of. Liberals seem to just complain and become lawyers and politicians.

I painted him in my comments with the same broad brush in which he likes to label people that don't agree with his largely dated notions. He seems to like to be identified with pompous anti democracy blowhards, thats OK I agree.
Sorry you took offense
Your quote above is totally nonsensical.
There is a real world out there between extreme Right and Left goofballs. It's where the majority of us live. It in fact is all around you and is in brilliant colors not cut in simple black and white.

[Schultz]

Immigration isn't only about economy. Freemarketeers say that immigration is good for growth and they may be right. But immigrants also upset the cultural and political balance within the destination country. Any country has the right to choose who to let in.

I was replying the the enlightening statement of Gary Walker who proclaimed that all illegal immigrants should be kicked out of the country immedietly.

There is no doubt that bringing in more and more immigrants is changing the cultural and social balance within all prosperous western countries, but the drive by most of these governments to encourage such immigrantion seems to indicate that such immigration is inevitible. Birth rates is countries like Italy and many others, are lower than the death rates, ie immigration is necessary to fill the void.

If you want to go further you could point out the fact that the population is aging at quite an alarming rate in most western countries. Therefore, we have more people in retirement and on pensions, and less good, young, educated people to fund the growing health and welfare expenses that the ageing population is creating. In Australia we have good programs in place to combat these issues. We do not let immigrants in unless they classify as refugees or unless they are skilled in areas where we have skilled shortages.

Of course, this is an illogical program we have in place. We should abandon the fight against skill shortages and an ageing population in favour of maintaining the white supremacy in our Western countries. Let's be honest, this is what we are talking about isn't it Gary Walker? A fear of Ebglish culture being overrun by Indians and Poles?

Also Gary, the UK is losing three billion pounds a year due to immigration? I suggest you should be thankful for the Amsterdam treaty and the latest enlaregment of the EU, because your skills shortages are costing you MUCH more than three billion pounds.

[SOD]

all the new Amateur landlords in the USA need illegal immigrants to prop up the rental markets. game over.

[TOgoFASTER]

all the new Amateur landlords in the USA need illegal immigrants to prop up the rental markets. game over.

Cardboard boxes are in shortage for what's left of the other classes already.
Tough to make a buck unless serving the upper crust as a self made man.
Maybe run the debtors prison with a quick taser finger? :)

[A.F.F.]

well, he would have a good chance to get the religious freaks and the banjo players votes.

Banjo players were in a belief Chuck Norris is the president.

[Rollo]

Can someone tell me why the logos of the two political parties are a clumsy behemoth and a jackass?

[Roamy]

Can someone tell me why the logos of the two political parties are a clumsy behemoth and a jackass?

ha ha
The Jackass speaks for itself while the Elephant is a sign of power, long memory and intelligence who can make their own billard balls.

[BTCC Fan#1]

This is one of the more worrying things i've read about Mike 'Huck' Huckabee..

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx

WARREN, Mich. -- Huckabee's closing argument to voters here this evening featured a few new stories and two prolonged sections on illegal immigration and Christian values.

These two topics usually feature prominently in Huckabee's stump speech, but last night he got specific, promising to build a border fence within 18 months if elected and elaborating on his belief that the constitution needs to be amended.

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars.

So, going by similar standards, if Huckabee wins the Presidency will the death penalty extend to people who work Sundays and those who say 'God damn!'?

[SOD]

change the constitution?

[Roamy]

change the constitution?

yes yes then we can let Arnold run!!

[Eki]

This is one of the more worrying things i've read about Mike 'Huck' Huckabee..

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx


So, going by similar standards, if Huckabee wins the Presidency will the death penalty extend to people who work Sundays and those who say 'God damn!'?
Looks like he wants to buil a Christian fundamentalist country. I didn't expect a Spanish inqusition.

