View Full Version : American Politics during the Bush Presidency
When I owe one million dollars, the bank owns me. When I owe one trillion dollars, I own the bank.
A lot of those numbers are inflated, wrong, or simply misleading when viewed in isolation. Don't sweat them.Again, your comments make alot of sense, and they are hard to argue, but at the same time they are using that debt to buy out our corporations and our real estate, guess what? They don't want our government bonds.
Some facts and stats I came across.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consequences of foreign ownership of U. S. Debt:
U. S. Treasury statistics indicate that, at the end of 2004, foreigners held 44% of federal debt held by the public. About 64% of that 44% was held by the central banks of other countries. A large portion was held by the central banks of Japan and China, although, most was held by members of the EU. This exposes the United States to potential financial or political risk that either banks will stop buying Treasury securities or start selling them heavily. In fact, the debt held by Japan reached a maximum in August of 2004 and has fallen nearly 3% since then.
On 3 August 2006, Italy's central bank announced that it would sell off a large portion of its dollar holdings (including US Treasury bonds) and instead shift to British Pound Sterling. The reason Italy gave for doing out of fear of an "expected slide in the dollar." Russia, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates had announced similar shifts out of the dollar into other currencies and gold earlier and cited the United States's "twin deficits" (I. E. The US trade deficit as well as its budget deficit) as the reason for the expected fall in the dollar's value.
U. S. Public debt on 30 December 2005 was $8,170 billion (or $8.1 trillion) circulation (M1 Money Supply) estimated to be $1,372 billion.
The debt equates to $28,412 per head of the U. S. Population, or $58,390 per head of the U. S. Working population.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I would read this link, if you haven't allready:
http://www.executivefocus.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8083036
These are some quotes from this article:
China's central bank is thought to be switching from Treasury bonds to American mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds in an attempt to earn higher yields. Chinese officials have also discussed in private the need to diversify reserves out of dollars in order to reduce exposure to a big drop in the greenback. The bank may be putting a bigger slice of any increase in reserves into euros and emerging Asian currencies, but so far there is little sign of a shift out of its existing stock of dollars. One problem is that China's investments are so big that they move markets. Shifting money into euros would push down the dollar. China would then not only suffer a capital loss on its remaining dollar reserves, but it could also be forced to buy yet more reserves to hold its currency down against a weaker dollar.
China's official reserves already far exceed what is required to ensure financial stability. As a rule of thumb, a country needs enough foreign exchange to cover three months' imports or to settle its short-term foreign debt. China's reserves are equivalent to 15 months of imports and are six times bigger than its short-term debt.
Badboy
Since China is a communist state they do not care much, if anything for the lives of their people so what would stop them from calling in $1 trillion of our notes they hold (they do not hold that much now but withing 8 years they will) and bankrupt us.
The fact that it would hurt their people would have little meaning to them at this juncture of the 'capitalistic' state.
I would expect that they could and might do that in the future when we are adversaries over Taiwan or Korea or something else?
No country stays on top forever and with an $8 trillion dollar debt, there is no logic that could explain how the US can continue to be such an economic power.
The other option is for countries with oil to have begin trading on something other than the dollar, something Iraq (pre-invasion), Iran and Venezuela have been advocating. While this is not likely in the near term, the result of that would be a massive decline in the dollar. I have read where it could be up to 30% drop.
Suerte.
Stowe
Yes AND no, for one thing, OPEC is one of the big reasons we are STILL paying 55-60 a barrel, so they are kicking our ass in those terms, and right now as we speak the US is falling over themselves to try to stop the NEW energy cartel being started by Russia and many other african and central asian countries with loads of natural resources, the US and Europe fear these energy cartels. (Edit) We can overcome that, but we need to start thinking outside the box and leave the whole " manifest destiny " bit at the door because if we don't refrain from our arrogance we will learn our lessons the hard way.Badboy,
Have to tell you I have really enjoyed reading this thread in the last 24 hours. Would be interested to get your reaction on the following:
Should we fear cartels that include members that do not have the technical, political, or security apparatus to bring their commodities to market (Nigeria and DRC would be two good examples with oil and copper) Just because a country has vast natural resources means nothing - you have to be able to not only bring these resources to market, but continue to re-plough some profits into continued production (not individual Swiss bank accounts)
Who exactly in the US government is falling over themselves to prevent the formation of this new energy cartel? Would this be the same guys that buy their "Soccer-Mom" wives a Suburban, Expedition, or Escalade? No, I forgot those vehicles were disposed of at $3.00/ gal. However the sales have surged now that gas is approaching $2.00 - so you never know.
The HUGE balance of payments situation is not a mystery. We live in the "Walmart Generation" - meaning we are very happy to buy cheap Chinese goods. Not a bad thing, if you happen to work outside the manufacturing sector! Not to worry though, the newly invigorated Democrats have the answer: raise the minimum wage.
I would agree with you that today is not the past. What is different today from 30 years ago? The economy is burdened with an unthinkable about of litigation, affirmative action, and dumbing-down of the educational system. All have put the USA at a decided disadvantage in terms of doing business. Some may feel that these are reasonable impediments to economic activity-for a civilized, liberal society.
I recently returned from a couple of weeks in Botswana. The number of Indians and Chinese who are there, set-up and doing business is shocking. But the goals and priorities for these nations are totally different than the US. They need the raw materials and they need to develop the markets to sell their finished goods. The US will continue to rest on it's laurels - we are used to the world coming to US, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I would like for you to explain your comments about US arrogance, and those "historical few helping hands". Do you mean the general attitude of the world beginning and ending at the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans? Do you mean the idea that US businesses don't think they need the small secondary markets?
Not living in the USA could you help answer this question: Now that the election is over, is the liberal "main-stream" media still speaking about the horribly high gas prices or has that problem vaporized now that the Democrats are in control?
Regards,
Alan
Hi Alan,
I have already made my points and they are valid and well researched, it is your right to disagree with them, that is fine, I would love to see some research and stats and figures if you have some handy. I have to say, wide ranging broad open ended generalized statements aren't really doing me much good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberal Media ? You mean media run by liberals ? Liberals being people that believe in liberalism ? Let me see if I got it right. This is a general definition I agree with :
Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are probably on completely different spheres here, I don't like labels much, I find them used primarily by lazy people for divisive purposes. I basically just gave alot of facts and figures and some opinions by leading economists and investors. That's all, my point is I don't believe the US economy is as strong as some think. It is your right to disagree, and you can give me all the facts and figures to back up the " resting on laurels " claim, Or you can just make that statement and make no follow up to it and I can just try to take it as a given.
About us fearing gas cartels, that is up to you, I don't but Nato, Europe and the US do. Here is a quote from a Financial Tmes article, I will also add the corresponding link.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Nato fears Russian plans for 'gas Opec'
By Daniel Dombey in Brussels, Neil Buckley in Moscow and Carola Hoyos in London.
Published: November 13 2006 22:13 | Last updated: November 13 2006 23:45
Nato advisers have warned the military alliance that it needs to guard against any attempt by Russia to set up an "Opec for gas" that would strengthen Moscow's leverage over Europe.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/af125540-7358-11db-9bac-0000779e2340.html
Here is another one, it is pretty much overkill but what the heck it seems like you needed the lesson, this is another quote and I will add the corresponding link, I would have you read all the russian articles online but I am guessing you don't speak russian, if you did you would probably get an even more in depth view of what is really going on over there and why.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SCRAMBLE FOR EURASIAN ENERGY RESOURCES INTENSIFIES
By Igor Torbakov
Friday, November 3, 2006
For its part, the U.S. government appears to be increasing its critical rhetoric decrying Russia’s reluctance to loosen its tight grip over energy transportation routes. Speaking at a recent energy conference at the University of Haifa, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Richard Jones stressed the importance of multiple energy routes to help secure the supply of gas and oil to the Middle East and Europe. Jones described the current situation whereby Russia is exercising monopoly over much of the gas supply in the Caspian region as “unhealthy.”
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2371613
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope that clarified things, next time I would suggest you do your own research instead of asking me to do it for you (no offense BTW) Then we could debate the facts and not have to go in circles qualifiying things, we could quantify them instead which is much more intellectually stimulating.
Ok let me try to tackle a few more, regarding you asking me to explain US arrogance, that kinda doesn't need explanation and I would rather NOT go down that road, MOST people around the world understood my points. I don't have to qualify that but I could easily quantify it's end result, and that is simple, more emerging economies around the world have said time and again they prefer dealing with China and Russia, again I suggest you look for the information yourself.
And in regards to Indians and Chinese being all over the place you are 100 % correct, I believe the PM of China was just in Africa about a few weeks ago holding a summit with just about every single African dignitary there promoting trade, investment, aide, african integration and other things as well. And it is at THAT summit when there was a chorus from those same dignitaries saying they prefer dealing with the likes of China, Russia, India and Iran, Basically all the S. C. O countries. And you can find the articles and see the reasons they give for US arrogance.
My main point wasn't to sit here and argue every point of my post, you can take them at face value or not. Discussing trivial issues is meaningless. Maybe next time you could post more factual information. The US is a good investment, but not as good as it used to be and if all it does is" rest on its laurels", I think we are in very big trouble. Maybe you don't think so, thats fine with me. I would suggest people take a good look at the emerging east and either be prepared to compete or invest. Burying your head in the sand won't make them go away.
Regards,
Badboy
Since China is a communist state they do not care much, if anything for the lives of their people so what would stop them from calling in $1 trillion of our notes they hold (they do not hold that much now but withing 8 years they will) and bankrupt us.Bankrupt us? How?
When your mortgage company sells your mortgage to another bank, are you bankrupted? That's the exact analogy to China's supposed sell off of treasury bonds.
And as BB13 says, they're supposedly dumping their safe treasuries and diversifying into mortgage-backed securities. Heard of the housing bubble? Foreclosure rates going up? Hah! Selling their treasuries could be the stupidest thing the Chinese have done in the last 30 years.
Some farmers-and-peasants cooperative bank in Xian, China is going to hold title to some overpriced swampland in Florida. What are they going to do when the debtor stops making his payments? Move the swamp to central China? Start taking their holidays on the Gulf of Mexico? They're going to do the same thing the Japanese did when they were confronted with the same situation 20 years ago - they're going to sell at a massive, unrecoverable, 50%+ loss.
And lastly, for you guys who fret about the trade deficit, you need to remember that the US trade deficit has been going on for well-nigh 40 years. If these trade deficits (which are consistently a very small percentage of GDP and national wealth) were really bad, don't you think it would have manifested itself by now? As Milton Friedman observed, when we import a car from Japan, we get a useful machine which takes people from place-to-place right here in America. All the Japanese get is a little green piece of paper. Is that a fair trade?
Here's an excellent discussion:
http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/article.asp?id=mwo051206
Hunt you must be the smartest human on the planet. Almost every economic expert is saying that the $8 trillion dollar debt is going to have a massive impact to this country. They also state that the huge deficit is also not good for this country. They also state that the huge deficit we have with China is bad for this country.
Perhaps you should speak with all the economic experts and tell them they are all wrong.
Phew do I feel better knowing you know more than most of the economic experts. Foolish me.
If these things were not good for the country why are the experts dead set against the huge debt and deficit? If it is such a good thing why aren't all the countries in the world doing the same thing? To be part of the EU, Europe has strict standards regarding the amount of debt and deficits a country can have.
Suerte.
Stowe.
Guess we just disagree and neither of will know for sure for a couple of decades.
If it is such a good thing why aren't all the countries in the world doing the same thing?Because they can't.
Rock Harders
11-29-06, 04:01
Mongers-
Even though Hunt is a dedicated right winger, I tend to agree with him on this issue. Post WWII the US made a conscious decision to move in the direction of economic globalization because they believed their strategic position would allow them to dominate a world predicated on global commerce. The US has 5% of the world's population, yet it the world's largest economy by far and others are just starting to catch up because of the fact that the US ¨made the rules¨of the globalized economy. The fact that the US ¨made the rules¨ allows them to make more rules, one of them being that they can carry huge debt / deficits and see only marginal detrimental effects.
The US is the biggest consumer of the stuff that China manufactures, and China is the largest holder of US currency and T-bills. As Hunt alluded to, this puts China in at least a vulnerable position as the US. As Donald Trump said in reference to his bankruptcy as a result of the early 90's real estate crash, and well illustrated by Hunt ¨when you owe the bank $3 million, they will come after you with everything they've got. When you owe the bank $900 million, you're partners¨. China needs to US to buy their crap right now and in the forseable future, there is no other consumer available on the scale of the US. US consumers have by far the most disposable income of any nation even remotely near their size population wise. The average Indonesian, Indian, Pakistani, or Brasilian making $1 an hour cannot afford to buy even a small percentage of the Chinese made consumer goods that the average Joe Redneck making $20 an hour fixing cars can at WalMart.
Within the next several years, the US will pullout of Iraq Vietnam-style, Obama will be president supported by democratic majorities in both houses, and the financial treason of the Bush Administration will be a thing of the past. Expect Dollar-Euro parity (or better) by 2010. China will have serious internal unrest around the same time, leading to the nation wide strikes and protests that lead to the toppling of the pseudoCommunist dictatorship. China is a minimum half century away from having their house in order enough to seriously challenge US dominance.
Suerte,
Dirk Diggler
Hunt you must be the smartest human on the planet. Almost every economic expert is saying that the $8 trillion dollar debt is going to have a massive impact to this country. They also state that the huge deficit is also not good for this country. They also state that the huge deficit we have with China is bad for this country.
Perhaps you should speak with all the economic experts and tell them they are all wrong.
Phew do I feel better knowing you know more than most of the economic experts. Foolish me.Sorry Stowe, that instead of discussing the issues you have to reduce yourself to personalized name calling. Frankly, you don't know one damn thing if you say that "all the economic experts" agree with you. Do some reading of the economic press and you will find people all over the map. Some believe trade deficits are good, some very good, some bad, some very bad, and some are neutral. In fact I gave you a good, laymans-language article which reviews the landscape quite well. Obviously you didn't read it.
You demonstrate only your lack of manners and frank ignorance when you claim that all the experts agree with you.
Your posts sound exactly like the people I used to listen to 25 years ago, belly-aching, pissing, and moaning about the huge deficits, how the damn foreigners own us, and how the economy is on the verge of collapse. Howard Ruff anyone? Ravi Batra? Oh my god! The Japanese have bought Rockefeller Center! Oh the horror!
And meanwhile the US has continued with expanding prosperity and economic growth pretty much non-stop in the following 25 years.
They were stupid and wrong to call for economic armageddon then, and you are stupid and wrong to call for it now.
If you really believe your own BS, don't invest in any 401ks, stocks, IRAs, or even real estate. Buy little gold coins and collect them under your bed inside your rented house. And I'll see you in 25 years when I'm sailing the world on my big-ass yacht paid for with good old US dollars made from the profits of the American economy. And you're just a goofy old man with a bunch of shiny coins under his bed, still desperately waiting for the end of the world.
(And Dirk - and while you might discount anything you might hear from somebody you pigeon-hole as a "dedicated right-winger," I'd tell you not to fear China becoming economically prosperous. Countries that learn to keep themselves busy making money are countries that are too busy to invade their neighbors and cause international trouble. Look at Germany and Japan since 1945. A rising tide lifts all boats.)
Most analysts predict that by the end of the year the dollor will be at 1:1.35 against the Euro and by the end of next year the dollar will be at 1:1.40 against the Euro and 1: 2.0 against the British Pound. Scary stuff but it's the truth. Let's all keep our fingers crossed that our very own mongering Nostradamus' are correct. Even though it's not likely based on reality.
The dollar's slide: How far, how hard?
The currency sank about 2.5 percent against the euro in the last 5 sessions. More losses may be coming.
By Katie Benner, Fortune reporter.
November 30 2006: 9:26 AM EST.
(Fortune Magazine) -- U. S. Currency traders gorged on Thanksgiving turkey and took a half day last Friday while the rest of the world quietly bet against the dollar.
At first, it looked like a handful of speculators were taking advantage of light trading volume, which makes it easier to move a market up or down. But then more players started lining up against the greenback, too, and the worries hit harder than post-holiday indigestion.
The dollar has tumbled about 2.5 percent against the euro in the five sessions through Tuesday. Although the greenback came back a bit Wednesday, the dollar's near its weakest against the euro since March 2005. The dollar also fared badly against the British pound, though it's done slightly better against the lowly Japanese yen.
"With the dollar debacle, the health of the economy, current and future, is on trial," said Brian Wesbury, chief economist at First Trust Advisors.
And he, like many other traders and strategists, sees a weaker dollar in the months to come thanks to a combination of slower economic growth, the possibility of interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve and long-term trends in international currency markets.
Currencies typically have a six- to seven-year cycle of adjustments, said Quincy Krosby, chief investment strategist at Hartford Financial. "If you look at February 2002 as the strongest point in the cycle, I do think [the dollar] will ease a bit more. But that's also just part of the adjustment process that began [almost seven years ago] and is continuing."
Many observers have been bearish on the dollar since the start of 2006, when the so-called yield curve in the Treasury bond market kept inverting, meaning that investors got a better return on the short-term, two-year government bond than on the long-term, 10-year Treasury note. That's the opposite of how yields usually behave - and an inverted curve preceded the nation's last two recessions.
But back at the start of the year, most economists said it looked unlikely the United States was headed for a recession this time - that the economy would not stumble on a housing slump, rising interest rates in Europe or a series of rate hikes by the Federal Reserve. Now, some fear that those comforting predictions may not hold true.
Foreign banks, for example, may be deciding that the United States is getting too risky because the U. S. Economy doesn't look as attractive with sluggish growth ahead, said Naomi Fink, director of foreign exchange strategy at BNP Paribas.
"It reminds me of the time surrounding the tech boom when many equity analysts were saying that P / E ratios were irrelevant," said Fink, referring to the relationship of stock prices to corporate earnings. "Similarly, we shouldn't have discounted arguments for a slowdown in the U. S. Prior to this recent move, currency traders were ignoring bad data, or only looking at the good elements of the bad data."
The bad data includes the housing slump, said money manager Hugh Moore, a partner at Guerite Advisors, who's forecasting a recession sometime in 2007.
"The jobless recovery happened after 2001 because of home equity," said Moore. "Wages stagnated, but people didn't want to give up their lifestyles." So instead, they borrowed against the value of their homes. He estimated that home equity withdrawals in 2004 and 2005 totaled about $1.4 trillion, and that two-thirds of that fueled consumer spending. Consumer spending in turn fuels more than two-thirds of economic growth, so its importance can't be underestimated.
Moreover, Wesbury said that more rate hikes from the Fed remain a possibility, or at least the central bank won't cut rates anytime soon. Wall Street has been anticipating a cut for months, hoping that the Fed would lower the benchmark rate to keep the economy from slowing too much.
But Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a speech Tuesday that while growth should pick up next year, inflation remains a "worrisome" threat, which could mean that the Fed's next move on rates is a rate hike, and not a cut.
Much of the recent betting against the dollar has been on the expectation that a weak U. S. Economy would force the Fed to cut rates. Lower rates make the dollar less attractive relative to other currencies.
Meanwhile, Wednesday's upward revision to third-quarter economic growth indicates that economy is growing modestly, while a key inflation gauge dipped.
That should ease short-term concerns about a recession, but, as Krosby points out, there was no pop for the troubled greenback.
"The GDP numbers were upwardly revised, but there was immediately no significant strengthening in the dollar. If the market instinctively believed the economy was chugging along well, there at least would have been a knee jerk reaction."
Perhaps the dollar's muted rebound against the euro Wednesday can be traced to the news that new home sales fell a larger-than-expected 3.2 percent in October, quelling hopes that the worst of the real estate slump was over.
"What we really should focus on is that fact that the Americans were on holiday and foreigners decided to sell," said Axel Merk, manager of the Merk Hard Currency Fund, which has $47 million under management, referring to the dollar's recent drop. "Given the extent to which we're dependent on foreigners to prop up the dollar because of our current account deficit, that's worrisome."
"A dollar decline is in nobody's interest, but it's highly overdue and will happen at some point," Merk said.
Scary stuff but it's the truth. Let's all keep our fingers crossed that our very own mongering Nostradamus' are correct. Even though it's not likely based on reality. Why do you call the normal action of international currency markets "scary stuff"? European central banks have been raising interest rates (and are generally expected to raise them even more) while the US' Fed has stopped six months ago. The rise of the Euro and Pound is absolutely expected in such a scenario. It's covered in Macroeconomics 101. The only people who should possibly be "scared" in such circumstances are currency speculators who have a net long position in the dollar.
Frantic trading as fears of US housing meltdown grow.
Britons will head across Atlantic for bargains.
Ashley Seager, economics correspondent.
Friday December 1, 2006
The Guardian.
The dollar continued its seemingly unstoppable decline on the foreign exchanges yesterday, hitting a 14-year low at just below $1.97 to the pound as analysts predicted the two-dollar pound mark may soon be breached.
The dollar was last this low against the pound in September 1992, when Britain was forced out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, the euro's forerunner.
The news is likely to further boost airline bookings from bargain-hungry Britons rushing off to the United States for a pre-Christmas shopping bonanza.
The greenback fell more than 1% , or nearly 2.5 cents, in frantic trading in the world's dealing rooms after investors were panicked in particular by a key survey showing business activity for November in the US midwest contracted for the first time in three and a half years. The market had been expecting modest growth.
The survey by the National Association of Purchasing Management Chicago suggested the meltdown in the country's once-booming housing market was spreading, dashing hopes that momentum elsewhere in the economy would outweigh falling housing prices.
David Durrant, chief currency strategist at Bank Julius Baer in New York, said: "The trend is for a weakening dollar and reports like Chicago PMI provide a good excuse for investors to keep selling the currency. The report is not a complete disaster but it validates people's views that the economy is softening and therefore rates will remain low or even get lower. That's not supportive."
The dollar has fallen from $1.90 to the pound in just over a week - a drop of 3.5%. It has also fallen against all other currencies and yesterday hit a 20-month low against the euro of $1.326. The dollar has in fact been under pressure for the past five years because of the United States' giant current account deficit of 6.6% of gross domestic product. It has fallen more than 30% against a basket of currencies but unexpectedly rose through much of last year. But its renewed downward trend is now established and many analysts think it has further to run.
The latest trigger is that a weakening economy means the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, is now likely to keep interest rates steady at 5.25% or begin cutting them, maybe as soon as next spring.
This reduces the dollar's attraction to investors since the European Central Bank is widely expected to continue raising rates from their current 3.25%. The Bank of England, which has raised rates twice in recent months to 5% , is expected to either keep rates steady or perhaps raise them again early next year.
The falling dollar should help US exporters regain competitiveness in overseas markets because their goods will be cheaper.
It should also push up the price of imports, discouraging Americans from buying them. This could gradually help to narrow the country's trade and current account deficits but few analysts expect that to happen soon. However, higher inflation could also persuade the Fed to raise interest rates at a time when the economy is slowing.
Other data that spooked the markets yesterday showed that core consumer inflation remained at 2.4% for the second month in a row, defying expectations that it would fall back further and making the Fed's job more difficult, as did a fresh rise in oil prices, which took them up to $63 a barrel for US light crude futures, up from $58 barely a week ago.
Badboy
Weak US 'to hit global growth'
The US housing market is going through a turbulent period.
World economic growth will slow to its weakest level in four years in 2007, dragged down by a US slowdown, a global think tank has predicted.
Growth will slow to 2.5% in 2007 from 3.2% this year, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said.
But a strong performance from Europe and Asia will offset US weakness.
"Rather than a major slowdown, what the world economy may be facing is a rebalancing of growth," the OECD said.
It added that as a result of a "soft landing" for the US economy the slowdown would be nowhere near as bad as the "major" problems experienced in 2000, when most economies were overheating.
The group predicts US growth will come in at 3.3% this year before slackening to 2.4% in 2007 - mainly as a result of the country's weak property market, which the OECD expects will see a further fall in house building.
'Rebalancing'
"Recent developments point to an unwinding of cyclical differences, with activity having slowed in the United States and Japan, and gathered speed in Europe," OECD chief economist Jean-Philippe Cotis said.
"In the euro area, recent hard data as well as business and consumer confidence suggest that a solid upswing may be underway.
"Growth should remain buoyant in China, India and Russia and other emerging economies."
In contrast to the expected deceleration in the US, the OECD's twice-yearly report revised up its expectations for the eurozone to growth of 2.6% for this year and 2.2% next year.
The report also suggested that the European Central Bank would have to carry on raising rates until they reached a peak of 4% in 2008. Euro zone rates currently stand at 3.25%.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic the OECD said the US would leave rates on hold at 5.25% throughout 2007, before cutting the cost of borrowing in 2008.
But it warned that any risk of higher inflation would mean higher US rates.
StrayLight
12-02-06, 02:29
Well I can't argue with you there Stray...Some of Warren's thoughts...Fair enough. My only point was that the idea that many U. S. Corporations are doing something does not make it in any way "right".
1. When enough people (or corporations) do something, it becomes the average, and subsequent results will be average.
2. I've not seen much to convince me that the average U.S. company is anything more than average.
There are some pretty proven performers, Buffett being one of them. Bill Ruane, before he died, was another. Bill Miller's one. Michael Price, when he was running Mutual Shares, was another. If Jack Welch were still running GE, he'd be a candidate.
Those are the sorts of canaries in the coal mine, so to speak, that I'd look to for guidance; not the average U. S. corporation, or even the average top U. S. corporation.
That said, I still side with Hunt and Moore on this issue. I've been hearing doomsday predictions for the U. S. Economy for as along as I can remember. All things considered, I still think the U. S. has the core resources to outperform any other country in the time span that I'm concerned about.
That said, I still side with Hunt and Moore on this issue. I've been hearing doomsday predictions for the U. S. Economy for as along as I can remember. All things considered, I still think the U. S. Has the core resources to outperform any other country in the time span that I'm concerned about.I think this has nothing to do with sides, we aren't children after all and I for one am not taking sides. We, as adults, share ideas, thats all. You have your opinions and I have mine and Hunt has his. That is fair enough. I still think the US economy isn't as strong as it once was. I don't think ANYONE has said anything about doomsday.
Just my thoughts,
Badboy
Benny,
Thanks for the Sunday Barrons article-again. Going to Europe right now is like living your life with a small dog attached to your pants leg by his teeth. Doable, but irritating at all times.
Suerte-Dogg
StrayLight
12-03-06, 18:09
I don't usually follow currency exchange rates for anything other than vacation planning. So perhaps someone can help me think this through.
1. The dollar is falling relative to the Euro, correct?
2. Meanwhile, the Argentine government is basically pegging the peso to the dollar, albeit at approximately 3.09:1 or thereabouts instead of 1:1. Correct?
3. If the Argentine government does, indeed, maintain that exchange rate with the dollar, then the peso will consequently fall relative to the Euro also, correct?
Any insights or comments would be appreciated.
Thanks.
New York Bans Most Trans Fats in Restaurants.
By THOMAS J. LUECK and KIM SEVERSON.
Published: December 5, 2006
The New York City Board of Health voted yesterday to adopt the nation's first major municipal ban on the use of all but tiny amounts of artificial trans fats in restaurant cooking, a move that would radically transform how food is prepared in thousands of restaurants, from McDonald's to fashionable bistros to Chinese take-outs.
City's Notice of New Regulations.
Some experts said the measure, which is widely opposed by the restaurant industry, would be a model for other cities. Chicago is considering a similar prohibition that would affect restaurants with more than $20 million in annual sales.
"New York City has set a national standard," said Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, who predicted that other communities would follow suit.
Trans fats are the chemically modified food ingredients that raise levels of a particularly unhealthy form of cholesterol and have been squarely linked to heart disease. Long used as a substitute for saturated fats in baked goods, fried foods, salad dressings, margarine and other foods, trans fats also have a longer shelf life than other alternatives.
While the trans fat regulation captured the most attention, the Board of Health approved a separate measure — also the first of its kind in the country — requiring some restaurants, mostly fast food outlets, to prominently display the caloric content of each menu item on menu boards or near cash registers.
Health officials said displaying calorie counts was meant to address what is widely regarded as a nationwide epidemic of obesity.
The city's prohibition on trans fats, which would be phased in starting in July, was a victory for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, an outspoken health advocate, and his activist health commissioner, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden.
After the city's aggressive campaign to ban smoking in restaurants and in public places that goes back more than a decade, the regulation governing trans fats has again thrust New York to the forefront of a significant public health issue.
Experts say eliminating trans fats need not change the taste of foods, but chefs and restaurant owners say it is hard to replicate the taste and texture of some items without them.
Both the trans fat and calorie regulations would be enforced by the health department's restaurant inspectors. Inspectors would check the packaging of ingredients used in restaurant kitchens for the amount of trans fats they contain, but prepared food would not be routinely tested. Violators would face fines of at least $200.
Both measures have come under fire as impractical and unwanted intrusions by the government into free enterprise and civil liberties.
"This is a misguided attempt at social engineering by a group of physicians who don't understand the restaurant industry," said Dan Flesher, a National Restaurant Association spokesman. He said one or both measures could be challenged legally.
Mayor Bloomberg said the city is "not going to take away anybody's ability to go out and have the kind of food they want, in the quantities they want," adding, "We are just trying to make food safer."
Still, some restaurant workers said the trans fat ban would represent a challenge.
"This will be better for people's health, but we'd like to know where to go from here," said O'Neil Whyte, a baker at Sweet Chef Southern Styles Bakery in Harlem. "Things without trans fat are harder to get and more expensive."
With artificial trans fat increasingly seen as a health risk, many city restaurants had begun seeking alternative ingredients long before the new regulations were proposed.
Most packaged food manufacturers began removing them on a large scale in 2002, in anticipation of federal rules that trans fat content be disclosed in nutritional labeling. The rule took effect in January.
Some restaurant chains are following suit. Wendy's has switched to a soy-corn blend cooking oil in its 6,300 restaurants in the United States and Canada, and KFC says it will eliminate trans fat in its food by April.
Chicago's proposal is under discussion. "I'm disappointed we're losing bragging rights to be the first city in the nation to do this," said Edward Burke, a Chicago alderman who is pushing the ban.
New York's Board of Health, made up mostly of physicians and health professionals appointed by the mayor, can adopt regulations without approval by any other agency.
Still, the board granted concessions to the restaurant industry, which had complained vehemently that it was not being given enough time to experiment with new ingredients and recipes that would preserve or improve the taste of their food.
Restaurants will still have until next July 1 to eliminate oils, margarines and shortening from recipes that contain more than a half-gram of trans fat per serving. By July 1, 2008, they would have to remove all menu items that exceed the new limit, including bread, cakes, chips and salad dressings.
But under terms adopted yesterday, some foods will fall under the later deadline, including donuts, fritters, biscuits and deep fried items that the board said were particularly hard to prepare with a trans fat substitute.
"We want the taste, and the experience of food, to be the same or better," Dr. Frieden said.
The requirement for posting caloric content will take affect next July 1, and applies to restaurants that before March 1, 2007, already provided calorie counts on Web sites or in some other public format. Health officials said it would apply to about 10 percent of the city's restaurants, mainly large chains that have highly standardized menus and portions.
Restaurants can decide how to display the calorie counts as long as it near where diners pay for their food, officials said. "We want to allow creativity," said Dr. Lynn Silver, an assistant health commissioner. "If someone has a better way of doing this, great."
Rebecca Cathcart contributed reporting.
An internal report criticizes World Bank's efforts on poverty.
By Peter S. Goodman.
Updated: 6:27 a. M. ET Dec. 8, 2006
NEW YORK - Despite an intensified campaign against poverty, World Bank programs have failed to lift incomes in many poor countries over the past decade, leaving tens of millions of people suffering stagnating or declining living standards, according to a report released Thursday by the bank's autonomous assessment arm.
Among 25 poor countries probed in detail by the bank's Independent Evaluation Group, only 11 experienced reductions in poverty from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, while 14 had the same or worsening rates over that term. The group said the sample was representative of the global picture.
"Achievement of sustained increases in per capita income, essential for poverty reduction, continues to elude a considerable number of countries," the report declared, singling out programs aimed at the rural poor as particularly ineffective. Roughly half of such efforts from 2001 to 2005 "did not lead to satisfactory results." During that period, new World Bank loans and credits aimed directly at rural development totaled $9.6 billion, or about one-tenth of total bank lending, according to the group.
But the study found that growth has rarely been sustained, exposing the most vulnerable people -- the rural poor -- to volatile shifts in their economic fortunes. Per capita income rose continuously from 2000 to 2005 in only two in five of the countries that borrowed from the World Bank, the study reported, and it increased for the full decade, from 1995 to 2005, in only one in five.
Distribution as important as growth.
The study emphasized that economic growth is, by itself, no fix: How the gains are distributed is just as important. In China, Romania, Sri Lanka and many Latin American countries, swiftly expanding economies have improved incomes for many, but the benefits have been limited by a simultaneous increase in economic inequality, putting most of the spoils into the hands of the rich and not enough into poor households, the study concluded.
In Georgia, the bank has helped foster growth by lending in support of the oil industry, but this has created few jobs and had a negligible impact on poverty, the study found. In Brazil, on the other hand, there has been little growth but significant advances against poverty because wealth has been distributed more evenly.
"For a sustained reduction in poverty over a period of time, it really pays to worry about both growth and distribution," said Vinod Thomas, director-general of the Independent Evaluation Group. "It has been a mistaken notion that you can grow first and worry about the distribution later."
Overall, from 1990 to 2002, the percentage of the world's people who subsist on less than $1 per day declined from 28 to 19, according to World Bank research. But officials with the evaluation group noted that much of the advance was registered in CHINA, which has rejected many of the tenets of the development model advocated by the West and barely relied on the largesse of the World Bank.
"If you take out China, the numbers would be unfavorable," Thomas said. "The sheer numbers of people living under the $1-a-day definition of poverty has been stubbornly high." By the bank's reckoning, 1.1 billion people subsisted at that level in 2001.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Badboy
Americans' pocketbooks pinched by euro, pound.
By John Ward Anderson.
Updated: 7:05 a. M. ET Dec. 9, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------
PARIS.
The tanking dollar, which recently hit a 20-month low against the euro and a 14-year low against the British pound, has Americans who live or travel in Europe gulping harder, digging deeper and shelling out painful amounts of money. The $9 soda, the $5 espresso and the $30 taxi ride are commonplace. Dinner for four at a pizza joint for $100 is starting to leave a bad taste in Yankee mouths.
"The poor dollar," moaned George Bernauer, a retired school teacher from the Boston area and regular visitor to Europe, as he headed into the Louvre museum. "Five euros" -- that would be $6.65 -- "for a can of Coke; it's outrageous."
The greenback is taking one of its worst beatings ever in Europe, with high U. S. Trade and budget deficits, low personal savings, the burst of the U. S. Housing bubble and threats of a recession driving down the value of the dollar overseas, particularly in Europe, where economic growth is picking up. On Friday, it took $1.32 to buy one euro, a fall in value of about 13 percent on the year and approaching the record of $1.36 in December 2004. Many analysts think the drubbing is going to get worse. "Our bank is bearish about the currency. In our latest report, we expect the dollar will be at $1.40 against the euro at the end of the first quarter next year," said Philippe d'Arvisenet, chief economist at BNP Paribas in Paris.
Others are much more pessimistic, d'Arvisenet said, with some warning that the dollar's value against the euro could fall as far as $1.90 if Asian governments and developing countries get spooked by continuing declines and decide to sell off their huge dollar reserves. "If they abandon the dollar, it could cause a global recession, and the dollar could go through the floor," d'Arvisenet said. "It would be counterproductive for everyone. So we rule this out. But maybe we're wrong."
The dollar is doing even worse against the pound, down about 15 percent this year. On Friday, it took $1.95 to buy one pound, a 14-year-low that approached the psychological 2-to-1 exchange rate barrier.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Badboy
Canuck9970
12-09-06, 18:56
The cover of The Economist features "The Falling Dollar," with George Washington's jaw dropping. The accompanying editorial expresses so much concern about the dollar reaching "a 20-month low of $1.32 against the euro" -- noting, with alarm, that this was close to "the record low of $1.36" that lasted four days in December 2004. The Economist and others were equally agitated about the dollar back then. Yet here we are two years later, and the euro is not even as high as it was then, and nothing bad has happened to the economies of the United States or Europe.
The editorial's focus on the euro could make sense only to Europeans. The U. S. Dollar has risen against the Canadian dollar and not weakened against the Japanese yen, much less against the currencies of such key trading partners as China, India and Mexico. The Federal Reserve's broad trade-weighted index of the dollar (with 1997 equal to 100) has fluctuated narrowly between 107.5 and 108.8 for the past seven months -- about where it was (108.8) in December 2004, when the euro last peaked (before dropping to $1.19 this March) It would be more accurate to say the euro has been rising for the past seven months than to say the dollar has been falling.
Now factor in several other key elements that the Europeans and most others with economy-envy neglect to include such as:
1) interest rates are rising in Europe.
2) unemployment is high in Europe.
3) inflation is higher in Europe.
4) the American economy has continuously outgrown that of Europe.
5) the economy of the United States represents 25% of all goods and service transactions in the world yet the combined economies of all the EU countries is only slightly larger.
So the question that begs to be asked is why a rational person would even suggest that a country with relatively low interest rates, no increase in costs on goods that they are purchasing from their largest trading partners and low inflationary pressure, would be close to a recession.
On the other hand, if I was employed in Europe I would very quickly begin to contribute to my savings account as their largest competitor in goods and services currently enjoys one hell of a competitive advantage thanks to a low dollar.
So the question that begs to be asked is why a rational person would even suggest that a country with relatively low interest rates would be close to a recession. Good points overall but this last statement reaks of, as Grandpa be would say, propaganda.
"Appeal to Prejudice: Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition. "A reasonable person would agree that our income tax is too low. "
Well the point IS many very rational and reasonable people in and out of the US DO believe this. The question then isn't why, because I am sure they have their reasons just as you have stated yours. The point is you have more belief in your reasoning than in theirs but in the end no one knows. We can debate endlessly what the future will bring. But the truth is no one knows. I know first hand that the dollar is turrning into shit over in Europe, and as a US citizen that has lived and invested in Europe, that does matter to me.
Badboy
Dec. 7th 2006 | NEW YORK.
From The Economist print edition.
With few places left to turn, investors have pinned their hopes on the stockmarket.
ROCKY is returning to American cinemas this Christmas. And the financial markets increasingly resemble Sylvester Stallone's ageing pugilist: they may get knocked about a bit, but they always seem to bounce back.
In recent weeks disappointing economic data have pointed to the possibility of an American recession in 2007. The dollar has weakened sharply, raising the spectre of the complete collapse that bears have been predicting for years. And on December 4th Pfizer, the pharmaceuticals giant, saw its share price plunge after yet another drug failed the testing process (see article)
But the stockmarket has rolled with the punches. And other asset classes have been similarly buoyant. The spreads (extra yields) on corporate bonds and emerging-market debt are low by historical standards; commercial-property valuations in America and Britain are high.
The general explanation for this bullishness is that the world is flush with liquidity. But liquidity is one of those catchall phrases that is not as good as it sounds—a bit like saying "there are more buyers than sellers", which is itself a cliché of dubious merit (for every buyer who makes a trade, there must be a seller)
As for the dollar, the reason to worry would be if a falling currency prompted foreign investors to demand higher yields on American Treasury bonds to compensate them for the risk. That might really push America into recession. But it is not happening so far; yields have been falling.
All this adds up to what Jim Cramer, the hyperactive pundit of American financial television, describes as "one of the best markets I've ever seen." Bulls are talking about double-digit stockmarket returns in 2007, thanks to a combination of stockmarket rerating (higher price-earnings multiple) and growing profits.
So what might spoil the party? One problem, as the producers of the Rocky series know only too well, is that sequels are subject to the laws of diminishing returns. Once bond spreads and property yields are low, there is no longer much scope for further capital gains.
That is why investors' hopes are pinned on the stockmarket in 2007; share valuations are only at historically average levels. But company profits are at a 40-year high as a share of American GDP. If profits were about to revert to the mean, share multiples should fall below average.
The bulls do not think that will happen soon. But whereas one more year of above-average profits growth is possible, three or four more are hard to imagine.
Clearly, the use of borrowed money to enhance returns (often referred to as the "carry trade") means that the markets are vulnerable to a change in sentiment. When the trend changes, as it did in May, there will be a mad rush for the exits. As Bill Gross of Pimco, a bond giant, writes: "I have a strong sense that the ability to lever any or all asset returns via increasing leverage is reaching a climax."
Timing, however, is notoriously difficult. Bears can point to low share volatility, as measured by the Chicago Board Options Exchange's VIX gauge, as a sign of investor complacency. But it may merely be that investors have seen no need to incur the costs of insuring their portfolios against loss.
The markets will thus need some sort of shove to push them off today's course. Higher unemployment would be one possibility: it might turn the housing-market correction into a rout. If the nuclear dispute with Iran were to escalate so that, say, the straits of Hormuz were blocked and crude jumped to $100 a barrel, investor confidence would take a hit.
But predicting such events is more in the realms of astrology than financial punditry. Sceptical fund managers have been forced into a position of being "fully invested and scared as hell." The knockout blow will undoubtedly come (probably in the credit markets) But just like the Rocky franchise, bull runs on financial markets have a habit of going on much longer than most people expect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like this last phrase. I guess we all want to pretend to be know it all Nostradamus'. The difference is, some try to convince or persuade others and some only post the information as they find it and let others decide for themselves the merits of each argument, and that is all they are, arguments for and against different positions.
Badboy
Dec. 7th 2006
From The Economist print edition.
America should worry more about fixed exchange rates in the Gulf than the gently rising Chinese yuan.
AMERICAN politicians and businessmen view China's undervalued exchange rate and its huge current-account surplus as the main cause of America's vast deficit. Thus next week a high-powered delegation led by Henry Paulson, America's treasury secretary, will fly to Beijing to persuade China to take measures to reduce its surplus. But are they heading to the right place? At the global level, the biggest counterpart to America's deficit is the combined surpluses of the oil-exporting emerging economies. They are expected to run a total current-account surplus of some $500 billion this year, dwarfing China's likely surplus of $200 billion (see chart)
Counting only the Middle East oil exporters, the surplus has surged from $30 billion in 2002 to an estimated $280 billion this year. One reason why this gets much less attention than the smaller $160 billion increase in China is that only a fraction of it has gone into official reserves, which are publicly reported. Most of it is stashed in government oil-stabilisation or investment funds, such as the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, which are much more secretive than the People's Bank of China—but which probably hold just as many dollar assets.
One big difference is that China is now allowing the yuan to rise against the dollar. The exchange rate is up by an annual rate of almost 7% since September. In contrast, the six members of the Gulf Co-operation Council, or GCC (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar) which account for virtually all of the Middle East's surplus, still peg their currencies firmly to the dollar. This is partly in preparation for the GCC's plan to adopt a single currency by 2010. But the bizarre result is that over the past four years of soaring oil prices, their real trade-weighted exchange rates have fallen.
The Gulf economies are running an average current-account surplus of 30% of their GDP, well in excess of China's surplus of 8%. Oil exporters cannot spend their windfall overnight and it makes sense for them to run a surplus when oil prices rise, as a buffer for when oil prices fall. Even so, one can have too much of a good thing.
It might be best for the Gulf states as well as the world economy if they abandoned their dollar pegs and shifted to some sort of currency basket. A more flexible exchange-rate regime would allow them to regain control of their monetary policies and so cool down their overheating economies. By pegging their exchange rates to the dollar, they have had to adopt America's monetary policy, leaving real interest rates too low (often negative) for such fast-growing economies. Credit is growing too rapidly, inflation is rising and the prices of assets, especially property in places such as Dubai, have exploded.
Official price indices almost certainly understate inflation. According to government figures, prices are rising in the UAE at an annual rate of 7% , but independent estimates put it at 15%. The dollar's slide against other major currencies is pushing up the price of imported goods. Only 10% of the GCC's imports come from America (compared with one-third each from Europe and Asia) so from a trade-weighted point of view, the dollar peg makes no sense.
In theory, a higher oil price should imply a rise in oil exporters' real exchange rates; and it is better if this occurs through a rise in the nominal rate rather than higher inflation. The main argument against allowing the exchange rate to rise is that it would harm the competitiveness of the non-oil sector in economies that need to diversify. However, pegging to the dollar has not always been a boon to the economies as a whole. When the dollar strengthened in the late 1990s, non-oil industries were squeezed at the same time that the price of crude was sliding. This is another reason why pegging to a trade-weighted basket would make much more sense.
Oiling the world's wheels.