[Eki]

yes yes then we can let Arnold run!!
Finnish Prime Minister Vanhanen visited Arnold few days ago. He made Arnold look small:

http://kuvat2.iltasanomat.fi/iltasanomat/iDoc/1476864-400_arskavanhanen.jpg

[A.F.F.]

Matti Vanhanen said Arnold; You should work out more.

I wish the constitution will be changed so a foreign based nominee can run for president in US. Arnie would be a brilliant choise. :up:

[leopard]

He might be bigger than Arnold, but the picture was apparently taken from distance closer to Matti than Arnold. The leftest US flagpole looks somewhat taller than the rest.

[Roamy]

You would think out of a poputlation of 325 million we could come up with a better selection than we have!!

[Eki]

You would think out of a poputlation of 325 million we could come up with a better selection than we have!!
That's what I have been trying to tell you for the past six or so years! Has fousto finally seen the light?

[Schultz]

I suppose this is why many want the ban on foreign born candidates lifted.

[Mark]

Perhaps you need to look at how the candidates come to light in the first place rather than inviting Arnie in :p

[SOD]

Perhaps you need to look at how the candidates come to light in the first place rather than inviting Arnie in :p

Obama, because he's a great guy
Hillary, because she be the wife of a former president.
Edwards, because the trial lawyer is recycling his inflated pay packets.
Biden, because its his career.

Guiliani, because he is hero 9-11
Huckabee, because he appeals to the bigots
McCain, because the mainstream meeja loves him
Romney, because he's a draft dodger.

[A.F.F.]

Huckabee, because of Chuck Norris.

[ShiftingGears]

of Chuck Norris.

I saw one of his movies a few days ago. Saving the American hostages from the evil Arabs, with poor acting...typical really :p :

[Roamy]

I saw one of his movies a few days ago. Saving the American hostages from the evil Arabs, with poor acting...typical really :p :

yea but how were those "Arab" actors. Maybe you should upgrade your viewing selection

[janneppi]

I saw one of his movies a few days ago. Saving the American hostages from the evil Arabs, with poor acting...typical really :p :
Speaking of Ahnold and movies.
I saw Predator few days ago, and it had serving US govenor, one former governor and a former Governor candidate running around in the jungle.
There had to be something in the film location's water to cause those political perspirations. :D

[rah]

Obama, because he's a great guy
Hillary, because she be the wife of a former president.
Edwards, because the trial lawyer is recycling his inflated pay packets.
Biden, because its his career.

Guiliani, because he is hero 9-11
Huckabee, because he appeals to the bigots
McCain, because the mainstream meeja loves him
Romney, because he's a draft dodger.

Just out of interest, does anyone actually think that Guiliani did anything good on 9-11?

[SOD]

Just out of interest, does anyone actually think that Guiliani did anything good on 9-11?

He did ask the Concord passengers to spend money in October 2001.

[anthonyvop]

Just out of interest, does anyone actually think that Guiliani did anything good on 9-11?
Did a lot more than you.
Actually Mayor Guiliani was exceptional during the crisis. He held an infrastructure together that was on the verge of collaspe. Unlike a certain US senator from NY.

[Eki]

1001 lies. Almost:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html


Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations.

The study says Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda.

Bush has consistently asserted that at the time he and other officials made the statements, the intelligence community of the U.S. and several other nations, including Britain, believed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

He has repeatedly said that despite the intelligence flaws, removing Hussein from power was the right thing to do.

The study, released Tuesday, says Powell had the second-highest number of false statements, with 244 about weapons and 10 about Iraq and al Qaeda.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Press Secretary Ari Fleischer each made 109 false statements, it says. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made 85, Rice made 56, Cheney made 48 and Scott McLellan, also a press secretary, made 14, the study says.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda," the report reads, citing multiple government reports, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the 9/11 Commission and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, which reported that Hussein had suspended Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to revive it.

The overview of the study also calls the media to task, saying most media outlets didn't do enough to investigate the claims.

"Some journalists -- indeed, even some entire news organizations -- have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical," the report reads. "These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq."

The quotes in the study include an August 26, 2002, statement by Cheney to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

[veeten]

of course if you look at Guiliani before 9-11, then you would be not-so inclined to elect him.

Interesting how a major catastrophe can cover over a 'multitude of sins', some that conservatives made known their feelings about his candidacy for president.

http://theconservativedeclaration.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/3/

[SOD]

Did a lot more than you.
Actually Mayor Guiliani was exceptional during the crisis. He held an infrastructure together that was on the verge of collaspe. Unlike a certain US senator from NY.

one would expect the mayor of NY to do more than most on 911.
Telling people that the air was safe to breathe was a fine job on his part :rolleyes:

The infastructure itself was held toegther by the resiliance of the new yorkers, the kind of trait not found outside of NY.


nice to be on good terms with the cops when they can fery your mistress around.

I hear that the firebrigade unions are going to hound him in Florida.

[rah]

Did a lot more than you.
Actually Mayor Guiliani was exceptional during the crisis. He held an infrastructure together that was on the verge of collaspe. Unlike a certain US senator from NY.

Lol that wouldnt be hard, I watched it on tv several thousands of kilometers away. He is the mayor though and you would expect him to do a little more than me.

Wasn't it his idea to put the emergency centre in one of the twin towers, even after the first bombing? I believe it was because the space could not be rented to anyone else but I could be wrong. I doubt the victims of the air pollution are too happy with Guiliani either.

[SOD]

Lol that wouldnt be hard, I watched it on tv several thousands of kilometers away. He is the mayor though and you would expect him to do a little more than me.

Wasn't it his idea to put the emergency centre in one of the twin towers, even after the first bombing? I believe it was because the space could not be rented to anyone else but I could be wrong. I doubt the victims of the air pollution are too happy with Guiliani either.

The "city of NY" owned the towers, and occupied the first few floors of each tower.

[rah]

The "city of NY" owned the towers, and occupied the first few floors of each tower.

Ahh fair enough. Still pretty silly to put the emergency centre in the prime terrorist target.

[anthonyvop]

Ahh fair enough. Still pretty silly to put the emergency centre in the prime terrorist target.

I know. Just like putting the Military's headquaters in the Pentagon or the President's residence in the White House.

Dude, What color is the sky in your world?

[anthonyvop]

one would expect the mayor of NY to do more than most on 911.
Telling people that the air was safe to breathe was a fine job on his part :rolleyes:
Yes it was. Because the air was safe to breath.

The infastructure itself was held toegther by the resiliance of the new yorkers, the kind of trait not found outside of NY.
Really? And you know New Yorkers so well? Actually New Yorkers are mostly Hype. I have lived in New York and I found them to be, by and large almost as big a group of wussies as the Euros.


I hear that the firebrigade unions are going to hound him in Florida.
Nobody cares what Unions have to say anymore.

[rah]

I know. Just like putting the Military's headquaters in the Pentagon or the President's residence in the White House.

Dude, What color is the sky in your world?

Not quite, The Pentagon and the White House are targets BECAUSE of the work that goes on inside. Major command centres have to go somewhere after all. And they have back ups.

The Twin Towers were not targets because of the emergency centre and there was no reason it had to be there. It does have to go somewhere, but the prime target in the city is probably not the best one. It would be like putting an emergency centre under the eifel tower, sydney opera house or big ben. It is just plane dumb. (Pun not intended)

[SOD]

Yes it was. Because the air was safe to breath.

Really? And you know New Yorkers so well? Actually New Yorkers are mostly Hype. I have lived in New York and I found them to be, by and large almost as big a group of wussies as the Euros.


Nobody cares what Unions have to say anymore.

Since most of the people who are in favour of the wars have a loathing for the NYers & north eastern elites. how smart are the NYers for getting the hilljack rubes to fight their wars for them!!!

People cant wait for the writers' union strike to end so they can watch teevee again.