Brad Setser, an economist at Roubini Global Economics, a research firm, argues that the dollar pegs of the Gulf states are also preventing some necessary rebalancing in the world economy. The recent depreciation of their trade-weighted currencies has raised the price of foreign goods and thus may be one reason why the increase in their imports has been unusually weak relative to the increase in exports. If, as seems likely, the dollar continues to fall, it will further drag down their currencies and thus keep external imbalances large.
A fully floating exchange rate would lead to too much volatility, but a bit more flexibility could usefully help oil exporters to adjust to fluctuations in oil prices. A trade-weighted basket, in which the euro had a large weight, would help to stabilise the real exchange rate of the GCC countries and so protect their competitiveness. It still would not ensure that oil exporters' currencies moved correctly in line with the oil price, however.
Some economists have therefore suggested that oil exporters should link their currencies in some way to the oil price. Currencies would rise when oil prices are high and fall when prices were weak. This would help to boost countries' external purchasing power and hence their imports when oil prices boom. It would also help to smooth the local currency value of oil revenues and hence government income, helping to avoid big deficits in bad times and huge surpluses in good times.
Oil exporters argue that they peg to the dollar because oil is priced in dollars and they want to avoid exchange-rate risk. But exchange-rate stability does not guarantee economic stability. On the contrary, a more flexible currency would allow economies to manage oil-price shocks better.
However, a rise in petro-currencies would not be a cure by itself for America's deficit (nor, for that matter, is a dearer Chinese yuan) The main solution to global rebalancing is for America to save more and for surplus countries, including both the oil exporters and China, to spend more. A rise in oil exporters' currencies could play a part in that.
Indeed the dollar is putrid here and when you add on a bumped up exchange rate at most places, commissions and prices, well, you get the picture. BA it ís not.
N. Y. High Court Says Mistaken Avowal of Fatherhood Imposes an 'Equitable Paternity'
"With this decision, this Court supports a public policy that says a man should never take on a parental role unless he wants to be unconditionally responsible for the child's financial support," Judge Bundy Smith wrote.
Here's a link to this issue:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1152534921526
I have heard many times this past year about this new guy Barak Obama, I heard him speak once and the guy has some charisma. The question is, Is he electable and would you vote for him ? I have heard many arguments for and against, some people say the Republicans have been so disgraced during Bushes last term in office, what with all the Republican homosexual scandals and Iraq, and corruption numbers increasing and what not, that they are going into the 2008 elections with a handicap, the question is, will the person chosen by the Democrats be electable. In other words , it is the Democrats election to lose.
What do you guys think ?
The arguments for Obama is that he is new to the scene, and so people think he will bring change to a corrupt system and maybe bring new ideas.
The arguments against him are, he is too young, he lacks political credentials, only being in the senate for two years. I have also heard the same thing over and over again, is the U.S.A ready to elect an African American for Prez? I have heard similair things regarding Hillary, is the U.S ready to elect a woman? Although I am no Democrat, if Barak gets nominated, I will vote for him. I don't see to many other options on the table for Dems or Independents. Hillary, I would not vote for. She isn't liked at all by Republicans, so she won't bring any votes to her from disillusioned Rep's and alot of her rhetoric is very Republican sounding and that might cause many Dems to not show up at the polls. It's a tough one this year and most in the country agree, we need a change, but the question is who will lead that change and more importantly, who will the electorate choose to lead them in this time of change ?
Badboy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Yourk Times.
By ADAM NAGOURNEY.
Published: December 10, 2006
AFTER a 217-year march of major presidential nominees who were, without exception, white and male, the 2008 campaign may offer voters a novel choice.
POSSIBILITIES Some political analysts say they think the country may accept a woman as president. But they are less sure about an African-American, even one as popular as Barack Obama.
But as Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois whose father is from Kenya, spends this weekend exploring a presidential bid in New Hampshire, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first woman to represent New York in the Senate, calls potential supporters in Iowa, the question remains: are Americans prepared to elect an African-American or a woman as president?
Or, to look at it from the view of Democrats hungry for victory in 2008, is the nation more likely to vote for a woman or an African-American for president?
Without question, women and blacks have made significant progress in winning office. The new Congress will include 71 women — one of whom will be the first female speaker of the House — compared with 25 when Representative Geraldine Ferraro, a Queens Democrat, became the first woman to run as a major-party vice presidential candidate in 1984. There will be 43 blacks in the new Congress, compared with 13 when the Congressional Black Caucus was formed in 1969. A Gallup Poll in September showed a steady rise in the number of people who expect the nation to elect a woman or an African-American as president one day: Americans, it seems, are much more open to these choices than, say, someone who is an atheist or who is gay.
Times are indeed changing. But how much?
Over the past of the past eight years, in the view of analysts from both parties, the country has shifted markedly on the issue of gender, to the point where they say voters could very well be open to electing a woman in 2008. That is reflected, they say, in polling data and in the continued success of women running for office, in red and blue states alike. "The country is ready," said Senator Elizabeth Dole, the North Carolina Republican, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2000. "I'm not saying it's going to happen in '08. But the country is ready."
By contrast, for all the excitement stirred by Mr. Obama, it is much less certain that an African-American could win a presidential election. Not as many blacks have been elected to prominent positions as women. Some high-profile black candidates — Harold Ford Jr. A Democrat running for the Senate in Tennessee, and Michael Steele, a Republican Senate candidate in Maryland — lost in November. And demographics might be an obstacle as well: black Americans are concentrated in about 25 states — typically blue ones, like New York and California. While black candidates cannot assume automatic support from black voters, they would at least provide a base. In states without big black populations, the candidate's crossover appeal must be huge.
Many analysts suggested that changing voter attitudes can best be measured in choices for governors, since they, like presidents, are judged as chief executives, rather than legislators. There will be one black governor next year — Deval L. Patrick in Massachusetts, the second in the nation since Reconstruction.
By contrast, women will be governors of nine states, including Washington, Arizona and Michigan, all potential battleground states in 2008, a fact that is no doubt viewed favorably by advisers to Mrs. Clinton.
"Of course, governors don't have to handle national security. And Mrs. Clinton has used her six years in the Senate to try to counter the stereotype that women would not be as strong on the issue, especially with the nation at war. Mrs. Clinton won a seat on the Armed Services Committee, and was an early supporter of the war in Iraq.
Mr. Obama is in many ways an unusual African-American politician, and that is why many Democrats, and Republicans, view him as so viable.
Mr. Obama is a member of a post-civil-rights generation of black politicians and is not identified with leaders like Mr. Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, who are polarizing to many white voters. He has a warm and commanding campaign presence that, as he showed in Illinois, cut across color lines.
Donna Brazile, a prominent Democratic strategist who is black, said that she had been deluged with e-mail messages from people looking to volunteer for Mr. Obama — and that most of the requests were from white voters.
Moreover, there is abundant evidence that attitudes toward black candidates are changing among white voters. In Tennessee, Mr. Ford lost his bid to become the state's first black senator since Reconstruction, but by only three percentage points.
Surveys of voters leaving the polls showed that 40 percent of white voters supported Mr. Ford, compared with 95 percent of black voters. More intriguing, the final result was the same as what the exit polls had suggested. Before this, in many races involving black candidates, the polls predicted that they would do better than they actually did — presumably because voters were reluctant to tell questioners they did not support the African-American.
Race and gender are big issues in American politics, but they are not the only ones, particularly in the coming race. Mr. Obama, should he run, may find his lack of experience will be far more troublesome to voters than his color. He is 45 and serving his first term as senator.
Mr. Obama said that many black voters he spoke with have serious questions about whether America is ready to elect an African-American president.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badboy
Personally, I like the guy and think he can bring some new energy. Regarding his lack of experience. Bush was a only a governor (only 4 years in a political office I believe) with zero foreign affairs experience (as is so apparent now) and with little fiscal experience given that in Texas the legislature is much more powerful than in most states (like California)
I would say he is nearly so or at least as experienced as Bush was in 2000.
However, this is the United States and it will be at least a decade before a woman is ever elected president and probably 20-30 years before a minority (especially an African-American) well get elected. India or Pakistan this country ain't (for those that do not know both those countries elected women as their leaders over a decade ago)
While this country claims to provide the most opportunities there is definitely a glass ceiling for women and minorities regarding becoming president.
And the two front runners in the Demo party are a woman (and a Clinton) and an African-American. While I respect both and will (possibly) vote for either, they have no chance. Thus, in 2008 a republican will be in the White House again.
I hope I am wrong.
IMO.
Suerte.
Stowe
Bush was a only a governor (only 4 years in a political office I believe) with zero foreign affairs experience (as is so apparent now) and with little fiscal experience given that in Texas the legislature is much more powerful than in most states (like California)
I would say he is nearly so or at least as experienced as Bush was in 2000.And how's that "no experience" guy working out so far?
Not looking to be a GW Bush apologist here - as I have plenty of axes to grind with him, but which of the previous 42 US presidents had 3000 of his citizens (civilians) murdered on US soil?
How much foreign policy experience did a former governor of California have? "Mr. Gorbachev, tear this wall down", "Evil Empire". Success or failure - you decide.
The Democratic Party has a "death-wish" regarding Presidential candidates; evidence 2000 & 2004. They picked the only 2 people in the entire country who could not beat George W. Bush. Will they repeat in 2008: Probably, but considering what they did to Joe Lieberman this year - they deserve to lose, if they do (the same as the Republicans deserved to lose decisively this year)
Goodbye, John McCain. Hello Obama!
Hillary and the Clintonistas are going to cut him off at the knees. If he plays nice he might get a VP nomination. If not - well, remember Vince Foster?
It doesn't matter anyway. President Rudy Giuliani is going to be inaugurated on January 20, 2009. I say this because I percieve that people want a strong, competent leader who can effectively crush America's enemies. Of all the potential candidates, nobody comes close to Giuliani in this regard.
Goodbye, John McCain. Hello Obama!
President Rudy Giuliani is going to be inaugurated on January 20, 2009. I say this because I percieve that people want a strong, competent leader who can effectively crush America's enemies. Of all the potential candidates, nobody comes close to Giuliani in this regard.Great, thanks Hunt, I am going to have nightmares now. I think you are probably right though, if the Dems don't get their shit together, they are going to lose this election. And I fear, you are correct about Giuliani, he seems to be the most popular scandal free choice in the Rupublican camp, but he isn't as squeeky clean as Barak, I believe Giuliani had an extra marital affair with one of his co workers or something, he is also a Roman Catholic and is Pro Choice, so all that evangelical christian support that supported Bush in his election won't back Giuliani. I would hate for that guy to win, he is a total attention ***** and whats worse, I don't think he is any good, he has only been a mayor and he doesn't know the first thing about diplomacy, I believe his foreign policy would be very similair to Bush's and he will also too closely tow the Isreali line.
With all that said, Hunt is probably right, if the Dems don't get their shit together and either pick what they would consider a more electable candidate or get solidly behind Barak. Still wondering what people really think about this guys electability.
Badboy
You can't be serious, BB13. If the Democrats really have a death wish, they'll nominate this guy. He's an empty suit. Can you name one single real accomplishment the guy has ever achieved? Even one? Me either. If he's the nominee he'll get 40% of the vote and the GOP will carry 49 states like they did in 1984.
Hillary actually stands a chance of being elected. Not a great chance in my judgment, but a chance. And her only significant accomplishment is being married to the right guy.
There are some substantial Democrats who could be much better candidates than either of these two. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, for example. But they won't get the nomination. Hillary will.
And as for Giuliani, you are right, there are people who say he won't get the Republican base vote. But I disagree with this assessment for one very important reason: 9/11. The guy proved that he has balls of steel - earning the kind of respect which causes people who might not agree with him on everything to want to vote for him.
You can't be serious, BB13. If the Democrats really have a death wish, they'll nominate this guy. He's an empty suit. Can you name one single real accomplishment the guy has ever achieved? Even one? Me either. If he's the nominee he'll get 40% of the vote and the GOP will carry 49 states like they did in 1984.
Hillary actually stands a chance of being elected. Not a great chance in my judgment, but a chance. And her only significant accomplishment is being married to the right guy.
And as for Giuliani, you are right, there are people who say he won't get the Republican base vote. But I disagree with this assessment for one very important reason: 9/11. The guy proved that he has balls of steel - earning the kind of respect which causes people who might not agree with him on everything to want to vote for him.Well I think you are right about Barak not having international experience and also having very little experience in domestic politics, and that is what I said was one of the arguments against him. Do I think he has a chance of winning? Maybe. As far as Hillary goes, if she gets nominated the Dems will lose for sure. Dennis Kucinich would get my vote, and before you start the anti-Dennis tirade. I understand he is very progressive and it will be hard for him to win the nomination, but alot of people in the US agree with his politics. He is another good candidate, and remember Hunt, Bush didn't win (even though that is debatable) because he was conservative or liberal, he won because he was radical and he energized his base with all his crazy talk. The Dems need to stop acting like wanabee republican douche bags, they need to stop all this bi-partisan bullshit. That won't energize the base that voted the Republicans out of House and Senate. I agree though, the Democrats don't yet have a strong candidate, we will see, there is still time to maybe find someone better, and then, Barak might get the VP token spot.
As far as Rudy is concerned, I still don't get what that motherfucker did during 9/11 that was so awe inspiring, he showed some spine? Aren't all leaders supposed to show some spine? And didn't they? Giuliani took alot of credit for bringing the city together but the truth is the tragedy brought the people together. That motherfucker was just a camera whoore. His foriegn policy reaks, let's just elect Ehut Olmert, it would be the same thing. Middle East WWIII anyone? And you have a good point, if the Republicans get their way, they will frame the issues in a way that will glorify Giuliani because of 9/11, although the truth is he and the government fucked up. The only hope I have is that the Dems understand how to frame the issues to favor them and not to play into the Republicans hands. If they frame the issues around the current Deficit, current foreign policy nightmares, Current war in Iraq, possible war with Iran (even though I am seriously doubting we have the money or manpower for that) complete non conservative federal spending, the fact that 7 years on the Taliban is still going strong in Afghanistan and their " democratic " government that was US installed is little more than a small city-state feifdom, Osama is still calling shots from his mountain hideout, what ever happened to dead or alive? The Dems have the fire power, the only question is, will they use it apropriately and will they choose the correct daring duo to maximize their advantages and capitalise on the Republican fuck-ups. Or will the choose the wrong people and allow the Republicans to frame the issues to their advantage.
I usually don't vote Democrat, but if they have a person I can believe in then I would vote for them.
Badboy
Something's not jibing in your comments, BB. First you say that you love Obama, and in the next breath you say the Democrats have to stop being wannabe-Republican douchebags.
As I assess Mr. Obama, there are three things that highlight his media-driven boomlet of popularity.
One, he's not Hillary Clinton. Everybody loves a horserace, nobody likes a coronation except the Queen-to-Be.
Two, he's black. Actually he's half-Irish, half-Kenyan, and not really a "black American" but it's the media who's doing the cheerleading here, and they're definitely whiter than white, so they can't tell the difference.
Three, his rhetoric is just the opposite of the Hate Bush / Let's Kill All Republicans stuff that the MoveOn.org crowd loves (more on this in a moment)
I think the country's swing voters are not happy with the partisan divisions that have been in evidence in 2000-06. A "centrist" Democrat who explicitly appeals to Republican voters and campaigns on some conservative issues (a la Bill Clinton 1992-96) has a better chance of election than a Left-Wing fire breather.
A perfect example is Jim Webb, a Democrat who won the Senate seat in very conservative Virginia running on just such a platform. In fact, I think this is Hillary's strategy too, but she brings a lot of baggage with her in presenting this message, and she has alienated her party's core voters over her support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Obama, for all his Mister Smooth rhetoric, is closer to the MoveOn.org base of the Democrats than Hillary is. They're going to coalesce around a left-wing candidate not named Clinton, the way they did in 2004 behind Howard Dean. But like Democrats did with Mr. Dean, the primary voters will realize such a candidate is not electable and move to the "electable" alternative.
About Giuliani and Israel - again, outside the left-wing base of the Democrats, most Americans support Israel very strongly, instinctively knowing that a friendly democratic state is worth supporting against the hateful thugs and killers that surround them.
Two years from now the same bunch of thugs and killers will still want to murder every American and every Jew they can get their hands on. A strong candidate committed to competently crushing them will attract wide support among the American electorate. While supporting Afghanistan and Iraq may hurt Hillary's chances at the Democrat nomination, it will be a net plus after she wins the nomination. And frankly, the Republicans will compete amongst themselves in producing a candidate that promises to kill even more Muslim terrorists than his opponents.
Something's not jibing in your comments, BB. First you say that you love Obama, and in the next breath you say the Democrats have to stop being wannabe-Republican douchebags.
A perfect example is Jim Webb, a Democrat who won the Senate seat in very conservative Virginia running on just such a platform. In fact, I think this is Hillary's strategy too, but she brings a lot of baggage with her in presenting this message, and she has alienated her party's core voters over her support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.First off Hunt, you are starting to believe your own spin I think, please, with all due respect, reference the quote where I profess my love for any democratic candidate. I was actually pretty un-biased in my assesment of his pros and cons and said if he was nominated I would vote for him. That is all. Maybe that is what isn't " jibing " the memory, recollection, or comprehension was flawed to begin with. I don't love any Democratic candidates, I personally think they are the same as republicans, some are better than others. And there are some I would vote for. Fsio.
As far as your assesment regarding a " centrist " cadidate, the first question is would YOU vote for him? No I don't think so, the second question will be, with all the mud slinging the Carl Rove Republicans are known for, will a " castrated " umm I mean " centrist " Democrat have the will to use the firepower at his or her disposal? No, they will allow the Republicans to frame the issues to their own advantage. I think the Dems learned their lesson, they could have chosen Dean in 2004, but they went with the boring centrist who didn't start growing political balls until the end of the election, when it was too late. Wans't it the military comanders in Iraq that said it best, Go Hard, Go Long, or Go Home. And I agree. In a different context, the Dems can't GO LONG, they can either GO HOME, and let the Reps win or Go BIG, energize their own base, use their political ammo and mop the floor with whats left of the Republicans.
I personally don't think that will happen. I think the the candidate with the most money will win the democratic nomination (I. E Hillary) I think she will try too hard to emulate the Republicans in regards to foreign policy. I think she will lose. But maybe I am way off, maybe a good centrist will get all those Dems off the couch and maybe bring some disenchanted Republicans with them, doubt it, but maybe.
Badboy
Ok I just got the part about Isreal, first off man, to call Isreal " friendly ", they are about as friendly as my cousins ball biting pit bull. And that is the point we need an independent foreign policy not one that is based around one small country of 2 million people, with a history of agression and terrorism of it's own, Hunt , I understand your political views , but do you and have you studied the history of Isreal ? Do you know the meaning of the Stern Gang ? The King David Hotel Bombing ? Shebron and Shaetila Massacre ? They are anything but friendly, to say they are ultra nationalists would be a better assesment, When was the last time you were in Isreal ? It is a police state, and they are also practicing a certain level of aparteid within their own borders. But enough about that " friendly " regime. And lets get one thing straight, I don't think the Palestinians are a bunch of innocent nancy boys either, but I wouldn't call either of them friendly. Thats for sure.
The point isn't just Isreal ( and note I make a clear distinction between jews and the Isreali government policies ), the point is whatever person we elect to be president won't be someone that will follow isreali foreign policy, it must be someon who can dictate isreali foreign policy, we can't have a follower but a leader. And I can't seriously think that the person we elect will be the one who promises to kill more muslims, I mean do you agree with that kind of foreign policy ? Then my statements regarding growing american fascism have been correct.
As far as your assesment regarding a " centrist " cadidate, the first question is would YOU vote for him? No I don't think so, the second question will be, with all the mud slinging the Carl Rove Republicans are known for, will a " castrated " umm I mean " centrist " Democrat have the will to use the firepower at his or her disposal? Me? Wrong person to ask. I'm a Republican base voter, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-war, and anti-tax voter. I've never voted for a Democrat. Not that I would never vote for one, but it would have to be a race like Lincoln Chaffee versus Jim Webb before I would vote D. But I do know Bush voters who voted Democrat for Congress in 2006, for example. And they didn't do it because the Democrat was running a left-wing campaign.
But truthfully, I'm trying to frame this in a neutral way, not in terms of my own preferences. Ideologically I'd probably like to see one of two GOP governors - Mike Huckabee of Arkansas or Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota win the GOP nomination, but I know they can't win (Pawlenty will be the VP nominee, I bet) so I wouldn't support them for the nomination.
Go BIG, energize their own base, use their political ammo and mop the floor with whats left of the Republicans.That's the way to lose, I think. There's an interesting book I just finished, called "The Way to Win" by Mark Halperin. He's a Washington rarity, an honest Main Stream Media political reporter. His book is largely a comparison between what he terms "Bush Politics" and "Clinton Politics." Not in ideology, but in methodology. Your strategy is definitely "Bush Politics" personified.
Thanks for at least answering that honestly Hunt. It also sounds like you ultra rights aren't that different from most Independents I know, most like myself are pro life, pro gun, anti tax (but also anti frivolous government spending) It seems the main bone of contention between us is you are pro war and I most definitely am not.
I think the main problem with those that love war, is first they don't understand just what it is like to live in a war torn country, to have your family live in a war zone. Once you have experienced that, it will be alot harder to vote for a war that will destroy families and kill children. There are always better options. And second of all, war breed hate, no matter how many people we kill, all that will do is breed more hate filled americans and more hate filled anti americans. You see, if you say, I want to kill all the hate filled anti americans, you are just like them, because they are just like you, sitting around somewhere saying they want to kill all the anti muslims or anti whatever.
But whatever, I agree my politics have been influenced by Bush n Co, it seems the US is more influenced by radical statements much more than measured politically responsible ones. Clinton or someone very similair to him sans the intern addiction, would be the almost perfect candidate. But their is no one out their like him.
Badboy
This war was forced on America on September 11, 2001. We didn't have a choice. I'm "pro-war" because we can either win, or surrender. Your analysis omits this fundamental point.
This war was forced on America on September 11, 2001. We didn't have a choice.First of all, what war was forced on us on 9/11? If you mean Afghanistan, an argument could definitely be made in your favor, though if you outline the main goals of that war, you will see that none of the objectives were accomplished other than sating US bloodlust, however justified. Osama? Still out there, still running things, Mullah Omar? Also still out their and still publishing monthly religious edicts. Zawahiri? Still out their, still doing all the idioligical theory. The Taliban? Still out their, and slowly gaining power, they have 10 times more money now that heroin is flowing freely from the afghani border.