[TOgoFASTER]

Rudy is good at photo ops and saying 9/11 every chance he can manufacture with the classic fear the fear crap as a cheesy side dish of BS.
Past that he doesn't have anything.
If none have noticed he isn't winning or even runner up in a very weak field. Thats not going to change.
He might thrill a few in Sloth FLA however.
Bizzaro world.

[SOD]

http://www.smackforum.net/image.php?u=53&dateline=1199122271

[Rudy Tamasz]

Wasn't it Rudy who reduced crime in NYC so that people could safely walk again in Times Square?

[SOD]

Wasn't it Rudy who reduced crime in NYC so that people could safely walk again in Times Square?

that was because of abortion in the 1960s

[veeten]

mainly by forcing higher rental space taxes in order to force out the more seedy renters. Then later selling the prime lots to Disney, Inc.(ESPN, ABC, et al...).

[SOD]

President guilinani:

"I have zer0 tolerance for terrorism"

[TOgoFASTER]

Wasn't it Rudy who reduced crime in NYC so that people could safely walk again in Times Square?

Just more pixie dust sprinklings on the fairy tales of Simon Bar Sinister.

[janvanvurpa]

Did a lot more than you.
Actually Mayor Guiliani was exceptional during the crisis. .


And your lack of any self-reflection shows bright as ever.

You taunt the guy with that "Did a lot more than you"

Well he did a lot more than YOU did too, Vop.

One thing Giuliani did do was ignore the advice of NYC Police and Security experts, who presumably were his employees who he paid a lot of money, and in 2000, sited the NYC Crisis Command center or whatever they called in in WTC 7.

Now by ignoring their advice, remember the WTC had already been a target of a serious attack, his own experts warn that the WTC is still a prime target when the WTC towers collapsed onto WTC7, and the Command Center destroyed, we can see what Giuliani did do.

By the way, the arch-conservative state of South Carolina voted in todays Republigoon Primary a whopping 1% for your boy, Vop.

[anthonyvop]

mainly by forcing higher rental space taxes in order to force out the more seedy renters. Then later selling the prime lots to Disney, Inc.(ESPN, ABC, et al...).
Smart!

[TOgoFASTER]

And of course ignore the up scale white collar crime it took to get it done.

[SOD]

And of course ignore the up scale white collar crime it took to get it done.

the white skin (collar) crime involves large dollars and is thus therefore beyond the scope of interest of the authorities.

[SOD]

And your lack of any self-reflection shows bright as ever.

You taunt the guy with that "Did a lot more than you"

Well he did a lot more than YOU did too, Vop.

One thing Giuliani did do was ignore the advice of NYC Police and Security experts, who presumably were his employees who he paid a lot of money, and in 2000, sited the NYC Crisis Command center or whatever they called in in WTC 7.

Now by ignoring their advice, remember the WTC had already been a target of a serious attack, his own experts warn that the WTC is still a prime target when the WTC towers collapsed onto WTC7, and the Command Center destroyed, we can see what Giuliani did do.

By the way, the arch-conservative state of South Carolina voted in todays Republigoon Primary a whopping 1% for your boy, Vop.

welcome back janvan, missed your insights & your wit.

[TOgoFASTER]

the white skin (collar) crime involves large dollars and is thus therefore beyond the scope of interest of the authorities.

It's the old good crime vs bad crime.
Depends what the point of view is as well as who's pockets are being filled with coin.
I would take a guess that Rudy's friends are happy...

[Mark]

Back to topic....

It seems that the race between Obama and Clinton is too close to call. But would I be right in thinking that after 'Super Tuesday' on the 5th it will all but be finished with?

[SOD]

Back to topic....

It seems that the race between Obama and Clinton is too close to call. But would I be right in thinking that after 'Super Tuesday' on the 5th it will all but be finished with?

It may not be over after super Tuesday, especially if they remain in a dead-heat fater super tuesday as there would still be 20 more primaries to go. it would depend on the number of delegates the candidates receive.