If you mean Iraq, you are 100% wrong, just about everyone even Kissinger admits that, even he said if he knew then what we know now, he would have never gone into Iraq, and that we can no longer win militarily, he said very clearly that there were much better ways to deal with Iraq. Not my words but his. Iraq was a royal fuck-up, just about everyone in the world agrees with that one, and the Iraqis are paying for it.
Again if you meant the war against the Taliban, you have a point, even I thought that something needed to be done, looking back, we handled things in a way that guaranteed we would not attain our objectives, but I guess it was just the wisdom of a youthful nation. Guns won't solve our problems, for such a civilized nation, it seems we always resort to the most medieval methods of resolving our conflicts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To solve dificult problems we need to think creatively and never close ourselves off.
Badboy
New bill for blind Texas hunters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunting is hugely popular in Texas.
Blind hunters would be able to use laser-sighted rifles to hunt animals in Texas, if a bill introduced in the state's legislature is successful. Republican Edmund Kuempel proposed an amendment to existing law that would permit "legally blind" people to use a laser-sighting device when hunting.
Current Texas law prohibits the use of laser sights, spotlights and headlights for hunting purposes. A sighted person would be legally required to accompany the blind hunter. "This opens up the fun of hunting to additional people, and I think that's great," said Mr Kuempel.
Sighted guide.
Blind hunters are not a new phenomenon in Texas. Under current procedures, a sighted guide can assist a visually-impaired hunter by peering over the hunter's shoulders and advising where to aim the gun and when to pull the trigger. However, hunters say that without a laser pointer it is difficult to time the shot. Laser sights, spotlights and headlights are banned in hunting in Texas, because they can make the animals freeze in their tracks. If the bill is passed in when the state legislature reconvenes in January, it will probably not become law until 2008. Mr Kuempel's bill would give the state until 1 January 2008, to come up with a definition of legally blind so the law could be enforced.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am all ProGun, but could we limit that right to motherfuckers who can see ?
Badboy
While I agree that, unfortunately, the Repubs will probably hold the WH. Guiliani will have trouble with the base because he is pro-choice, gun control, separation of church and state and at least 1 other thing the right wing extremists cannot support.
The only way he will get the nomination is if the Repubs begin to ignore their extreme base.
I do not support either party controlling the WH and both houses of Congress. That just invites corruption and arrogance so if the Dems keep the House and Senate and the Repubs keep the WH. I am cool with that.
BTY- correction to an earlier post. Pakistan did not have a woman president. I though Benazir Bhutto was president back in the 90's but she was the prime minister. Forgive my error.
Suerte.
Stowe
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WJsuM19-8c
Let's see that ***** try to pull this off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Virginia lawmaker criticized for writing an "Islamophobic" letter to his constituents would be wise to learn more about Islam, the first Muslim elected to Congress said Thursday.
Minnesota Rep.-elect Keith Ellison told CNN that he is not angry about a letter Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode wrote that said Ellison should not be allowed to place his hand on the Quran during his unofficial swearing in ceremony. "I think the diversity of our country is a great strength," Ellison told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "It's a good thing that we have people from all faiths and all cultures to come here." (Watch Ellison play down Quran flap) Goode wrote that to "preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States," an immigration overhaul was necessary to avoid "many more Muslims elected to office demanding the use of the Quran."
Defending his statements Thursday, Goode, a Republican, told Fox News he wants to limit legal immigration. He also said he wants to do away with "diversity visas," which he said allowed people into America "not from European countries" and "some terrorist states." Ellison responded to Goode's sentiments by saying that he would like to meet with Goode to talk about Islam and find some "common ground." "We all support one Constitution, one Constitution that upholds our right to equal protection, one Constitution that guarantees us due process under the law, one Constitution which says there is no religious test for elective office in America," Ellison said.
Blitzer asked the new lawmaker-elect directly if thought Goode is a "bigot." "I don't know the fellow and I'd rather just say he has a lot to learn about Islam," Ellison said.
In his letter, Goode wrote that strict immigration polices are necessary "to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America." "The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran," he wrote.
Virginia's senior senator, Republican John Warner, said in a statement Thursday that he respects the right of congressional members to freely "exercise the religion of their choice, including those of the Islamic faith utilizing the Quran."
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat who is Jewish, said Thursday that he hoped Goode would meet with Ellison. Emanuel said he would "see what I saw: a good American with good values of a different faith who's trying to do right by the people he represents."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jewish congresswoman Shultz used the Jewish holy book for her swearing in and it seems no one had a problem with that, what gives? Is it really becoming acceptable in the US to be a racist just as long as it is socially acceptable racism?
Badboy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday on Fox News, talk radio host Mike Gallagher said the U. S. Government should "round up" actor Matt Damon, "The View" host Joy Behar, and MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann and "put them in a detention camp until this war is over because they're a bunch of traitors."
Gallagher was upset over Behar's comment that Time magazine should have chosen a controversial "Hitler-type" like Donald Rumsfeld as its Person of the Year. Gallagher said Damon should also be incarcerated because he "attacked George Bush and Dick Cheney"; he didn't explain why he wanted to imprison Olbermann. Watch it:
GALLAGHER: You know, it's a little bit ridiculous that we continue to watch these TV stars and movie stars who smear our leaders. I just wonder, Rob, if you'll think for a moment what our enemies think of seeing TV personalities compare the outgoing defense secretary to Adolph Hitler. I mean, you know, conservatives never get a pass. Strom Thurmond is wished a happy birthday by Trent Lott and the sky falls in on Trent Lott. But Joy Behar goes on national TV and compares a good man like Rumsfeld to the evilest man in the world and nobody, you know, there's no repercussions for Joy Behar. I think we should round up all of these folks. Round up Joy Behar. Round up Matt Damon, who last night on MSNBC attacked George Bush and Dick Cheney. Round up Olbermann. Take the whole bunch of them and put them in a detention camp until this war is over because they're a bunch of traitors.
THOMPSON: They're not traitors, they're Americans. And you know what the great thing about America is you get to say what you like and you don't get thrown into detention camps.
GALLAGHER: No, you don't.
THOMPSON: And that's what the rest of the world sees. They see free Americans say what they like without having any fear of going to jail. So, if I wanted to compare someone to Hitler or anybody else, Pol Pot, whatever it might be, I have no fear of going to jail because that is what an America is.
GALLAGHER: There's such a thing as treason, Rob.
THOMPSON: That's not treason. That's just political talk and satire and it might be funny at the best, at the least.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/20/gallagher-damon-olbermann/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Horse
12-24-06, 19:31
Hillary is a Mother all right. A Mother*&^% ing *$#@
Thomaso276
12-24-06, 23:53
I have had women bosses in my career! Mostly idiots who can't make decisions but sure can Monday Morning Quaterback.
What a fucking disaster for the country if this know-it-all gets in.
Of course, Christina will be running things down here in a couple of years as well.
End of the neo-con dream.
By Paul Reynolds.
World Affairs correspondent.
The neo-conservative dream faded in 2006.
Iraq was meant to be the showcase for a New American Century. The ambitions proclaimed when the neo-cons' mission statement "The Project for the New American Century" was declared in 1997 have turned into disappointment and recriminations as the crisis in Iraq has grown. "The Project for the New American Century" has been reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website. A single employee has been left to wrap things up. The idea of the "Project" was to project American power and influence around the world. The 1997 statement (written during the administration of President Bill Clinton) said:
"We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities." Among the signatories were many of the senior officials who would later determine policy under President George W Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams and Lewis Libby - as well as thinkers including Francis Fukuyama, Norman Podheretz and Frank Gaffney.
The neo-conservatives were called that because they sought to re-establish what they felt were true conservative values in the Republican Party and the United States. They wanted to stop what they felt were the isolationist tendencies that had developed under President Clinton, and even under the pragmatic President George Bush senior.
They saw the war in Iraq as their big chance of showing how the "New American Century" might work. They predicted the development of democratic values in a region lacking in them and, in that way, the removal of any threat to the United States just as the democratisation of Germany and Japan after World War II had transformed Europe and the Pacific. "Neo-conservatism has gone for a generation, if in fact it ever returns," says one of the movement's critics, David Rothkopf, currently at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, and a former official in the Clinton administration.
"Their signal enterprise was the invasion of Iraq and their failure to produce results is clear. Precisely the opposite has happened," he says. "The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a region that has been less than susceptible to democracy. "Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception and horrendously bad execution. The neo-cons have been undone by their own ideas and the incompetence of the Bush administration. "George Bush is about the last neo-conservative standing, Cheney as well maybe. Bush is not an analytical person so he just adopted the neo-cons' philosophy.
"It fitted into his Manichean, his black and white view of the world. After all, he gave up his dissolute youth and was born again as a new man, so it appealed to his character." In particular, two leading neo-conservatives, Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman, attacked the Bush team in Vanity Fair magazine. Both had been on a Pentagon advisory board. Both had argued for war in Iraq.
In an article called "Neo Culpa", Richard Perle declared that had he known how it would turn out, he would have been against it: "I think now I probably would have said: 'No, let's consider other strategies'." Kenneth Adelman said: "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. "Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional." Donald Rumsfeld "fooled me", he said. He declared of neo-conservatism after Iraq: "It's not going to sell."
How a moron like Bush was elected leader of the world's most powerful nation.
Well, here is the answer. LOL.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c9b427a37b
Dec. 28, 1:16 PM EST.
Edwards Making Another White House Bid.
By NEDRA PICKLER.
Associated Press Writer.
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Former vice presidential nominee John Edwards declared his candidacy Thursday for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, saying the United States needs a new spirit of activism and leadership for an unstable, chaotic world. Clad in blue jeans, an open-necked shirt and with his sleeves rolled up, Edwards chose the backyard of a victim of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans' devastated Ninth Ward for his unorthodox announcement.
"We want people in this campaign to actually take action now, not later, not after the next election," the former North Carolina senator said, sounding as much like a recruiter as a presidential campaigner. Edwards, 53, is calling for an increase in community service and cuts in poverty, global warming and troops in Iraq. He said he made a mistake in voting for a resolution to go to war with Iraq, but also noted that he didn't conduct the war. He said the Bush administration's leadership in Iraq has been a disaster and that it would be a mistake to send in more troops.
"The biggest responsibility of the next president of the United States is to re-establish America's leadership role in the world, starting with Iraq," Edwards said. "We need to make it clear that we intend to leave Iraq and turn over the responsibility of Iraq to the Iraqi people," Edwards said. "The best way to make that clear is to actually start leaving."
Edwards said it's not just Iraq that is in chaos and in need of moral leadership from the United States. He said the United States should be leading an end to genocide in Sudan and to atrocities in northern Uganda. He also said the country should provide universal health care for all and end its dependence on foreign oil. He said he would tax oil company profits and eliminate President Bush's tax cuts to pay for his priorities.
"We need to ask Americans to be willing to be patriotic about something beyond war," he said. He said that will include a National Call to Action Day on Jan. 27 where Americans can contribute their time to help enroll children in government health care programs, fight for an increase in the minimum wage or other efforts. Edwards also criticized Bush for not doing more to help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. "If I'd been president, I would have had somebody coming into my office every morning, and I would say to him, 'What did you do in New Orleans yesterday?'" Edwards said.
In his message to supporters, Edwards listed his priorities to change America. Among them: "Guaranteeing health care for every single American," "Strengthening our middle class and ending the shame of poverty," "Leading the fight against global warming," and "Getting America and the world to break our addiction to oil." Asked about how he will compete with Clinton and Obama, Edwards simply encouraged others to run if they want to serve like he does. "I want the best human beings possible to run for president of the United States," Edwards said. "We need a great president in 2009 because of all the problems and the challenges that we face."
Edwards has positioned himself as a serious contender. He's been strengthening his ties to labor and other Democratic activists behind the scenes, rebuilding a top-notch campaign staff and honing his skills. The efforts have made him the leading candidate in early polls of Iowa Democrats who will get the first say in the nomination fight. Edwards' advisers scheduled a six-state announcement tour between Christmas and New Year's Day with the hopes that news would be slow and he could dominate media coverage. Over three days, Edwards also planned to travel to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and his home state of North Carolina.
Edwards kicked off his campaign at the home of Orelia Tyler, 54, who has been living in a Federal Emergency Management Agency trailer in her yard while her home was rebuilt. Edwards' challenge over the next year will be to show that he can keep up with front-runners Clinton and Obama, should they get in the race, in terms of fundraising and support. Unlike officeholders who may run, Edwards does not have a federal campaign account and will have to start raising money from scratch.
In 1998, in his first bid for public office, Edwards defeated incumbent Sen. Lauch Faircloth, R-N. C. A leading advocate for impeachment of President Clinton. Edwards launched a bid for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and quickly caught the eye of Democratic strategists. Although he won only the South Carolina primary, his skills on the trail, his cheerful demeanor, and his message of "two Americas" - one composed of the wealthy and privileged, and the other of the hardworking common man - excited voters, especially independents and moderate-leaning Democrats.
As America heads to the polls again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMmM4o83KhI&eurl=
Too much. LOL
I have had women bosses in my career! Mostly idiots who can't make decisions but sure can Monday Morning Quaterback.
What a fucking disaster for the country if this know-it-all gets in.
Of course, Christina will be running things down here in a couple of years as well.I don't have anything against a woman president in theory. Margaret Thatcher was the best Prime Minister the UK has had in the last 60 years. But just as I wouldn't vote for a candidate just because he's a man, neither do I see any serious woman presidential candidates who would attract my vote - especially not just because they don't have Y chromosomes.
I consider him the best President of my lifetime! A tragic loss.We all gotta go sometime. The death of a 93 year old isn't a "tragic loss." He was blessed to live as long as he did and to retain his faculties to the end.
As president, he was a forgettable historical footnote whose principal achievement was his much-attacked pardon of Richard Nixon, which was the political equivalent of hara-kiri, but which was absolutely necessary.
He led us out of the traumas of Watergate and Viet Nam. He could work amiably with all, including Congress, yet still was able to veto 66 spending bills. He pursued foreign policy with a consensus. He favored limited government. He saw the best in people.De mortuis nil nisi bonum.
Thomaso276
12-30-06, 15:53
He took a nice fall and if I recall gave Chevy Chase a career boost.
Without attempting to demean President Ford during this time of mourning for many people I do wish to post a different perspective.
Not sure how he could be considered a great or even excellent president. He may have become one given time but even that is an unknow. He only had 2 years in office, did not have time or the opportunity to develop either a domestic or foreign policy.
However, he was the kind of politician that both sides could talk with and respect because he was a centrist. I voted for him and not Carter-at the time I was a Republican.
He is and will always be known as the president who pardoned Nixon--who's actions were clearly criminal. I have strong opinions about that!
And based on an enlightening article in interview Bob Woodward had with President Ford in 2005, Ford admitted that his real reason for giving Nixon a pardon was that he was his 'great' friend. He obsiously used the reason that it was 'for the good of the country- to heal us all' to sell his decision (refer to the Washington Post article by Bob Woodward this week-as reprinted in my local paper)
Suerte.
Stowe
Not sure how he could be considered a great or even excellent president. He may have become one given time but even that is an unknow. He only had 2 years in office, did not have time or the opportunity to develop either a domestic or foreign policy. Just change the name here to read: John F. Kennedy.
(refer to the Washington Post article by Bob Woodward this week-as reprinted in my local paper)Just because you read it in the Washington Post doesn't make it so - the same goes for it coming from Woodward's lips or finger tips.
He is and will always be known as the president who pardoned Nixon--who's actions were clearly criminal. I have strong opinions about that! So?
Absolutely no good for the country would have come from having Nixon in the dock, being worked over by eager lawyers each out for their pound of flesh. The pardon was a Solomonic act, which is now admitted even by the most virulent of Nixon-haters.
I disagree. Nixon was a criminal and all his pardon indicated that being connected to the powerful lets criminals get away with criminal acts.
Everyone should face punishment for their criminal-everyone regardless of how rich or powerful they are.
I think this country would have survived his trial unless you think this country is so frail, so weak, to have collapsed under such an inquiry.
I supported Nixon back then but having learned more over the years have realized just how dangerous he was. I would definitely question the statement that "admitted even by the most virulent of Nixon-haters". There is absolutely no way to prove that so it leaves it a nothing more than a subjective claim.
And while I agree that one cannot believe everything they read (and I absolutely do not) I think it is safe to say that Bob Woodward is above reproach-I would like proof that he is some left-wing commie out to take down any/all Republicans. Of course, just the fact that he is part of the media automatically makes him a left-wing commie Democrat to many Republicans.
Ahh, the Republican propaganda machine over the last 20 years has done such a good job of brainwashing. In all honesty I am greatly impressed with that Republican machine-that all taxes are bad, all regulation is bad, big government is bad (yet they want THEIR big government to make constitutional amendments to regulate marriage, burning the flag, control what happens in the bedroom, a woman's right to choose). A bit hypocritical to me.
Show me that Woodword is such a person and I will definitely re-evalute my observation. His first book about Bush was fairly supported of the President.
Have to agree that the Kennedy situation was the same regarding the length of time in office- but why bring that up, I didn't? Kennedy took office through an election so he was prepared with a staff and a foreign & domestic policy which Ford did not have the opportunity to do. While it is just my opinion, Kennedy was more successful in his 2 years than Ford's primarily because of the Cuban missile crisis.
Interesting discussion.
Suerte.
Stowe
Reagan was the best president since WW2.
Reagan was the best before ww2 remember FDR and Truman let Russia take over half the world. This was the biggest mistake of all. Reagan corrected it while giving us an economy that Bush and Clinton rode.
I supported Nixon back then but having learned more over the years have realized just how dangerous he was. I would definitely question the statement that "admitted even by the most virulent of Nixon-haters". There is absolutely no way to prove that so it leaves it a nothing more than a subjective claim.
Ahh, the Republican propaganda machine over the last 20 years has done such a good job of brainwashing. I guess Karl Rove and the other evil Republican brain-washers have gotten to Teddy Kennedy too.
At a time of national turmoil, America was fortunate that it was Gerald Ford who took the helm of the storm-tossed ship of state. Unlike many of us at the time, President Ford recognized that the nation had to move forward, and could not do so if there was a continuing effort to prosecute former President Nixon. So President Ford made a courageous decision, one that historians now say cost him his office, and he pardoned Richard Nixon.
I was one of those who spoke out against his action then. But time has a way of clarifying past events, and now we see that President Ford was right. His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us. He eminently deserves this award, and we are proud of his achievement.http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education+and+Public+Programs/Profile+in+Courage+Award/Award+Recipients/Gerald+Ford/Remarks+by+Senator+Edward+M.+Kennedy.htm
Of course, Stowe displays the dangerous thing about haters - their passion and anger clouds their judgment.
Hunt.
Aren't you a bit hypocritical? Are you not the person who has got into a flame war with someone you posted as being a fag, a gay? If that isn't hate, what is? That was a personal and inflamatory attack, something I try to avoid by sticking to the issue. But I guess if you are unable to stick to the issue (and have nothing to support your position) you attack. As you did with me in your last post by avoiding a discussion and posting an inflammatory accusation as in: "Of coure, Stowe displays the dangerous thing about haters - their passion and anger clouds their judgment".
You just made an ass out of yourself with you last post. At least I can state that I have been open minded and flexible enough to have been both a Republican (until I was 38) and a Democrat, changing my party when they went in a radical direction - either party. I suspect that such flexibility and open mindedness are not in your parlance. Thus, the fact that I will not stick with a party regardless of their actions / positions (my party right or wrong mentality) indicates that "passion and anger" does not cloud my judgement.
And as usual you either did not read my post or did not wish to understand it-or could not understand. I supported and respected Ford until I read that he let his friendship take precedence over right or wrong. And I would have felt the same way if Nixon had been a Democrat and a Democrat would have pardoned him.
Unlike some people, I believe EVERYONE should be held accountable for their crimes regardless if they are a Republican or Democrat. Obviously, Hunt you do not.
Funny that you should post something that Kennedy stated since I suspect you absolutely detest him. Remember him and Chapaquitic? You will even use a Democrat to protect Nixon (or perhaps any Republican??). Again, the my party right or wrong mentality that the Demos had in the 60's and early 70's.
Just because Kennedy stated his acceptance of the pardon does not make it the word of God or right! I do not care if the Pope pardons him, he got away with a crime. My point was that a crime was committed and Nixon got off. I don't give a damn what Kennedy thinks!
Based on your position regarding the Nixon situation (and many others) any time a President commits a crime he should be pardoned since to hold him accountable will cause undue pain on the country. So in essense, that would make the President untouchable-all powerful. I am sure you did not feel that way with Clinton and Lewinsky?
I have said my piece on this issue. We have completely different points-of-view on this and most issues. That's what keeps things interesting.
Suerte.
Stowe
Posted on Dec. 31, 2006
By Chris Hedges.
Editor's note: The former New York Times Mideast Bureau chief warns that the radical Christian right is coming dangerously close to its goal of co-opting the country's military and law enforcement.
The drive by the Christian right to take control of military chaplaincies, which now sees radical Christians holding roughly 50 percent of chaplaincy appointments in the armed services and service academies, is part of a much larger effort to politicize the military and law enforcement. This effort signals the final and perhaps most deadly stage in the long campaign by the radical Christian right to dismantle America's open society and build a theocratic state. A successful politicization of the military would signal the end of our democracy.
During the past two years I traveled across the country to research and write the book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America." I repeatedly listened to radical preachers attack as corrupt and godless most American institutions, from federal agencies that provide housing and social welfare to public schools and the media. But there were two institutions that never came under attack—the military and law enforcement. While these preachers had no interest in communicating with local leaders of other faiths, or those in the community who did not subscribe to their call for a radical Christian state, they assiduously courted and flattered the military and police. They held special services and appreciation days for all four branches of the armed services and for various law enforcement agencies. They encouraged their young men and women to enlist or to join the police or state troopers. They sought out sympathetic military and police officials to attend church events where these officials were lauded and feted for their Christian probity and patriotism. They painted the war in Iraq not as an occupation but as an apocalyptic battle by Christians against Islam, a religion they regularly branded as "satanic." All this befits a movement whose final aesthetic is violence. It also befits a movement that, in the end, would need the military and police forces to seize power in American society.
One of the arguments used to assuage our fears that the mass movement being built by the Christian right is fascist at its core is that it has not yet created a Praetorian Guard, referring to the paramilitary force that defied legal constraints, made violence part of the political discourse and eventually plunged ancient Rome into tyranny and despotism. A paramilitary force that operates outside the law, one that sows fear among potential opponents and is capable of physically silencing those branded by their leaders as traitors, is a vital instrument in the hands of despotic movements. Communist and fascist movements during the last century each built paramilitary forces that operated beyond the reach of the law.
And yet we may be further down this road than we care to admit. Erik Prince, the secretive, mega-millionaire, right-wing Christian founder of Blackwater, the private security firm that has built a formidable mercenary force in Iraq, champions his company as a patriotic extension of the U. S. Military. His employees, in an act as cynical as it is deceitful, take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. These mercenary units in Iraq, including Blackwater, contain some 20,000 fighters. They unleash indiscriminate and wanton violence against unarmed Iraqis, have no accountability and are beyond the reach of legitimate authority. The appearance of these paramilitary fighters, heavily armed and wearing their trademark black uniforms, patrolling the streets of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, gave us a grim taste of the future. It was a stark reminder that the tyranny we impose on others we will one day impose on ourselves.
"Contracting out security to groups like Blackwater undermines our constitutional democracy," said Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "Their actions may not be subject to constitutional limitations that apply to both federal and state officials and employees—including First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights to be free from illegal searches and seizures. Unlike police officers they are not trained in protecting constitutional rights and unlike police officers or the military they have no system of accountability whether within their organization or outside it. These kind of paramilitary groups bring to mind Nazi Party brownshirts, functioning as an extrajudicial enforcement mechanism that can and does operate outside the law. The use of these paramilitary groups is an extremely dangerous threat to our rights."
The politicization of the military, the fostering of the belief that violence must be used to further a peculiar ideology rather than defend a democracy, was on display recently when Air Force and Army generals and colonels, filmed in uniform at the Pentagon, appeared in a promotional video distributed by the Christian Embassy, a radical Washington-based organization dedicated to building a "Christian America."
The video, first written about by Jeff Sharlet in the December issue of Harper's Magazine and filmed shortly after 9/11, has led the Military Religious Freedom Foundation to raise a legal protest against the Christian Embassy's proselytizing within the Department of Defense. The video was hastily pulled from the Christian Embassy website and was removed from YouTube a few days ago under threats of copyright enforcement.
Dan Cooper, an undersecretary of veterans affairs, says in the video that his weekly prayer sessions are "more important than doing the job." Maj. Gen. Jack Catton says that his being an adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a "wonderful opportunity" to evangelize men and women setting defense policy. "My first priority is my faith," he says. "I think it's a huge impact. You have many men and women who are seeking God's counsel and wisdom as they advise the chairman [of the Joint Chiefs] and the secretary of defense."
Col. Ralph Benson, a Pentagon chaplain, says in the video: "Christian Embassy is a blessing to the Washington area, a blessing to our capital; it's a blessing to our country. They are interceding on behalf of people all over the United States, talking to ambassadors, talking to people in the Congress, in the Senate, talking to people in the Pentagon, and being able to share the message of Jesus Christ in a very, very important time in our world is winning a worldwide war on terrorism. What more do we need than Christian people leading us and guiding us, so, they're needed in this hour."
The group has burrowed deep inside the Pentagon. It hosts weekly Bible sessions with senior officers, by its own count some 40 generals, and weekly prayer breakfasts each Wednesday from 7 to 7:50 a. M. In the executive dining room as well as numerous outreach events to, in the words of the organization, "share and sharpen one another in their quest to bridge the gap between faith and work."
If the United States falls into a period of instability caused by another catastrophic terrorist attack, an economic meltdown or a series of environmental disasters, these paramilitary forces, protected and assisted by fellow ideologues in the police and military, could swiftly abolish what is left of our eroding democracy. War, with the huge profits it hands to businesses and right-wing interests that often help bankroll the Christian right, could become a permanent condition. And the thugs with automatic weapons, black uniforms and wraparound sunglasses who appeared on street corners in Baghdad and New Orleans could appear on streets across the U. S. Such a presence could paralyze us with fear, leaving us unable to question or protest the closed system and secrecy of an emergent totalitarian state and unable to voice dissent.
"The Bush administration has already come close to painting our current wars as wars against Islam—many in the Christian right apparently have this belief," Ratner said. "If these wars, bad enough as imperial wars, are fought as religious wars, we are facing a very dark age that could go on for a hundred years and that will be very bloody."
Stowe,
Just about all, if not most, world leaders commit (war) crimes, the difference is some get hung for those crimes and some don't. Alot of people right now are talking about Bush and Impeachment, but what is the Democratic leadership doing? Are they trying to impeach him? NO. It would set a dangerous precedent for future US leaders, a future that COULD see them actually being prosecuted for their crimes.
Badboy
Not sure of your point. I think you missed my entire point.
To my knowledge Bush did not commit a crime. True, he was probably unethical and misleading regarding the war but he did not commit a crime that anyone knows of. So I am not in favor of impeachment for the very reason you stated.
Clarify the intent of your post with regards to my position that EVERY criminal regardless of position should pay-assuming a crime was committed.
Suerte.
Stowe
Take a Xanax, amigo. You obviously need one (or two).
Nixon's dead. And I don't think you can dig him up and abuse his corpse. So chill out. When you find yourself in a minority of one, try to stifle the temptation to accuse everybody else of being wrong and stupid. ;)
Stowe,.
All I am saying is it is a bit naive to say every Government Official that ever commited a crime should face judgement. If that were the case, just about every US president and many foreign dignitaries would be on the chopping block. The point is we rarely investigate them, we just take it as a given that Governments Lie. Believe me, Watergate was the least of Nixon's crimes. But anyways, they are dead, we should probably just let sleeping dogs lie.
Badboy
PS Stowe, just some helpful info regarding possible impeachable offenses commited by your fearless leader.
=========================================================
1) The Draft Impeachment Resolution (Abuse of power),
2) Hurricane Katrina (failure by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens ),
3) Declassifying for political purposes ( Libby had testified that President Bush authorized the disclosure of select portions of the then classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq ),
4) Possible involvement in the CIA leak (CIA leak grand jury investigation),
5) Foreged Niger uranium documents (Central Intelligence Agency director George Tenet and Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited an attempted yellowcake purchase from Niger in their September testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee),
6) Treatment of detainees (Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse , Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, United Nations Convention Against Torture, Geneva Conventions, and Command responsibility , Guantanamo ),
7) Extraordinary rendition (Extraordinary rendition and United Nations Convention Against Torture : No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture)
8) Unlawful combatant status (The American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations have dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 (CA3) of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in the Global War on Terror. Per the War Crimes Act of 1996, any US national who "commits a war crime [e.g., violates CA3] shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... , and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death." )
9) U.N. Charter (Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, Senate-ratified treaties such as the U.N. Charter are "the supreme Law of the Land." John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- assert that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime. Such would constitute an impeachable offense according to Francis Boyle, John W. Dean, Marcus Raskin and Joseph A. Vuckovich, from the Institute for Policy Studies)
10)Justification for invasion (Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation. Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry. A report by the Washington Post on April 12, 2006, corroborates that view. It states that the Bush administration advocated that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological laboratories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time: "The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories )
11) NSA warrantless surveillance controversy (In the context of the War on Terror, President Bush ordered wiretapping of certain international calls to and from U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is legal is currently debated, since the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy similar actions in the past (i.e. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). Additionally, it may violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures of US citizens, including electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation. In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution, to bypass FISA. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the Supreme Court majority held that neither the AUMF nor the president's role as Commander-in-Chief trumps explicit federal law, in this case the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Presumably the same would hold for FISA. )
=====================================================
Do you want me to continue, or do you get the point? I am not advocating impeachment, because I think it is pointless, but there are many people in the US and in the world that have very valid reasons for calling Bush and his administration criminals. I only posted this because you asked for it and with your last naive post you actually stated you knew nothing about Bush's possible crimes, You would have had to not turn on the TV or watch a news program for the last 4 years for this to be true.
Punter 127
01-01-07, 20:51
Some do pay a price for their crimes.
http://one.revver.com/watch/130549
Sorry to disagree but if we as a nation truely live under "the rule of law" the politicians so often quote (which is hypocritical to say the least for most of them-Rep and Demo alike) then EVERYONE should be held accountable.
I, and almost every other average citizen, certainly would not be granted immunity from criminal acts such as you are suggesting. If it is illegal for me and all other citizens and we would pay for such a crime, so should all politicans.
To merely excuse their illegal actions as "just normal for politicans or everybody else does it" is incomprehensionable to me. So because they are all doing it, they should not be held accountable?
As a realist I know most politicans commit crimes but if they get caught they should pay. Just like the Democrat Senator who was found with $90000 in his safe that he took as a bribe. You are suggesting they should not pay that they should be excused like a child who is caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
Thanks for the list. I am as fully aware as you of the actions and possible crimes of Bush even though some of those you point out are not and never have been criminal-unethical perhaps. However, I did not say Bush was innocent of any crimes. He has not been charged, found guilty and / or admitted to his actions. If he is ever found guilty of commiting a crime he should pay. You and I certainly would.
I am not in favor of impeaching a President for incompetence (I. E. Katrina) but if they abused their power criminally, or broke laws that were in the area of being felonies-they pay. Otherwise, we don't really live in a real democracy where the "rule of law" really means squat.
Regarding your entire reply to my initial post that was generally directed at Hunt. Please indicate where I mentioned Bush and / or where I mentioned the word impeachment, even by implication? I never did so I do not have any idea how you could make such a leap based on my posts.
Suerte.
Stowe
Rock Harders
01-02-07, 00:44
Mongers-
I am about as left wing as they come but I will be the first one to tell you that Ted Kennedy should have served hard time for his cowardly actions at Chappaquidic (sp) It is not realistic for all politicans to go to jail when they break the law, however, they should be publicly censured, disgraced and receive a hefty financial penalty (fines, liens against future earnings resulting from their infamy)
Bush and his neo-con puppetmasters should be tried for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity for their conduct of the War on Terror and their violations of the Geneva Conventions. Clinton should be tried for Crimes Against Humanity as well, for starving millions of Iraqi children to death with the economic embargo, and for failing to act in Rwanda. George Bush Sr. And Reagan should be sent to The Hague to answer for their crimes resulting for their activities in supporting, facilitating and funding several despotic dictatorships throughout Latin America in their roles as CIA Director and President. Most experts agree that had the USA and the UK lost WWII, their leaders would have undoubtedly been tried for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity for the unwarranted firebombings of entirely-civilian cities such as Dresden and Tokyo, among others incidents.
The US has conducted a foreign policy based on exploitation and savage butchery for decades, and it is this arrogant, short-sighted, irresponsible, and inhumane foreign policy that has led much of the world to simply despise the US Government, and as a result, US citizens.
Suerte,
Dirk Diggler
There is much that you write that I agree with.
Suerte.
Stowe
The US has conducted a foreign policy based on exploitation and savage butchery for decades, and it is this arrogant, short-sighted, irresponsible, and inhumane foreign policy that has led much of the world to simply despise the US Government, and as a result, US citizens.I've been to just about every corner of this planet (not all of them, admittedly). I've met maybe one or two people who "despise" US citizens. Most people who have learned that I'm an American citizen have been pleasant, friendly, and hospitable.
What I've found much more common are US citzens who engage in self-hatred, and who, deep down, despise themselves and where they come from. It's an odd trait, but it exists nonetheless. I think it stems from a feeling of guilt that some people have which develops because they have things so good, and don't have any pressing needs except perhaps getting Mom and Dad to send more money to school to buy more weed, leading to excessive self-absorbtion and navel-gazing.
I have also been to just about every corner of the world and have heard differing opinions, I would be lying if I said only two opinions were disdainful towards US citizens. But the truth is US citizens get off the hook in general, I am constantly told foreigners hate our government, they hate Bush, they hate his administration, they hate what our military does around the world at the order of immoral leaders, but they generally give US citizens a pass, they usually ask me how we could have elected such people. But more often than not, we US citizens aren't getting that free pass, people are starting to understand that WE elect these people fully knowing their agenda, and therfore are guilty by association. Do I think this is fair? No and yes, No because I for one do not agree with what my government does, and yes because as a citizen of a country I AM responsible for what my government does around the world.
In regards to Self-Hate, I have to say that is not a very thoughtful statement, it is like saying an alcoholic who one day wakes up and realizes he has a problem and admits he is an alcoholic and drinks too much and hangs out at bars too much is somehow practicing self hate. That is BS. If anything, the person who admits he has a serious problem is practicing self love (not in the Exon way) and is on the road to recovery, those stuck in denial are the ones with a real problem.
===========================================================
Definition:
Self-hatred literally refers to an extreme dislike of oneself, or being angry at oneself.
Accusations of self-hatred are sometimes alleged to be used as an ad hominem attack in order to try and discredit a person the accuser disagrees with.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8cd7d8804b
ROFLMAO
Pizza chain sparks debate by accepting pesos.
Hate mail follows promotion — management says it's serving customers.
AP reports.
Updated: 4:40 p. M. ET Jan. 11, 2007
DALLAS - A pizza chain has been hit with death threats and hate mail after offering to accept Mexican pesos, becoming another flashpoint in the nation's debate over immigrants. "This is the United States of America, not the United States of Mexico," one e-mail read. "Quit catering to the damn illegal Mexicans," demanded another. Dallas-based Pizza Patron said it was not trying to inject itself into a larger political debate about illegal immigration when it posted signs this week saying "Aceptamos pesos" — or "We accept pesos" — at its 59 stores across Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and California. Pizza Patron spokesman Andy Gamm said the company was just trying to sell more pizza to its customers, 60 percent of whom are Hispanic.
Wal-Mart, H-E-B supermarkets and other American businesses in towns along the Mexican border accept pesos. And some busineses in New York and Minnesota communities along the northern border accept Canadian dollars. He difference here is that many of the pizza joints are far from the border, in places like Dallas, more than 400 miles away, and Denver, more than 700 miles. "If people would understand that the majority of our customers are Hispanic, then it might make more sense for a company to sell pizza for pesos," Gamm said. "It doesn't make sense in Connecticut. And it doesn't make sense in North Dakota or in Maine. But it makes perfect sense here in Dallas, in Phoenix, in Denver — areas far from the border that have significant Hispanic populations."
While praising the pesos plan as an innovative way to appeal to Hispanics, a partner in the nation's largest Hispanic public relations firm said a backlash was inevitable. "Right now there's a lot of anti-immigrant rhetoric going around that could make them a lightning rod," said Patricia Perez, a partner at Valencia, Perez & Echeveste in Los Angeles. Pizza Patron proclaims on its Web site that "to serve the Hispanic community is our passion." Its restaurants are in mostly Hispanic neighborhoods, and each manager must be bilingual and live nearby, said Pizza Patron founder Antonio Swad, who is part-Italian, part-Lebanese. The take-home menus are in both English and Spanish, and the dishes include the La Mexicana pizza, with spicy chorizo sausage; La Barbacoa pizza, topped with spicy pulled pork; and chicken wings flavored with lime, peppers and garlic con queso.
Many Pizza Patron customers have pesos "sitting in their sock drawers or in their wallets," Gamm said. "We're talking small amounts, where it would be inconvenient to stop and exchange on the way back — maybe 10 or 20 dollars' worth of pesos." The promotion will run through the end of February and then be re-evaluated, Swad said. In the first week, payments in pesos have accounted for about 10 percent of business at the five restaurants operated by the corporation, Pizza Patron said. The others are franchised, and the company will not get reports until the end of the week.
The company has set a conversion rate of 12 pesos per dollar, which is slightly higher than the official rate of about 11 pesos per dollar. Any change is given in U. S. Currency. At a Pizza Patron in Dallas, Veronica Verges bought a pizza Wednesday for her son Nathan's fourth birthday. She paid with pesos her father brought home two weeks ago after a trip to see family in Mexico.
"I would mostly think a restaurant would do this in a border town," she said. "But it got me over here."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just love the fact that most of the places I travel to in Europe and Latin America, they generaly always accept my US currency (though some places like Madahos give you a shitty exchange rate of 2.90, and I am sure most US travelers enjoy this as well. I wonder what all the home grown phobia is about? Sending hate mail because some food chains that do business in states bordering mexico and have a 60% or more mexican client base are accepting mexican pesos? Pathetic if you ask me. I love the fact that I can eat, shop, and take taxi's and even pay for poon tang with US currency here in BA. It is just convenient sometimes. When I run out of pesos and the ATM is just too far away I am always glad I can pull out my spare 20 dollar bills and get by. Someone needs to give these freaks a wake up call.
Badboy
There ain't no help for those pathetic, xenophobic assholes.
I just love the fact that most of the places I travel to in Europe and Latin America, they generaly always accept my US currency (though some places like Madahos give you a shitty exchange rate of 2.90, and I am sure most US travelers enjoy this as well. I wonder what all the home grown phobia is about? Sending hate mail because some food chains that do business in states bordering mexico and have a 60% or more mexican client base are accepting mexican pesos? Pathetic if you ask me. I love the fact that I can eat, shop, and take taxi's and even pay for poon tang with US currency here in BA. It is just convenient sometimes. When I run out of pesos and the ATM is just too far away I am always glad I can pull out my spare 20 dollar bills and get by. Someone needs to give these freaks a wake up call.
BadboyArgentina doesn't have 14 million illegal aliens from the US.
Whole states are virtually bankrupt caring for those illegals. Hospitals by the hundreds are either bankrupt or have closed their emergency rooms because of illegals. About one-quarter of the criminals in jail in the US are illegals. The last time I was in court for a traffic ticket in my county, over a third of the defendants were obviously illegals, unable to speak English. And I live 1500 miles from the Mexican border.
I think these facts have something to do with the difference in treatment you observe between Mexican pesos and US dollars.
More power to this pizza chain if they want to accept Mexican pesos, euros, yen, or even australs. This was a publicity stunt by the company, and they have succeeded in their goal, wouldn't you agree?
Member #4112
01-12-07, 14:59
My friend you have overlooked the real reason nearly all countries accept the US Greenback: It is one of the primary currencies in the business world and the peso is damn sure not!
Thomaso276
01-12-07, 19:15
"The last time I was in court for a traffic ticket in my county, over a third of the defendants were obviously illegals"
Sounds like a good place for Immigration to set up. Doing checks would be legal because the ticket is an infraction which can carry ciminal penalty. Local PD and Sheriffs really have no way of knowing whether someone is illegal as their computer checks are run for warrants only.
So after the first sweep in traffic court word would get out, illegal folks would stop going to traffic court, the tickets would turn into warrants for failure to pay or appear, the warrants would be enforced, proper ID would be needed for release on bond, without it the corrrections people would be calling INS, presto - back to Mexico.
Problem solved!
I have to comment on this. I am a Democrat and liberal in many areas but cannot fathom how anyone can support illegal immigration-it is illegal which is why it is called illegal immigration. If this law is to be ignored why not others? Why not all laws?
The US permits the most legal immigration of any country in the world and I have no problem with that and controlled legal immigration. Every country has the right to protect it's border, way of life, etc.
But to support or justify illegal immigration just amazes me. I support the Republican position on this. There should be no amnesty. In 1984 Regan approved amnesty for about 4 million illegals and look what we face now- about 14-20 million.
If they are given amnest there will be 40 million in another 20 years demanding amnesty.
We are suppose to be a country of laws and to just ignore this law because there are people in other countries that are poor and want to work is no excuse.
In reality, nearly every person on this planet dreams of living here because of the jobs, way of life, etc. I am not sure, but I do not think this country could support 7 billion people.
Even now Europe is struggling with illegal immigration and their proposed actions include everything but amnesty. They did that about 20 years ago and regret it today.
Suerte.
Stowe
The funny thing is no one mentioned illegal immigrants. Some people just used my comments, regarding death threats to companies allowing people to pay using mexican currency (PS Walmart does it also) in towns and states bordering Mexico, to start an endless tirade againt illegal immigrants. So I don't think anyone was supporting illegal immigration. I personally believe that whatever the majority agrees on in a country is what the country should do, right or wrong, THAT is democracy. If the majority of people believe that illegal immigrants should be treated like suboid beings that should be hunted down, shot, thrown in jail, and eventually deported. Hey, what can I say, that is US democracy working for the majority.
I still believe that there is a growing unhealthy phobia towards immigrants, (note I stress immigrants, as in anyone from any country that enters legally into another country. And I still think people writing hate mail and death threats to businesses that allow payment in other currencies are stupid. And some seem to possibly be AP members. Just think of all those US immigrants in Argentina overstaying their visas? (those damn Illegal US immigrants) I am sure they should also be hunted down, shot, thrown in prison and eventually forcefully deported never to be allowed back in right? Kinda poetic if you ask me.
Badboy.
BTW, just to directly reply to one of Stowes comments regarding Reagan. Stowe, Maybe if Reagan hadn't basically destroyed Central America with his policies (Iran Contra anyone?) Central america would have possibly been a much more attractive place to raise a family. What do you want the general population of Nicaragua to do when US funded Contras are kidnapping executing and torturing half the population. (Wow sounds alot like what is going on in Iraq right now, Deja Vu anyone? I guess we didn't learn the first few hundred times around) Guess what? I am sure the level of Iraq immigrants trying to come into Europe and the US has multiplied 10 times over since pre Iraq invasion and Occupation, I guess we should blame the Iraqis for trying to leave the civil war we are funding right? This has been my basic point in previous posts, if the US doesn't want massive immigration maybe they should leave foreign countries alone, connect the dots my friend, stop destabalizing other countries, stop funding military juntas, dictatorships, tin pot dictators, puppet regimes, client states (Saddam anyone? ) A great joke that circulated in the CIA during the build up to the war " WE KNOW SADDAM HAD WMD'S " When asked how? Simple answer " WE STILL HAVE THE RECIEPTS ".
Can you not see that US economic foreign policy directly effects migration? NAFTA and Militarized Border anyone? Do some research and you will see Clinton and Perot knew in advance NAFTA would cause a flood of immigration. Since NAFTA, wages have actually decreased in Mexico, Someone tell me how small mexican farmers can compete with US government subsidized agro business? ANSWER, they can't? But we are all for free trade right? The only people that benifit from NAFTA are big business and those who own stock in those big businesses, the common Mexican people have lost. Increased immigration from Mexico is a direct result of NAFTA. Is free trade completely bad? No, not when it is done between two equal parties. That is why protectionism is good in the beginning, to defend and build up the domestic market and economy, That is what the US and UK did, did everyone forget about that?