[SOD]

Smart!

unlike his campaign

"Giuliani is toast. Perhaps the worst run campaign of all time. What arrogance! What an ego!"

http://newsmax.com/john_leboutillier/mccain_romney/2008/01/24/67057.html


:laugh:

[TOgoFASTER]

It's a relief, maybe even with a bit of hope.
One down the tubes with a few like ones to go.

[SOD]

you know that rudi is in trouble

[Roamy]

Obama and Hillary vs McCain

do you Euros have a couple of good men you could spare?

I want a questionable Italian guy for President!!
Hot Women, fast cars and ties to Scisilly

I bet you the last time Hillary and McCain got laid your were either in school or weren't born yet. Not that this is a prerequsite for President but you don't want them to fly off the handle.

Hillary is a snivieler and McCain is just more of the same
I don't want osama, obama or yo mamma

On the debates the other night the virtually shut out Huckabee and Paul.
What a disgrace our media is.

But if Romney gets past super tuesday he can out spend everyone to the finish line.

Hillary's ankles are fatter that Arnold's biceps
for christ sakes if we have to elect a women lets get a freaking FOX !!

[Roamy]

Ted Kennedy today told Obama that if he could be Vice President he would drive Hillary home from the next debate!!!

[Mark]

Today is the day of the California Presidential Primary ;)

[SOD]

Today is the day of the California Presidential Primary ;)

and there's 23 other states including NY & Massechussets.

[veeten]

or as its known, "Super Tuesday". 24 states go to the polls for the primary votes for the candidate of each party.

Here's a better explanation...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Tuesday

[veeten]

well, after this weekend's events it looks like Obama is taking huge chunks out of Hillary's lead. And with the 'Potomac Primaries" on tuesday, he might take the lead. :)

[Mark]

and there's 23 other states including NY & Massechussets.

But CTU doesn't take care of those :p

[BDunnell]

I must say that it's very refreshing to be in the midst of a US election campaign in which the wartime service records of the candidates aren't an issue. We know about McCain's service, and it's not a factor with any of the others. Hopefully the pointless wrangling about who did what in a war years ago is now a thing of the past.

[SOD]

I must say that it's very refreshing to be in the midst of a US election campaign in which the wartime service records of the candidates aren't an issue. We know about McCain's service, and it's not a factor with any of the others. Hopefully the pointless wrangling about who did what in a war years ago is now a thing of the past.

Actually McCane's military record came up in the South carolina primary with certain swiftboaters.

[Malbec]

I must say that it's very refreshing to be in the midst of a US election campaign in which the wartime service records of the candidates aren't an issue. We know about McCain's service, and it's not a factor with any of the others. Hopefully the pointless wrangling about who did what in a war years ago is now a thing of the past.

We're still in the primaries when the candidates tend to be rather polite and civil towards each other. I'd expect the actual Presidential campaign to be rather nastier.

That said war records are only unimportant because one guy has an unimpeachable one, one was too young for Vietnam and the other was exempt as a woman.

[anthonyvop]

We're still in the primaries when the candidates tend to be rather polite and civil towards each other. I'd expect the actual Presidential campaign to be rather nastier.

That said war records are only unimportant because one guy has an unimpeachable one, one was too young for Vietnam and the other was exempt as a woman.
Ahh But he was still able to join the military but refused to do so. As did Billary!!!

[rah]

Ahh But he was still able to join the military but refused to do so. As did Billary!!!

Can't fault a man for that. As for Billary, just imagening her with a gun is downright scary.

I wonder if Vietnam is concerned if McCain gets the job. I am sure Iran would be.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I realize that McCain is gonna win the GOP nomination, but I start liking Huckabee more and more. He seems to be quite a reasonable fellow, very much down to Earth.

[BDunnell]

Ahh But he was still able to join the military but refused to do so. As did Billary!!!

Good for him. It's a free choice, so why should he? Military service doesn't make you a better politician, or a better leader of any sort in my view, just as being a successful businessman doesn't automatically make you a better politician, or as being a successful politician doesn't automatically make you a better businessman. Politicians in most other countries have no military background, and I wouldn't say they are any worse at the job than those in the US who have served the US military — far from it.

[BDunnell]

Let's not forget the third person who's still, pointlessly, up for the Democrat nomination — Mike Gravel. He deserves our attention, if only for the lamest campaign slogan ever, 'I Like Mike'.

I think there's a book in fringe candidates for the US Presidency.

[anthonyvop]

I realize that McCain is gonna win the GOP nomination, but I start liking Huckabee more and more. He seems to be quite a reasonable fellow, very much down to Earth.

Down to earth so much he doesn't believe in evolution.

[anthonyvop]

Good for him. It's a free choice, so why should he? Military service doesn't make you a better politician, or a better leader of any sort in my view, just as being a successful businessman doesn't automatically make you a better politician, or as being a successful politician doesn't automatically make you a better businessman. Politicians in most other countries have no military background, and I wouldn't say they are any worse at the job than those in the US who have served the US military — far from it.

Ahhh but the libs always like to point out that those who send our troops to war have no idea what it is like......Well Osama Obama doesn't. Billary doesn't even though Billy boy was always quick to use our troops whenever he was in political trouble.

McCain on the other hand, does.

As for being a businessman that does not hold water. Billary and Obama have no clue what business is like. And they are suppose to run the economy? Remember Billary's health Care plan?

[anthonyvop]

I wonder if Vietnam is concerned if McCain gets the job. I am sure Iran would be.
Good!

[rah]

McCain on the other hand, does.

As for being a businessman that does not hold water. Billary and Obama have no clue what business is like. And they are suppose to run the economy? Remember Billary's health Care plan?

Wasn't your billary on the board of walmart? What business has McCain ever run?

At least his time as a guest of Vietnam has given him the guts to take a stand against torture, but his views on the military make GWB look gun shy.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Down to earth so much he doesn't believe in evolution.

Species are not gonna radically evolve anyway over a presidential term or two so that's irrelevant.

[jso1985]

it's pretty much relevant!, the guy could end up being a Christian fundamentalist! and the world really doesn't need wackos like those.

[A.F.F.]

Mike Gravel. He deserves our attention, if only for the lamest campaign slogan ever, 'I Like Mike'.



We don't know how much wisdom lies behind that simple line :p :

[rah]

it's pretty much relevant!, the guy could end up being a Christian fundamentalist! and the world really doesn't need wackos like those.

I think you mean, "the world doesn't need another wacko"

[jso1985]

hell yeah! :up:

eat that Huckabee I said hell :p

[Camelopard]

Good for him. It's a free choice, so why should he? Military service doesn't make you a better politician, or a better leader of any sort in my view, just as being a successful businessman doesn't automatically make you a better politician, or as being a successful politician doesn't automatically make you a better businessman. Politicians in most other countries have no military background, and I wouldn't say they are any worse at the job than those in the US who have served the US military — far from it.

Well said.

[veeten]

Looks like Obama & Mc Cain are the 'Potomac Primary' winners.

Clinton is having all sorts of problems trying to stay in it, as Barack is just making more and more connections across all sorts of groups. And making yet another change in her staff isn't helping matters at all.

[maxu05]

I think Obama would be a breath of fresh air for the US. You have already had Father and son serve as President. If Clinton wins that will be Husband and wife that have served. Give another family a go at leading for a change. Whats next, Chelsea Clinton for President ?

[Rudy Tamasz]

it's pretty much relevant!, the guy could end up being a Christian fundamentalist! and the world really doesn't need wackos like those.

So what? Wackiness is the definition of normality these days. The whole world consists of wackos. Trying to be normal is a form of being wacko. Yes, and the guy who can decently play bass guitar is not the biggest wacko in my book.