Badboy,
I do agree that the US has interferred in too many countries to list here. It seems that we have the mentality that "the bully on the block can do anything they want". I absolutely do not agree with our involvement in almost all of the MANY countries that we did get involved with over the last 25 years (except Afganistan)
However, I think it is ridiculous to imply that those countries were doing great economically until we interferred with them and that it was solely our interference that caused those economies to collapse.
The economies of those countries were poor before, during and after our interference.
While the actions of this country bears scrutiny and responsibily but it seems some people like to blame everything bad that happens around the world (or to all the economies of Central and South America countries we were involved with) on our actions is invalid.
To not be objective just substantiates the conservatives belief that liberals attack the US for everything and see no good in anything the US does.
Suerte.
Stowe
One addition: NAFTA was working pretty good for Mexican job creation until corporate America decided it was even cheaper to send those jobs from Mexico to China. In the last 5-6 years those jobs have gone to China. NAFTA did not help the American worker one bit-it was mostly to allow corporations to find the cheapest labor possible.
I contend that corporations would bring back a form of slavery, only this time class slavery, because that would allow the lowest possible costs and thus the greatest profits. I know this is radical but given my 25 years in corporate America management, I have a perspective.
Examples: corporations wanting to allow low wage earners to come from Mexico. The first time in 100 years we would be intentionally creating a 'poverty class' just to support corporate profits. Another example: Nike, Bratz doll maker (and how many others) using Chinese companies that require their workers to work 18 hour days for 25-50 cents per unit (selling for $25-$200) made with minimal breaks. If that isn't a form of slavery, I don't know what is. Once it makes the newspapers they claim they did not know the Chinese were doing that--yeah I believe that!! Yet, they get caught again within a few years.
JMO
Courcheval
01-14-07, 02:02
After the european implosion during WW2, due to irrational nationalistic tensions, us americans who were barely recovering from their 1936 economic slump finally came down to the ground 4 years after hostilities started and claimed they "saved the free world". The exhausted Europe didn t have the means to protest and the global police role was naturally transfered to the USA while Europe was reorganising itself, abandoning colonies to concentrate on its european identity. That s when us americans started to feel American, rather than Italian, Irish, African, british settlers, and developped a national pride. Unfortunatly, this continent wasnt ready to assume this role since it more or less always kept a non interventionist position unless forced to intervene.
I don't deny the positive influence of the United States over the 20 th century. Democracy is a dynamic process that brings wealth diversity and energy, at the cost sometimes of internal security. The problem began in 1989 when the communist block collapsed. The US american military leadership couldnt be counter balanced any more, and an uncontested power leads to over confidence, and close mindedness as a result.
The Iraqi crises is a perfect example of the dangers of an unchallenged power. Why bothering with international institutions and the rest of the 95% of the global population opinion when nobody is powerful enough to counter you? Why bothering with a global democracy when you can dictate your views to others? Unilaterality is so much more simple. Why even bothering refunding your debts, nobody can force you to refund anyways...
This crises created a huge continental divide between Europe and the USA, who share common values (democracy, self achievement) but also diverge on the darwinian us american philosophy of life.
Since ww2, Europe didnt bother too much about its defense. NATO (95% of members being european) was a natural shield. But since the beginning of the 21 st century, and the us american unilateral stance, unethical behaviour (fabricated evidences, torture, nuclear leaded weapons, arbitrary imprisonment, invasions) , a real conciousness arose of the need of a defense force independant from the USA. We are willing to pay to bring our own voice to global crises management, and this goes thru ficancing a european army. This force is called the European Intervention Force and unites France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Benelux. Just like the common currency and common market, other nations might join depending on their convergence with the european views (for example refusing to do the dirty torture and kidnapping jobs for the CIA) This is the force present in Lebanon right now.
China is gaining wealth quickly and Europe is expanding also quickly, even tho its constitution has been delayed for a few years due to french populist internal reasons. Both are meant to challenge the USA economicly with their cheap labor force reservoirs, eastwards for Europe, westwards for China (the EU is already the first global economic power and the Euro is gaining influence globally). Both have nuclear power and global leadership ambitions. I find this situation reassuring since it will bring back some balance in global management, and as a result more democracy in a multi polar world, as well as some more open mindedness in the USA.
The good news is that you guys wont have to subsidise us militaro industrial lobbies with your tax money so much in the future, the bad news for the most nationalist is that, like Russia, USA will see its global influence lessened gradually over the century.
Daddy Rulz
01-14-07, 21:14
I agree that something needs to balance the US military might. We are like an undiciplined teenager with a MAC 10. However I really do think we saved the free world in WWII. Germany wouldn't have taken over all of Europe but Stalin might have.
Courcheval
01-14-07, 22:05
I agree that something needs to balance the US military might. We are like an undiciplined teenager with a MAC 10. However I really do think we saved the free world in WWII. Germany wouldn't have taken over all of Europe but Stalin might have.Nazis wouldnt have been able to do anything if Russia and USA had the guts to declare war on them like France and GB did when they invaded Poland, and eastern europe might have avoided the iron curtain afterwards. Actually both self declared heroic countries were doing business with nazis at that time (check Bush family history) . The war economy did also bring prosperity to the USA in the early 40s with minimal domestic damage.
Anyways, that s different lectures of the past, what s most interesting is the future and how to get to a real global democracy with balanced powers so that one block can t just ignore others, shamelessly lie and manipulate, without having to fear of consequences.
The bully of the classroom was rarely the wisest, even tho he did get some natural respect (not necessarily consideration).
Daddy Rulz
01-14-07, 23:21
Nazis wouldnt have been able to do anything if Russia and USA had the guts to declare war on them like France and GB did when they invaded Poland, and eastern europe might have avoided the iron curtain afterwards. Actually both self declared heroic countries were doing business with nazis at that time (check Bush family history) The war economy did also bring prosperity to the USA in the early 40s with minimal domestic damage.Can't disagree, I'm aware of what the US did before it's entry into the war. I do think however that the American lives lost there during WWI had something to do with the publics reluctance to go again. I don't mean to go around with you a lot over this. I believe that the US did some very shameful things before WWII and I believe that we did some very heroic things after our entry.
Sometimes when Europeans talk about what the US didn't do it sort of upsets me because my family has never been from the rich and powerful, we were always the dumb fucks that ended up doing the fighting. I don't think it's proper to talk about my countries mistakes without paying honor to the men that did the fighting. The resistance as well as the troops that liberated the countries.
Fair enough?
Courcheval
01-15-07, 16:22
At least, unlike the pre 2001 unknown Bin Laden, you guys know for sure that the evil Hugo Binito Shavez is alive, so alive that last year he delivered oil at half the market price to the poor New York city favellas.
Provocation aside, Chavez is of course a joke, since his only goal is his power and wealth, but you should look your own nation in a mirror when you are talking about populism.
Populism: a political philosophy or rhetorical style that appeals to the common people to unite and change societal structures ruled by an entrenched, self-serving or corrupt elite.
Who reelected the Bush monarch family 3 times in a generation time, it s us american masses. What attracted them in their political marketing? Isnt nationalism a strong populist driving force? Whose prior interests are they serving? How does the paranoid fear strategy affect your daily life? Is this administration corruption free? Who went to war recently in the name of God, Good n Evil?
If you are being honest in the answers, you might find out that the Evil/Beast you need to fight is not outside, but within your borders.
Nationalization may have different look.
FRANK BAJAK.
Associated Press.
BOGOTA, Colombia - Hugo Chavez loves incendiary rhetoric and risk-averse investors understandably rushed to sell shares in Venezuela's biggest telecommunications and power companies after he announced this week that he would nationalize them. But it later emerged that the Venezuelan president - whose "21st-century socialism" has managed to co-exist with a vibrant private sector - is disposed to pay fair market prices for the two utilities.
That would make these "nationalizations" much less radical than initially feared and not all that unusual for Latin America. "Nationalization," White House press secretary Tony Snow said after Chavez's latest move, "has a long and inglorious history of failure around the world."
The directors of the Chilean copper-mining company Codelco might take issue. Theirs is a proud and extremely profitable ward of a state so committed to free markets that even its toll roads are privately run. A decade after the region rushed to privatize state-run industries, even countries outside Chavez's populist camp have realized that private companies haven't always served the public's best interests, particularly when it comes utilities like water distribution that require major investment but don't reap much profit.
Several key privatizations have recently been reversed, and even in countries that bought into the "Washington consensus," some strategic industries were never sold off. "Some nationalizations in Latin America are long-standing and exist for mainly national security and even symbolic reasons. They are also a measure of national pride," said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank.
Mexico's 1938 nationalization of its petroleum industry set the standard. Its state-run oil company Pemex has long served as both the government's cash cow and a model of inefficiency and patronage. State-run oil is the norm in countries including Brazil, Colombia and Chile, despite the latter two being near orthodox free-marketeers. (Colombia is, however, poised to sell 20 percent of state-run Ecopetrol this year to help fund exploration)
State-owned enterprises continue to account for more than 10 percent of the region's gross domestic product and about 5 percent of formal employment, according to the World Bank. Of course, the success of any nationalization depends on details specific to the industry and country.
Daddy Rulz
02-23-07, 13:25
Bush: I'll Bring Troops Home on JetBlue.
No Exact Timetable, President Says.
Under increased pressure to announce an exit strategy from Iraq, President George W. Bush revealed plans today to bring U. S. Troops home on the budget airlines JetBlue.
Mr. Bush received praise for his decision to withdraw American troops, but his choice of JetBlue to transport them raised more than a few eyebrows.
According to most official estimates, with its recent spate of scheduling problems and flight delays, JetBlue could take up to seven years to bring U. S. Troops home, and possibly ten years in the event of inclement weather.
But at a press conference at the White House today, the president argued that the selection of Jet Blue was "crucial" to the success of his latest exit strategy.
"Setting an exact timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq would be playing right into the enemy's hands," Mr. Bush said. "By going with JetBlue, our enemy will have no idea when we're leaving."
To emphasizes his point, Mr. Bush added, "And neither will we."
Across Iraq, U. S. GIs were hopeful that the news about JetBlue meant that they would be home by Christmas, or at least by Easter 2012.
At JetBlue headquarters in Forest Hills, New York, CEO David Neeleman said that it was "flattering" to be chosen to play such a critical role in President Bush's new exit strategy, but wondered if his embattled airlines has what it takes to bring troops home from Iraq.
"We're still having a hard time getting people home to Fort Myers," Mr. Neeleman said.
Elsewhere, Britain and Denmark announced that they were joining "The Coalition of the Leaving."
www.liveleak.com/view?i=2bc_1172263442
The US government is poised to unleash eco fashism and new forms of environmental taxes on the American public to combat the recent weather phenomena blamed on global warming.
Here's what's really been going on.
In a breakthrough that could end the nuclear standoff between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the so-called "rational world", U. S. President George Bush said today that his country is willing to let Russia build 37 Chernobyl-style nuclear reactors throughout Iran.
Mr. Bush also offered to allow open sharing of Chernobyl-class technology between Russia and Iran.
An unnamed White House spokesman said Mr. Bush believes the new proposal could break deadlocked negotiations by giving Iran "the world's best-known reactor technology, while allowing Russia to continue to profit from Mr. Ahmadinejad's thirst for power."
"These Chernobyl-style reactors can bring the transforming power of nuclear fission within reach of the average Iranian," said Mr. Bush.
Why does Russia have to be the only peacemaker? I suggest the US do it's part and build another 37 Three Mile Island " style " reactors. Then Iran could sell all it's petrol while remaining energy self reliant. A truly win win situation.;)
Courcheval
02-24-07, 00:53
In the same newspapers, there was an article about Israel willing to denuclearise to allow a long term peace process in the region.
Too bad this guy isn't a monger.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec9_1172585080
Democrats in the Senate plan to introduce a measure next week to repeal the 2002 Iraq war authorization, and Republicans have already announced they're willing to discuss the bill in exchange for Democrat support of a measure repealing the 1935 Social Security Act.
Democrats said circumstances have changed in the past five years — Saddam Hussein is gone and no WMD were found — making the 2002 war authorization obsolete.
Republicans used similar logic in offering their Social Security repeal act: the Great Depression is over, and despite 60 years of trying, no security has been found.
Courcheval
03-04-07, 18:40
Democrats in the Senate plan to introduce a measure next week to repeal the 2002 Iraq war authorization, and Republicans have already announced they're willing to discuss the bill in exchange for Democrat support of a measure repealing the 1935 Social Security Act.
Democrats said circumstances have changed in the past five years — Saddam Hussein is gone and no WMD were found — making the 2002 war authorization obsolete.
Republicans used similar logic in offering their Social Security repeal act: the Great Depression is over, and despite 60 years of trying, no security has been found.Irony is certainly a stronger wmd than Iraq ever had in 2002.
About the social security (individualism against social conciousness strike) I heard an interesting historical reference yesterday on the french television.
This strike was already happening between competing towns in Ancient Greece. Athens was a democracy where each individual had a voice while Sparta was a warring equalitarian town rejecting wealth accumulation. Those opposing philosphies influenced the choice of the metal used for manufacturing coins. In Athens, gold was prefered because it could be burried and saved for next generations, while in Sparta, iron was chosen because it would rust with time. I found the analogy interesting and worth sharing =)
MANCHESTER, NH—Rumors are swirling among Beltway insiders that the Patterson family vacation last weekend to New Hampshire, site of the first presidential primary, was, in fact, an attempt by the Michigan family of four to test the waters for a 2008 presidential run.
The Pattersons reportedly spent most of their three-day stay in the Granite State—known for its ability to make or break a candidate—interacting with locals, visiting key landmarks, and, according to political observers, using the outing to showcase their message of strong family values. They were seen taking a guided tour of a maple-sugar house in Barrington as well as stopping for countless photo opportunities outside government buildings in Concord and at other sites around the state.
"No one knew they were planning to throw their hat in the ring," Boston Globe columnist Scott Lehigh said. "They've obviously been planning this trip for months, maybe even as long as a year. They managed to squeeze countless side trips into an almost impossibly tight schedule, including a skiing outing at Pats Peak to their stop and a stop at the Hannah Duston monument in Penacook."
Pundits said the family's slow drive through Bear Brook State Park signaled a deep concern for environmental issues, while their decision to attend Sunday services at the New Castle Congregational Church acted as a nod to the country's important bloc of religious voters. The Pattersons also strolled the shopping districts of wealthy Portsmouth, showing their ability to relate to a cross-section of Americans.
www.liveleak.com/view?i=abd_1173051869
LOL!
Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, who used an appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman to announce he's running for president, tonight plans to release his Top Ten list of why Republicans should nominate him to head the 2008 GOP ticket.
The edgy septuagenarian maverick plans to make a formal announcement in April, after completing a round of appearances on the other respected political news programs — The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, The Tonight Show, The Late Late Show, Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Saturday Night Live and Larry King Live.
Mr. Letterman plans to read the list, prepared by the McCain campaign, on tonight's show:
10. Years as POW in solitary prepared him for isolation in White House "bubble"
9. Won't accept presidential paycheck, since at 72 he can live off Social Security.
8. More exciting presidential news conferences as reporters vie to light his fuse.
7. To beat him, the libs will have to get through his Gang of 14
6. Unlike senators, presidents have term limits.
5. He has a lock on the black vote because his middle name is Sidney, like Poitier.
4. Won't surrender to anyone, since war injury prevents raising hands above head.
3. No longer despises "agents of intolerance" on whacko religious right.
2. Definition of "surge" starts with 200,000 new boots, and Al Sadr dangling from rope.
1. Not beholden to the Republican Party and other "special interest" groups
Daddy Rulz
03-05-07, 18:57
The same young woman is talking to her Father whom asks about Audrey.
"Poor Audrey, she is working 3 jobs because she lost her grant and is having a really hard time keeping up. She can't afford a tutor, by the way thanks for sending Dr. Joe Blow over to help me with anatomy, and is probably going to flunk out."
"Well honey you keep talking about redistributing wealth, why don't you go to the deans office and ask him if you can give part of your GPA to her. You know it would help her."
"Oh Dad, you know Kenny and I are planning on going to med school together, by the way thanks for endowing that chair I'm sure it helped with those nasty people at admissions, but if I do that it will spoil our plans. Don't you have some minimum wage thing she could do at the office? I'm sure she will be fine."
The Dad pats her on the shoulder and with pride says "welcome to the Republican Party."
An older man crashed his grocery cart into that of a much younger fellow while both were shopping. The elderly man explained apologetically that he had lost track of his wife and was preoccupied searching for her. His new acquaintance said that by coincidence his wife had also wandered off and suggested that it might be more efficient if they jointly looked for the two women.
Agreeing, the older man asked his new companion what his wife looked like. "She's a gorgeous blonde," the fellow answered, "with a body that would cause a bishop to go through a stained glass window, and she's wearing tight white shorts. How about yours?" The senior citizen wasted no words: "Forget her, we'll look for yours."
I wonder how Buenos Aires will look 20 years from now?
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/scientists-offer-dire-forecast-for-earth/20070310193709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Bad
Yesterday, a group of scientists warned that because of global warming, sea levels will rise so much that parts of New Jersey will be under water. The bad news? Parts of New Jersey won't be under water.
I wonder how Buenos Aires will look 20 years from now?
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/scientists-offer-dire-forecast-for-earth/20070310193709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
BadBadboy,
Is there a significance to you posting this article in the "American Politics" thread?
Alan
Global warming and the political policies regarding it are a hot topic in the US and around the world, maybe you disagree with my posting it here but I think it is valid.
It's not here to start a debate, just some food for thought next time we go to the ballot boxes.
Governments formulate policies baesd on domestic and global politics, these policies affect our environment ergo they affect us. According the the worlds top scientists we are all fucked within the next 50-100 years.
I rest my case your honor.
The balls in your court.
Bad
Global warming and the political policies regarding it are a hot topic in the US and around the world, maybe you disagree with my posting it here but I think it is valid.Bad,
I would only agree that global warming is a hot topic in the USA amongst a relatively small group; Al Gore, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and a disproportionate number of "soccer moms" (however concerned they may be, they are not willing to give up their HUGE SUVs) some scientists, and of course the United Nations - seeing this as a huge power grab and opportunity to collect money for "Carbon Credits".
I will start a separate thread, so we don't "pollute" this thread - wouldn't want anyone to miss an opportunity to discuss Campaign 2008.
Alan
This week marks the 15th anniversary of the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy here in Buenos Aires. 29 people died with about 240 injured. The site is located at the corner of Arroyo & Suipacha, you will easily see the memorial park and the traced outline of the previous building. Two years later, there was a second bombing here that killed approximately 85 people at the AMIA Jewish Center.
An interesting article:
http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=391&issue_id=2877&article_id=23407
For the members who are still reliving the "lovefeast" of the 1990s, I. E. Clinton era. May I respectfully offered this reminder:
1992- Bush"1" - BsAs bombing #1
1993- Clinton - World Trade Center 1st bombing.
1994- Clinton - BsAs bombing #2
1996- Clinton - Khobar towers.
1998- Clinton - Nairobi US Embassy.
1998- Clinton - Dar es Salaam US Embassy.
2000- Clinton - USS Cole attacked.
2001- Bush"2"- Asleep at the switch - WTC 2nd attack.
The point is this; the US has never and will never be liked by many / most in the world - for more reasons than I could list here. If you believe that the recent trials and tribulations are solely caused by the man / dufus we currently call "Mr. President and Commander in Chief", you have a short memory.
President George Bush will return from his Latin American tour this week with an agreement-in-principle to aid several nations by providing them with a steady supply of low-cost, American-made anti-Bush protesters.
"Our experienced, homegrown protesters will augment the budding anti-me industry in these developing nations," Mr. Bush said at a news conference today in Uruguay. "I think Latin Americans will be impressed by our high-volume products."
In an extraordinary goodwill gesture, the president did not ask his Latin American counterparts for anything in return.
"We're more than glad to help," said Mr. Bush. "After all you've shipped to us, it's the least we could do."
Thomaso276
06-20-07, 21:06
I just could not help to see the irony in todays NY Times Webpage as the first article was shown directly over the other.
Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill.
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG 3:39 PM ET.
President Bush said that the bill promoting embryonic stem cell research disregarded the sanctity of human life.
Heavy Fighting as Troops Pursue Iraqi Insurgents.
By ALISSA J. RUBIN 3:32 PM ET.
Officials said that at least 30 insurgents were killed on the first full day of an aggressive push in Diyala Province.
I guess there is no sanctity of human life for at least 30 follks. By the way I met a couple the other day from Florida who were here with their daughter going to some clinic in the province because they do stem cell research down here.
StrayLight
06-27-07, 18:33
...absolutely hilarious:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/The_Daily_Show_lambastes_Cheney_secret_0626.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSjaXqGrtyI
The truth is, with the current line-up, the Democrats don't have a snowflakes chance in hell to win the coming elections. And while I think Giuliani has less of a chance of winning. The Democrats are screwed either way.
Clinton will NEVER win this election, half of the so-called " democrats " hate her, Obama is too scared to really say or do anything that might lose him poll percentage points. Plus he has the youth vote, and the youth never vote. Edwards would seem like the best choice (please refrain from laughing) but I don't think he has the funding or the proper handlers to market him to the masses.
So even though Brzezinski's endorsement of Obama is interesting. I don't think it really matters. Brzezinski, although being extremely intelligent, has historically been quite the war monger. So I take his opinions with a grain of (military coup plotting) salt.
Democrats are screwed, Republicans will win by default.
Bad
LOL Bad. I hope you are wrong, but I fear you may be right. Richardson would be my pick, but barring a miracle that ain't gonna happen. As for Ziggy, a real smart guy and a bit of a non conformist at times. My guess is that he probably believes what he says about Obama, but does also have a habit of saying things that get him some press. As for Edwards, a complete lightweight, but I will not laugh. The best candidate is not running, Chuck Hagel, though he is a republican.
By Christopher Swann.
Bloomberg News Published:
August 23, 2007
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/23/business/imf.php
WASHINGTON: The U. S. Treasury took two years to persuade the International Monetary Fund to police global currency markets - and just two months to trash the initiative once the IMF adopted it.
Treasury officials recruited the fund to be a currency regulator as China and other countries tried to gain a trade advantage with exchange rates. Instead, the fund took aim at the dollar, calling it overvalued in an Aug. 1 report. The Treasury objected, and on Aug. 2 an aide to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. Told Congress that it was impossible to measure a currency's fair value.
By rejecting the IMF's analysis, the Treasury may have jeopardized its own effort to use international leverage to help narrow China's $118 billion trade surplus with the United States. Members of Congress are threatening sanctions if the Treasury does not succeed in getting Beijing to stop suppressing the value of its currency.
Tim Adams, then Treasury under secretary, started the process in September 2005 when he criticized the IMF for a perception that it was "asleep at the wheel on its most fundamental responsibility: exchange-rate surveillance." Involving the IMF also served a political purpose: It helped to disengage Washington from a direct confrontation with Beijing over the value of the yuan, which the United States argues is undervalued as a result of Chinese government policy. Now the Treasury's response to the fund's analysis of the dollar may undermine the lender's ability to referee currency disputes.
Fund economists told U. S. Officials in meetings ended July 27 that their research showed that the dollar was 10 percent to 30 percent overpriced, according to an account included in the Aug. 1 report. The second blow to the IMF's new mission came when Mark Sobel, a Treasury deputy assistant secretary, told Congress the day after the report was released that while exchange-rate modeling offers "valuable insights, there is no reliable or precise method for estimating the proper value of an economy's foreign exchange rate."
Assistant Treasury Secretary Clay Lowery, the department's No. 2 international official, said the U. S. Stance on calculating fair-value rates was not new and did not undercut the IMF. Pinpointing an exchange rate's fair value is "very difficult," Lowery said in an interview. "The IMF explained what they believed, and the United States explained back what it believed on the same issue."
Armed with the Treasury's arguments, Beijing may now emulate Washington by rebuffing IMF attempts to alter its exchange-rate policies. China, along with Iran, voted against the fund's new surveillance program before Rodrigo de Rato, managing director of the fund, introduced it in June. Adam Lerrick, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, said: "The U. S. Criticism will certainly weaken the authority of the fund to comment on China's currency. The Chinese are likely to argue that the fund is wrong about their currency, too, and point out that even the U. S. Doesn't trust the fund's views."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You couldn't make this stuff up. Lol. Good bye lame duck IMF, you have literally become useless.
Bad
Yo, Dogg, long time no 8 ball,
In late May Richardson met the nonpariel inquisitor of politicos, Tim Russert, on Meet the Press.
The Gov. Took a beating by critics after the show, one such being in Slate.
For the criticism and the live interview see below if you're so inclined.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18818527/
http://www.slate.com/id/2167195/nav/navoa/
Yo, Dogg, long time no 8 ball,
In late May Richardson met the nonpariel inquisitor of politicos, Tim Russert, on Meet the Press.
The Gov. took a beating by critics after the show, one such being in Slate.
For the criticism and the live interview see below if you're so inclined.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18818527/
http://www.slate.com/id/2167195/nav/navoa/Ah well, another choice diminished. Too bad. I have been impressed by his ability to negotiate tricky international problems in the past without getting bogged down in partisan politics. Certainly sounds like he didn't make a good impression in Russert's interview. Well, more of the same then. A cast of the usual suspects. So, how goes it Hound? Do you anticipate a glorious return to these environs when the weather warms up?
Ah well, another choice diminished. Too bad. I have been impressed by his ability to negotiate tricky international problems in the past without getting bogged down in partisan politics. Certainly sounds like he didn't make a good impression in Russert's interview. Well, more of the same then. A cast of the usual suspects. So, how goes it Hound? Do you anticipate a glorious return to these environs when the weather warms up?My flip-flops are at the ready.
He is incredible! And is always ''right on''!In all my years, I have never called another man incredible. So either you have some serious idolatry issues going or you need to come out of that closet. And maybe he is your god, and I am sure your god could never be wrong. But it is naive to say someone has and never will be wrong.Let me guess he has never uttered one false word either. lol. That is just bullshit. But thanks for the laughs
Bad.
I think he is an intelligent guy who has used that intelligence to serve his purposes. Nothing more. Let me know when one of his ideas actually solves something it was supposed to. Last time I checked, his genius brought us the Taliban, Ayatollah Khomeini and so on. With all that said, I admit, he is intelligent and some of his works are required reading. But half the shit he says and thinks is bullshit. Or should the US keep funding the Taliban in order to stick it to the USSR? He let his personal animosity get in the way of his global geostrategy, unless funding Al-Qaeda was part of all that.
Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States CIA program to arm Islamic mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979-1989. The Program relied heavily on using the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) as an intermediary for funds distribution. Along with similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia and other nations, the opponents to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan collectively trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992. Somewhere between $3–$20 billion in US funds were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.
The favored leader amongst the Afghan resistance fighters was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. His tactics became increasingly violent and aimed towards civilian populations, including shelling Kabul with American-supplied weapons, causing 2,000 casualties. According to a Newsweek article, in the late 1980s, Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned of the growing strength of Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein." Hekmatyar was said to be friendly with Osama bin Laden, founder of al-Qaeda, who was running a similar Arab logistical organization concurrent to Operation Cyclone, called Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) The US asserts that all of its funds were used to supply native Afghan rebels, and denies that any of its funds were used to supply Osama bin Laden or foreign Arab mujahideen. It is estimated that 35,000 foreign Muslims from 43 Islamic countries also take part in the war. (See: Al-Qaeda: Origins in Maktab al-Khadamat)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
June 13, 1997, in a CNN / National Security Archive interview, Brzezinski detailed the strategy taken by the Carter administration against the Soviets:
We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again—for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt. Full Text of Interview:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-17/brzezinski1.html
You like to get off topic don't you Benny, it's alot easier than dealing with your bullshit and symplistic analysis once it has been exposed. Zbig fucked up and now we have something far bigger to worry about. But I guess it's better to have a Fundamentalist Islamic state in Iran, a Nuclear armed, Al Qaeda funding military Dictatorship in the tinderbox we call Pakistan, and an Al Qaeda run Afghanistan. Oh yeah, let us know when all this online begging nagging and whining actually lands you a job with Kirchner.
The point is you are full of shit. Your idol was so wrong it's not even funny. Or just ask those who were in the world trade center, the minute the CIA financed and trained operatives struck. I am sure they love the fact that was brought to them by Zbig and his brilliant policies. Just goes to show what happens when you give a hater too much power over foreign policy. He will put American lives in harms way any chance he gets as long as he gets to try to hurt the thing he hates the most. Russia still has all the natural resources it needs and then some. It is still strong arming Europe as far as gas is concerned. It is still knee deep in Central Asia and the Middle East. Nothing changed because of Brez, Oh yeah, except we now have the Taliban he helped create, the Pakistani ISI that is funneling money to Al Qaeda as we speak. Oh yeah I almost forgot, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Thank you Zbig for bringing us Al Qaeda. Your mental gymnastics really paid of. We got to stick it to the USSR, they lost we won, hehe, hehe, ummm.
Bad,
PS, Russian women are still begging for my poll, so yes life is fair.;)
I first met Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1985 when I interviewed him for a French magazine for which I was a stringer. He graciously granted me an interview which was published in the French press. Since then we've met a few times, and each time he asks me about my employer; I've never had the heart to tell him that it closed down some years ago.
I don't agree with all his views or political affiliations, but he is a thoughtful man with thoughtful things to say. I like him, which is something I can't say about many politicians that I've met, Republican or Democrat. He certainly has my respect, if not my agreement.
I don't agree with all his views or political affiliations, but he is a thoughtful man with thoughtful things to say. Agreed.
Bad
Any other personal comments you want to make? When all else fails just change the subject and attack someone smarter than you Benny, is that your game plan? I could write a book about all the psychosis I have gleamed from reading your posts. You are the biggest shit talking child I have ever met. You just can't stop, it's like an illness with you.
No matter what anyone says, a day or two from now you will post the same thoughtless drivel. It will get deconstructed and you will descend into childish name calling. So do me a favor and worry about yourself, because at your age you shouldn't be this bitter, infantile or capricious. And you need to get another hobby, because talking shit on an internet sex forum about Latin America, it's people, it's leaders, it's politics, it's economy, all the while living in their country, is beyond pathetic and if you had any real friends, they might just advise you on just how stupid that really is.
Bad
Do you even read what you type? It makes no sense. And I don't have to repeat anything, you do a good job of repeating yourself. When all else fails just descend to infantile name calling and off the wall comments, your tactics are pretty well documented here on AP. You really can't control yourself, can you? Such lack of control for an centenarian, such immaturity and impulsiveness.
Get a new hobby, because your current one is pathetic, maybe you might want to ask your psych friend to refer you to a good neurocognitive specialist. I am sure they can find out exactly what is wrong with you. Because your psychiatrist buddy didn't seem to do much good, though he probably just threw drugs at the problem.
Bad
Rock Harders
08-26-07, 07:31
Jackson-
Could you do the forum membership a favor and just put Badboy and Sidney on each other's ignore list, so they cannot see what each other writes, and therefore cannot bicker on endlessly about nothing. This bullshit they write to each other has nothing to do with finding women for the purpose of having sex.
Suerte,
Dirk Diggler
This bullshit has nothing to do with finding women for the purpose of having sex. I agree, but try to get butthead over there to listen to reason. He couldn't exist on the forum if it wasn't for shit talking Lat Am in one way or another.
Bad
Assume, that for whatever reason, Syd has a need to do his thing. You have zero control over him and cannot even dialog with him to open the possibility that he could see and understand your point of view. The fighting is a complete waste of energy.
I would make a request that you post more about how the portena brain operates. You have provided some valuable insight which is very helpful to those of us here interested in functioning at a higher level in Bs As.
I guess you all heard the news, Bush's very own Karl August Werner, the lackey you all love to hate just got the " you're fired " speech. I wonder who will fill his shoes, I am guessing the requirements will be few, an ethnic minority " yes " man who can say " I have no recollection " repeatedly in front of a grand jury while keeping a straight face. But at least now he can go back to studying abstract theories or better yet now he will probably get paid to teach abstract theories.
Bad
With the evolution the Bush administration has displayed a mentally challenged attorney would create a straight flush amongst the other Bush morons / administration.
Bush has been left all alone, he has had to fire all his cronies, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and now Alberto Gonzalez. Well, at least he still has Cheney. This presidency has become a retarded version of Survivor. Let's see who makes it to the end of the Presidency.
Bad
The others are just some rats fleeing a sinking ship!Where's Robespierre when you need him?
Where's Robespierre when you need him?Our Robespierre may be Ariana Huffington, whose popular liberal website has lately been advocating a military coup, telling General Peter Pace he should seize control of the government.
Come to think of it, she's Greek, isn't she? They have experience with military coups within living memory.
And given the fact that the US military is filled, top-to-bottom with about 80% Republicans, I don't think Ms. Huffington would be too happy with Generalissimo Peter Pace, President-for-Life. It's hard for women like her to think things out clearly when they suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Our Robespierre may be Ariana Huffington, whose popular liberal website has lately been advocating a military coup, telling General Peter Pace he should seize control of the government.
Come to think of it, she's Greek, isn't she? They have experience with military coups within living memory.
And given the fact that the US military is filled, top-to-bottom with about 80% Republicans, I don't think Ms. Huffington would be too happy with Generalissimo Peter Pace, President-for-Life. It's hard for women like her to think things out clearly when they suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.Ha! Ariana Huffington! The left's answer to Fat Radio Boy. A couple of self aggrandizing bores.
StrayLight
08-28-07, 17:24
And given the fact that the US military is filled, top-to-bottom with about 80% Republicans.I remember standing on the beach by the airport in Mogadishu, Somalia in January, 1993. There were a bunch of officers -- about 8 or 9 of us -- who all had a common 0-6 boss. That particular boss was adamantly anti-Clinton, to the point that he even took pot shots at Chelsea Clinton's looks. He was a pretty domineering guy, and when we were in his presence everyone more or less just kept their mouth shut and let him rattle on.
The organization we were in was a task-organized sort of thing, and none of us really knew any of the other guys that well, even though we'd been working together for a few months. And the point there being that none of us really knew how any of the other officers thought politically. I guess everyone knew the statistics, and assumed the 0-6 we worked for was the voice of us all (only louder). In any case, none of us had discussed the recent election or anything else politically with anyone else.
So there we all were, standing around on the beach shootin' the shit. And if you recall, George H. W. Bush came to Somalia that month as part of his Presidential farewell tour. So of course the subject came up. I forget which brave soul said it first, but someone offered up that he had voted for Clinton. And damned if it wasn't just like an AA meeting or something. Every...single...guy standing around the circle then offered up that he, too, had voted for Clinton. I mean, we had Ops officers, Intel officers, Logistics officers, Comm officers -- the entire staff represented-- every one an 0-4 or an 0-5, and every one had voted for Clinton.
So, you know, that statistic tells a little bit of the story, and it's a bit that needs to be taken into account. But it's not the full story. The officer corp of the U. S. military is not some bunch of brainless goons who are going to vote party line just because it's their party. As a professional group, it's among the most well-educated groups in America, and its full of people who can think for themselves when the facts are right there in front of them.
The officer corp of the U. S. Military is not some bunch of brainless goons who are going to vote party line just because it's their party. As a professional group, it's among the most well-educated groups in America, and its full of people who can think for themselves when the facts are right there in front of them.Good point. Maybe General Pace should take Ariana's advice and start the coup now, we all might like the results. :D
If Ariana Huffington is our Robespierre, who will be our Talleyrand?
You remember Talleyrand, the French nobleman and diplomat famously described by Napoleon as "shit in a silk stocking."
StrayLight
08-28-07, 19:30
Good point. Maybe General Pace should take Ariana's advice and start the coup now, we all might like the results.:DI think the real coup will happen next November. My guess is that unless the Democrats commit institutional suicide with their nomination, the Republican Party is going to be quite surprised at the exit polls among the military. Could be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if it pans out differently.
A couple of self aggrandizing bores.Geez Dog,
Didn't you just describe the entire entertainment and media complex (Paris Hilton, Rosie O'Donnell, Oprah, Jerry Springer, Don Imis, Michael Savage, Tim Russert, Larry King, etc, etc, etc...). Why limit it the the airwaves "wind-bags"?
Geez Dog,
Didn't you just describe the entire entertainment and media complex (Paris Hilton, Rosie O'Donnell, Oprah, Jerry Springer, Don Imis, Michael Savage, Tim Russert, Larry King, etc, etc, etc. Why limit it the the airwaves "wind-bags"?For sure there are enough self promoting media "savvy" clowns for anyone of any taste these days. I was pointing out two of the more flagrant political examples from either end of the partisan continuum. (Though I don't think Russert belongs in the company listed above) Who do you think would be the first one with cardiac arrest if Huffington and Limberger got it on?:)
Dude pleads guilty to trying to blow an under cover cop in a public restroom aka lewd conduct and now that the record has become public, he is saying he was confused and didn't have the benefit of legal council. Rrriiighhht.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/washington/29craig.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
And given the fact that the US military is filled, top-to-bottom with about 80% Republicans Considering the fact that the Republican party is becoming gayer every minute, I really hope the military isn't 80% Republican. Neither tops nor bottoms.
Bad
A Scandal-Scarred G.O.P. Asks, ‘What Next?’
By SHERYL STOLBERG
Published: August 29, 2007
Forget Mark Foley of Florida, who quit the House last year after exchanging sexually explicit e-mail messages with under-age male pages, or Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist whose dealings with the old Republican Congress landed him in prison. They are old news, replaced by a fresh crop of scandal-plagued Republicans, men like Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, whose phone number turned up on the list of the so-called D. C. Madam, or Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative Rick Renzi of Arizona, both caught up in F. B. I. Corruption investigations. And just when Republicans thought things could not get any worse, Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho confirmed that he had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct after an undercover police officer accused him of soliciting sex in June in a Minneapolis airport restroom. Or Thomas Ravenel, the state treasurer of South Carolina, who had to step down as state chairman of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s presidential campaign after he was indicted on cocaine charges in June. Or Bob Allen, a state representative in Florida who was jettisoned from the John McCain campaign last month after he was arrested on charges of soliciting sex in a public restroom.
It is enough to make a self-respecting Republican want to tear his hair out in frustration, especially as the party is trying to defend an unpopular war, contain the power of the new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill and generate some enthusiasm among voters heading toward the presidential election in 2008. “The real question for Republicans in Washington is how low can you go, because we are approaching a level of ridiculousness,” said Mr. Reed, sounding exasperated in an interview on Tuesday morning. "You can’t make this stuff up."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/us/politics/29repubs.html?ex=1189051200&en=48390b3b53e63728&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Poor Craig is meat now. Though it is important to point out he was not hitting on anybody underage, trolling the internet, etc. These married fags / bisexuals got it tough. It took forever to get rid of Delay and seconds to see Craig villified. Priorities, priorities.
I wonder if this film will ever see the light of day in the USA? For those that want to understand things a little better, it is a must see. For those that don't it would be a waste of time.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148&q=war+on+democracy&total=2190&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_on_Democracy
Bad
In Senator Craig, we have one of the clearist examples of the people who are victimizing themselves to support an ideology that does not serve them well. I am referring to the evil coalition that exists between the corporate imperialists, the religious extremists, and the other people with fascist leanings. I only comment here because this involves issues dear to the hearts of hobbiests and supporters of this forum.
Craig is clearly a victim of entrapment. Whatever actually happened, the cop was behaving as a consenting adult in a series of actions deliberately designed to be private and inobtrusive. He was deliberately misrepresenting himself. His behavior was more flagrant than that of woman seated on a park bench who simply smiles and waves as one passes by, in an attempt to attract a customer.
It terrifies me that I might walk into such a situation. And, knowing nothing of the behaviors that can trigger an arrest, inadvertently do something that might trigger this whole series. It also terrifies me that we have so many situations in the US where the unsupported word of a cop trying to look good can be so destructive. I might get out of a false arrest, but at what cost? $50,000, $100,000++ for the defense? Like the accusation of sexual harrassment, the defense alone can destroy your life.
We are all familiar with the issues of entrapment. And, if we are honest, hate it when these types of entrapment tactics are used against us when looking for working women. We lost these entrapment cases eventually, with the long rise in power of the extremists. Now we suffer the consequences. And as hobbiests, we are constantly fighting the use of entrapment now.
The paradox is: I am sure that Craig supported the judges, policies, and laws that make entrapment an everday event in the US, that gets ever more invasive. Like Rush Limbaugh, he continually supported policies and ideas that were against his own interests, and that were trying to destroy him. And, in Craig's case, it did. In a presumed attempt to further his interests in one area of his life, he helped create a monster that destroyed him. It is another glaring example of the breathtaking hypocrisy and dogmatism of the people in this coalition.
My message for this forum is this: Your participation in this forum identifies you as a person who has significant life interests that are being relentlessly attacked by the this extremist coalition. If you are a supporter of this coalition, how can you justify to yourself your position, which is essentially the same as that of Craig? How can you not be terrified that you are destroying yourself?
If you are here, you need to be trying to promote a balanced and reasoned view in government. We have enough enemies to fight, because behind this fight we have the larger issues of protecting men's rights from feminist extremism.
Thomaso276
09-02-07, 23:54
Lex: good points in your post, but here is a pretty simple explanation of entrapment:
ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.
I followed the case and listened to the taped interview. Pretty clear that this sanctomonious Senator took all the steps without pressure or inducement. As wel I don't believe the officer did any talking before or duing the incident. It was a good arrest. When was the last time anyone here tapped feet with the person in the next stall? Or reached down and ran your hand along the bottom of the partition?
Remember these operations occur where there are lot of complaints for ongoing criminal activity. You don't see drug stings being conducted in WalMart parking lots because people don't go there for drugs. Stings for these gay bathroom escapades are conducted in locations where there are complaints and obvious activity. Again, the average law abiding citizen would not participate or intiate or continue in these acts and has little to fear. No matter the defense (entrapment, self-defense, etc. It is the totality of probable cause that makes a case.
Couldn't this Senator have waited a couple of hours until his arrival in Washington and gotten with one of his pages for relief?
Thanks for the update on the current definition of entrapment, Thomaso. I don't actually know what it is. I primarily remember that initially, when these entrapment techniques started in the 70's, the government lost some cases. But gradually, the practice has grown in scope over the years, especially in the late 80's and early nineties, I guess. I mostly was interested in the prostitution cases, and sort of followed that action.
Looking at your definition, it is actually scarier than I thought, and well explains the expansion of it's use.
"- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime."
This is a mess. In this case it seems only a little more clear. The most flagrant act would have to be looking through the crack in the stall door. The assumption could be that this was an invasion of the privacy of the person in the stall. But if the agent hadn't been there alone, was Craig there deliberately to make contact with someone? Who knows? Possibly not even Craig knows for sure. If a woman is sitting on a park bench as you walk by, did you have the first thought of soliciting her before or after you saw her? I think the assumption would be that if it was a known area for prostitutes, then you were thinking of soliciting by your presence, AND YOU CAN'T PROVE YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS A PICKUP AREA. In this light, it should be practically impossible to prove the idea did NOT originate with the entraping agent.
"- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime."
Again this is a mess that can give the government almost total leeway. If the opportunity is attractive enough, and the crime minor enough, there are no honest people. Diogenes is still looking. If that is a really attractive looking woman sitting on the bench, and she is convincing, you will fall. There is a huge amount of room for providing opportunity if one must prove they were persuaded (to the point of force? Simply greed? Psycological pressure? Intimidation by authority?
The cop certainly persuaded Craig to proceed with his positive response at each step of the proceedings. A communication, I would reiterate, that was deliberately designed to be private and inobtrusive, SO AS NOT TO INVOVLVE AN UNINTERESTED PARTY. An uninterested party would never get to step 2 of the communication. We have evolved some of the same techniques with women, trying to avoid the issue of soliciting as long as possible, as much as possible. That woman has to be persuasive in her role to get you to pop the question.
"- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him."
This provides very little protection. Possibly it prevents an agent from seeking you out in your house to make an offer. Maybe it prevents the police from putting a prostitute decoy at a church picnic. But about anything else is fair game. It is practically impossible to prove you were unwilling to commit a crime without an attractive offer.
But on the other hand, since all of this involves risk / reward, one could argue that the person is NEVER willing to commit the crime without a sufficient reward from entrapping agents, that is UNTIL AFTER THE AGENTS CONTACTED THEM.
So looking at the above, one can see that there is an awful lot of room for any case to be interpreted either way. Years ago, the bias was against the police. This was during the famous "anti-police brutality" era of the late 60's and 70's, after the disasters of Chicago, Kent State, and many others. After Reagan came to power, the bias gradually shifted to favor the police against the individual. That shift is continuing still, with ever stronger bias toward the police.
The predominance of this entrapping activity occurs in areas of law that a large number of people do not support. Offenses of gambling, soliciting, alcohol, soft drug usage. Most of these issues are areas where the law is in a state of flux, and deservedly so. When a large number of people do not agree, there is a problem with the law of some kind. The laws tend to follow the behavior of the people, not lead. Laws are passed to stop objectionable behavior, and made more lenient usually in response to widespread civil disobedience, if it is done reasonably. THE LAWS THAT CAUSE THE MOST TROUBLE ARE DOGMATIC IN NATURE, PUSHED BY EXTREMISTS OF SOME KIND. Entrapment is designed to be as invasive as possible to prevent disobediance THAT MIGHT LEAD TO A CHANGE IN THE LAW:.
Regarding changes in thinking on law, consider this. Back in the 50's or so, there were laws against usury. Police were arresting people for doing what the credit card companies now do by economic force nationally, but that activity is cheered by the corporate imperialists today. Running numbers was (and still usually is) illegal unless the government does it. And I remember that at least in Baltimore in 65, the bookies paid 700-1 on the 3 digit number. The government lotteries I've seen were 500-1 or worse. We got a better deal from the bookies.
Lastly, let's not forget that it is hard to define the crime in that bathroom. When did it become a crime? If the behavior sought between consenting adults is not a crime, then some amount of interaction to meet another consenting adult is necessary. When does that interaction become a crime? I again point out that here they described a complicated interchange unknown to most people and designed to prevent the involvement of uninterested people. This was a complicated flirting sequence.
This is key. The people being entrapped keep working harder and harder to prevent entrapment or breaking the law. What is the essential difference between offering $500 directly or the chance to attend a sold out rock concert? Only the manner of the offer, and time and complexity of making it. You are going to try to offer those concert tickets to the woman most likely to respond with positive favors. How do you determine that? In the current environment, the police become ever more invasive to follow and effectively create a crime.
Here, I would point out that the extremists take the most rigid view that the state should enforce draconian interpretations of the law, unlimited police power, and even the creation of law by the police as the situation offers itself.
I prefer that there remain a more balanced view, and the law should be interpreted by the courts to provide the least damage to all parties, including the perpetrator. By this I mean that going to such great lengths to destroy the life of someone for a crime that is hard to define is a lot of excessive damage to the perpetrator. That more or less defines "Draconian".
From the NYTimes online edition today-police are targeting prostitution advertising on Craigslist by using sting operations. If EVER there was a waste of money, there it be.
As reported by the NYTimes, Bush is expected to give a speech today in which he will state that the USA will "not accept" a transition of power in Cuba from Fidel to brother Raul. Sheesh, I guess Cuba is next on the invasion list. Somebody remind me, how much longer is it now that we have to tolerate this fucking imbecile? Of course, we are not going to invade Cuba, and this is Bush (and the republicans) engaging in more of their transparent pandering to the Florida cuban expat community, but ENOUGH! Though the ball-less Democrats won't make much of this, because they bend over backwards not to offend the cuban expat community as well. It's nauseating how a relatively small percentage of expats, most of them living in one state, have dictated USA foreign policy in the Caribbean for over 40 fucking years. Just as disgusting is how the politicians of both parties have fed into their delusion that they are someday going to return to Cuba, reclaim their property, and live happily ever after. As if the politicos really give a shit about the reclamation of their property anyway. It's just a potential mega money making Caribbean outpost for the corporate muckety mucks.
Fund the Iraq and AF wars!Assuming $p100 a pop, that's enough to keep a thousand mongers fucking a different chica every day for over 1600 years.
Wish I could live that long.
As reported by the NYTimes, Bush is expected to give a speech today in which he will state that the USA will "not accept" a transition of power in Cuba from Fidel to brother Raul. Sheesh, I guess Cuba is next on the invasion list.If I remember correctly Crutcev and JFK signed an agreement back in 1962.
Unless there is a time limit on it I do not think that the US will invade Cuba.
So far they honored this agreement.
El Greco
If I remember correctly Crutcev and JFK signed an agreement back in 1962.
Unless there is a time limit on it I do not think that the US will invade Cuba.
So far they honored this agreement.
El GrecoThe Bush administration has shown time and again that it is willing to ignore the terms of previous treaties that it deems "irrelevant." Both countries signed a treaty on missile defense and Bush said early in his term that he was going to ignore its provisions.
At the expense of offending some of my buddies who lean a bit (or alot) to the right, here is the link to the searing anti Bush administration funnies entitled "Get Your War On". Not for those who prefer their political debate to be conducted over crumpets and tea. The link takes you to the first page which was published on 10/9/01. There are many pages following that, leading up to the present. Some are not funny and some not as incisive in their commentary as others. Others are dead on with a huge dose of black humor. I am inspired to provide the link today as it becomes increasingly clear that in addition to everything else the Bushies have brought us, we are not far from an economic malaise, if not a near total fucking meltdown.
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html
A bunch of cartoons mocking Operation Enduring Freedom, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.
Yep, there is no understanding why the United States invaded such a nice, peaceloving, enlightened country like Afghanistan. I mean, that country didn't harbor and sponsor an international terror organization that killed 3,500 people and destroyed lower Manhattan, no sir. There was no relationship between the nice Taliban leaders and a bunch of people seeking small nuclear weapons to detonate in London or Washington, no. That was a fake declaration of jihad against America, and even if it was real, it was just made against the warmongering neo-con board of directors of Halliburton. The enlightened treatment of women, such as banning them from having medical treatment, making them slaves, and ending education for girls - all these things are the kind of wonderful 7th century government that was swept away in a hail of imperialist murder. In fact, the invasion of Afghanistan was only a Texas oil company plot to seize the oil reserves of that country, guaranteeing gasoline prices under $1 a gallon for greedy, fat infidel pigs driving their SUVs that destroy the planet, cause the polar ice caps to melt, and drown hundreds of thousands of innocent people in man-made hurricanes directed by Exxon to offshore oil platforms. And add on top of that the Republicans caused global warming and terrible wildfires that burned up only illegal aliens - another group of unfortunate victims of this administration.
It all makes perfect sense. It's all a giant conspiracy dreamed up by Dick Cheney. (Appropriate name that one is - "Dick.") Yep, get your war on. It's without any basis at all.
A bunch of cartoons mocking Operation Enduring Freedom, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.
Yep, there is no understanding why the United States invaded such a nice, peaceloving, enlightened country like Afghanistan. I mean, that country didn't harbor and sponsor an international terror organization that killed 3,500 people and destroyed lower Manhattan, no sir. There was no relationship between the nice Taliban leaders and a bunch of people seeking small nuclear weapons to detonate in London or Washington, no. That was a fake declaration of jihad against America, and even if it was real, it was just made against the warmongering neo-con board of directors of Halliburton. The enlightened treatment of women, such as banning them from having medical treatment, making them slaves, and ending education for girls - all these things are the kind of wonderful 7th century government that was swept away in a hail of imperialist murder. In fact, the invasion of Afghanistan was only a Texas oil company plot to seize the oil reserves of that country, guaranteeing gasoline prices under $1 a gallon for greedy, fat infidel pigs driving their SUVs that destroy the planet, cause the polar ice caps to melt, and drown hundreds of thousands of innocent people in man-made hurricanes directed by Exxon to offshore oil platforms. And add on top of that the Republicans caused global warming and terrible wildfires that burned up only illegal aliens - another group of unfortunate victims of this administration.
It all makes perfect sense. It's all a giant conspiracy dreamed up by Dick Cheney. (Appropriate name that one is - "Dick.") Yep, get your war on. It's without any basis at all.Hunt, there is alot more to the strip than Afghanistan. And, I don't disagree with you about that aspect.
A bunch of cartoons mocking Operation Enduring Freedom, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.
Yep, there is no understanding why the United States invaded such a nice, peaceloving, enlightened country like Afghanistan. I mean, that country didn't harbor and sponsor an international terror organization that killed 3,500 people and destroyed lower Manhattan, no sir. There was no relationship between the nice Taliban leaders and a bunch of people seeking small nuclear weapons to detonate in London or Washington, no. That was a fake declaration of jihad against America, and even if it was real, it was just made against the warmongering neo-con board of directors of Halliburton. The enlightened treatment of women, such as banning them from having medical treatment, making them slaves, and ending education for girls - all these things are the kind of wonderful 7th century government that was swept away in a hail of imperialist murder. In fact, the invasion of Afghanistan was only a Texas oil company plot to seize the oil reserves of that country, guaranteeing gasoline prices under $1 a gallon for greedy, fat infidel pigs driving their SUVs that destroy the planet, cause the polar ice caps to melt, and drown hundreds of thousands of innocent people in man-made hurricanes directed by Exxon to offshore oil platforms. And add on top of that the Republicans caused global warming and terrible wildfires that burned up only illegal aliens - another group of unfortunate victims of this administration.
It all makes perfect sense. It's all a giant conspiracy dreamed up by Dick Cheney. (Appropriate name that one is - "Dick.") Yep, get your war on. It's without any basis at all.I am not very much into American politics but as far as I remember that was a plan described some 30 years ago by Zbiknew Brezinshky (I hope I wrote it correctly) when he was the security advisor to the watergate president of the USA.
Before that he was the secretary of "The Trilateral Comission" formed by Nelson Rockefeller. Something like "Bidelberg" club of nowdays. Very clever guy. He predicted the fall of the USSR many years before it happened.
I had the chance to read the minutes of the first Bidelberg meeting. They were talking of finding ways to eventually form a world government. That was in the seventies.
So don't be suprised. They are following the plan. They had to bring USSR to a fall first and now are taking the soil beneath Russia in order to control the world wealth there. The oil.
You maybe find all the above naive but there is an old book of Brezinsky out there. I beleve it will be easy for you to find.
Thanks,
El Greco
Attempting to democratize, Chistianize, and cleanse the world! This idea started in the early 1800's and is used as an excuse for all our foreign escapades. Currently Iraq, AF, quite possibly Iran, Mideast, many more. The cost in many ways, to America, is astronomical ($189 billion requested funding for 1 year in Iraq+AF) Our failures continue. The dollar has collapsed, oil is sky high, the military industrial complex grows in size and influence, deficit spending, etc. As I has mentioned many times in the past, INHO, a conspiracy to enrich the oil compex and military industrial complex, and to satisfy the religious right. The Bush / Chaney constituencies benefit.I will finally and totally agree with you Sidney. But as I wrote below they are following the plan.
Thanks.
El Greco
Just as a sort of side-note to the oil and war crap - the US government, who funds things such as the Iraq War at the price of gazzillions of dollars a year, and billions of dollars a year on idiotic things like continuing to pour money down the drain on Tokamak fusion reactors as a viable source of power, has a hard time with a few hundred million on things that have been proven can work (related to fusion) and can really change the world as far as the balance of power based on oil.
Some physicists on a shoe-string budget have managed to build a working model of an engine that produces electricity using fusion, at room temperature (NOT cold fusion, but something that has been understood since the 1920's, but engineering-wise were never able to overcome)
http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/Should%20Google%20Go%20Nuclear.pdf
That is a paper given to Google tech employees recently and has some really interesting science in it about how the thing works and the history of fusion. But an interesting part of this is about halfway through the paper where the speaker talks about the funding issues to be overcome and the idiocies of the government in protecting turf and coninuing to spend money on things that many people know can't ever work.
Whether or not you agree the government should be funding research or leaving it up to private corporations, I think most of us could agree that it would be better to fund a $250 million project that could release us from oil dependency in a large part and make the US a leader in power generation technology, rather than spending it on "Attempting to democratize, Chistianize, and cleanse the world"!
But what do we know - we're just a bunch of guys who enjoy pussy in a foreign land and dream of a stong dollar.
Worthy of your time to read.
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.' 'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.
During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondageProfessor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election.
Number of States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000 Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million Bush: 143 million.
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 1
Professor Olson adds
In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than twenty years.
If you are in favor of this happening, then delete this message. If you are not then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
Exon123,
Some interesting figures. I think you missed out an important one. How many actual votes did each candidate get?
I voted for Gore, and would do it again.
Exon
I voted for Gore, and would do it again.
ExonNatch, I voted for him twice.:)
Exon123,
Some interesting figures. I think you missed out an important one. How many actual votes did each candidate get?Of the votes that count, according to the Constitution, Gore got 266 and Bush got 271. :p
Sidney Riley
01-26-08, 13:22
Of the votes that count, according to the Constitution, Gore got 266 and Bush got 271.That kind of crap is all going to come to a screeching halt soon.
The National Popular Vote initiative has been passed by two states, and is making its way through the legislative bodies of 20 or so more.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
It won't have an impact on the 2008 vote, but it's expected to be the way we elect Presidents from 2012 on.
This will probably be among George W. Bush's most enduring legacies.
That kind of crap is all going to come to a screeching halt soon.
The National Popular Vote initiative has been passed by two states, and is making its way through the legislative bodies of 20 or so more.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
It won't have an impact on the 2008 vote, but it's expected to be the way we elect Presidents from 2012 on.
This will probably be among George W. Bush's most enduring legacies.More's the pity, but this will likely get derailed down the line. Should it show signs of actually having a chance, the old boy network (many on both sides of the partisan line) will work like hell to scuttle it.
Article from The Guardian yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2183837,00.html
A Republican push to change America's historic voting system is faltering after a fightback by Democrats fearful that it could cost them the 2008 presidential election. Republican activists in California, the most populous state in the country, have set in motion a proposal to change the law to end the winner-takes-all electoral college system.
The change, if it went through, would effectively hand the next election to the Republicans.
California has gone Democratic in every election since 1992, providing a bloc of 55 electoral votes, about one fifth of the 270 needed to win the presidency.
The Republicans are proposing that instead of all the electoral votes going to the winner, the 55 votes be allocated on a Congressional district basis, which would give the Republicans around 20, almost certainly enough to secure the White House.
The electoral college system, in use for more than 200 years, has become increasingly contentious, particularly since 2000, when George Bush won the presidency in spite of Al Gore securing a majority of the popular vote.
Political scientists and historians are divided over the pros and cons of the system. Sympathisers argue that it provides a degree of stability while opponents claim it can run counter to the wishes of the electorate.
The Republicans have filed to have their proposal put to a ballot in June next year. But first they have to collect 434,000 signatures by November 29 this year. If Californians then voted in the ballot for the change, the new rules would apply in November's presidential election.
The Republican campaign to force a change appeared to hit the buffers last week when the leading figures behind it unexpectedly resigned.
One of them said that initial canvassing for signatures showed the necessary signatures are not there. But Democrats are cautious, not persuaded that the Republicans have really given up.
Supporters of Hillary Clinton, who is the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, are monitoring the situation, aware that such a change could scupper her chances of reaching the White House.
Supporters of the Republican frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, have provided almost all the finance for the campaign.
Paul Singer, a New York hedge fund executive, one of Mr Giuliani's fundraisers, provided almost all the money for the Californian ballot campaign, $170,000 (£85,000)
Professor Robert Bennett, of the Illinois-based Northwestern University School of Law and author of Taming the Electoral College, said today he did not think the Republican push was yet over.
"I would not count it out at the present time. It seems to have suffered a setback but they are still trying to collect signatures," he said. He added that he believed if it went to ballot, it would pass.
"It is a terrible idea," he said. It would produce a partisan shift in only one state. To work fairly, it would have to be introduced in at least a few large states and, preferably, nationwide.
Two Democratic senators from California, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, in a joint statement, said: "This power grab orchestrated by the Republicans is another cynical move to keep the presidency in Republican control."
The man behind the Republican drive was Thomas Hiltachk, a Sacramento election lawyer who also works for the Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The governor has distanced himself from the plan, saying: "In principle, I don't like to change the rules in the middle of the game."
The Democrats attempted to introduce a similar reform in North Carolina earlier this year in the hope of picking up seven electoral college votes. But they quickly abandoned this when they realised they would be establishing a precedent.
They did the arithmetic and realised the gain in North Carolina would be swamped by the losses in California.
Natch, I voted for him twice.:)Dogg,
I love you buddy, but Gore only ran once for President, unless your counting his two sucessful bid's for Vice President. But You might have voted for him in your dreams after you figured out what George W. Bush did to our country.
What we've got to worry about here in this election is those Republican Fasist MotherFucker's. People like Jackson who would rather have a dictator than a democracy.
How's Mexico City by the way?
Exon
Dogg,
I love you buddy, but Gore only ran once for President, unless your counting his two sucessful bid's for Vice President. But You might have voted for him in your dreams after you figured out what George W. Bush did to our country.
What we've got to worry about here in this election is those Republican Fasist MotherFucker's. People like Jackson who would rather have a dictator than a democracy.
How's Mexico City by the way?
ExonExon-I voted for Gore on an absentee ballot out of Florida AND at a polling station on Wisconsin Ave. In Washington D. C. I didn't sit down and plan that out, but I was not unhappy that it happened.:)
As for our esteemed leader Jackson, despite his allegiance to the forces of darkness, given my Confederate, redneck background I have a soft spot in my heart for him.
Mexico City sucks after you've done the museums, some other culture and sampled a number of good restaurants. The working girl situation is relatively expensive unless you're into uglier than hell streetwalkers, the traffic is horrendous and the cabbies are a bunch of sociopathic thieves (and worse) Figures have it that 30% of all crime committed in Mexico City are committed in cabs. I would recommend this place for a long weekend of art and food, with a hired driver-then get the fuck out and never come back. I am currently planning my escape to occur within two weeks.
Cheers-Dogg
Sidney Riley
01-26-08, 15:54
A Republican push to change America's historic voting system is faltering after a fightback by Democrats fearful that it could cost them the 2008 presidential election. Republican activists in California, the most populous state in the country, have set in motion a proposal to change the law to end the winner-takes-all electoral college system.This should not be confused with the National Popular Vote initiative.
What the California Republican Party wants to do is split the California electoral appointments based on how that state votes.
What the National Popular Vote initiative will do is assign all electors from the states that have ratified it to the winner of the national popular vote.
The Republicans have filed to have their proposal put to a ballot in June next year. If Californians then voted in the ballot for the change, the new rules would apply in November's presidential election.Not necessarily. Article II, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors."
If California tries to apportion its electors based on a ballot initiative instead of a legislative initiative, you can bet it will get challenged.
More's the pity, but this will likely get derailed down the line. Should it show signs of actually having a chance, the old boy network (many on both sides of the partisan line) will work like hell to scuttle it.Don't count on it getting scuttled. The Democratic Party wants this in the worst way, and we are entering a resurgent Democratic era.
Don't count on it getting scuttled. The Democratic Party wants this in the worst way, and we are entering a resurgent Democratic era.Well again, I am certainly not opposed to the idea personally, but the power of inertia and the "flexibility" of politicians to favor for one moment, and then disfavor, the same proposal, cannot be underestimated. In addition, Hillary and even Obama are mainstream candidates for president despite the efforts of some to portray them as dangerous, ultra liberal menaces. Can you say "status quo"?;)
That kind of crap is all going to come to a screeching halt soon.
The National Popular Vote initiative has been passed by two states, and is making its way through the legislative bodies of 20 or so more.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
It won't have an impact on the 2008 vote, but it's expected to be the way we elect Presidents from 2012 on.
This will probably be among George W. Bush's most enduring legacies.Never going to happen. Small states like Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc. have no interest in it; moreover, it makes the attraction of voter fraud going national, as opposed to just state-wide.
In 2000, would you have liked to have seen 50 different state Supreme Courts arguing about voter counts and hanging chads? I didn't think so.
The Electoral College is a wise idea which has stood the test of 200 years of time. In this age of computerized voting and no voter-ID-style vote fraud, there's no good reason to abandon it.
....and we are entering a resurgent Democratic era.Yes, of course, because as we all know, as the baby boomers get older they will convert to liberalism.
ROTFLMAO.
Thanks,
Jackson
Sidney Riley
01-27-08, 01:14
Never going to happen. Small states like Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc. Have no interest in it.And yet, the first two states that have passed it are so-called "small" states: Maryland and New Jersey. In Hawaii (another small state), the Senate and the House passed it by veto-proof majorities. And it's passed in at least one chamber of several other "small" states.
And if you were to read the history, you would see that the initiative grew out of a law suit brought be Delaware (a very small state) against New York in 1966.
The small states have every interest in making this happen. They have next to no voice in the current system.
In 2000, would you have liked to have seen 50 different state Supreme Courts arguing about voter counts and hanging chads? I didn't think so.What I would have liked is irrelevant. The question is, would an otherwise ignored state (Maryland, for instance) rather be ignored, or rather have its ballots actually matter?
It's a question for the individual states to decide.
The Electoral College is a wise idea which has stood the test of 200 years of time. In this age of computerized voting and no voter-ID-style vote fraud, there's no good reason to abandon it.You obviously didn't read the web site or didn't understand it.
The electoral college isn't going away. Not at all. Simply the way that states apportion their electoral votes is going to change. Instead of winner-take-all, the states that pass the National Popular Vote initiative will apportion their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote at the national level.
That's all.
Sidney Riley
01-27-08, 01:21
Yes, of course, because as we all know, as the baby boomers get older they will convert to liberalism.Dude...just read a little history and pay attention to the polls. The Republican Party arc is at exactly the same place the Democratic Party arc was in 1968. They have shot their load, and are currently firing blanks. The best thing the current crop of candidates can do is cite their fealty to Ronald Reagan...a twenty-year old plus icon who left the Oval Office before today's college kids were even born. (Except, of course, Rudi Guiliani...who, as Joe Biden noted, constructs every sentence with a noun, a verb, and "911").
The Democratic Party has yet to find a real leader; that'll probably take another four to six years. But the tide has clearly turned against the Republicans. They had their day in the sun, as they should have (after all, the pendulum must swing). But their sun is setting.
Maryland and New Jersey. In Hawaii Let me clue people in to the snake oil you're peddling. The only reason those three states (two of which are medium-sized) did anything along these lines is because their legislatures are heavily Democratic. Because the Democrats were on the short end of the electoral college stick in 2000, some of their less-enlightened leaders think they should go with a "popular vote" system to ensure they win next time. The trouble with this is that there is no guarantee that the next time there is a disconnect between the popular vote and the electoral college, the Democrats will be disappointed. (And it will happen again, it has happened three times in 200 years.)
This is exactly the kind of short-sighted politicking with the Constitution that happened with the 22d Amendment, which Republicans pushed through in the late 1940s to limit presidents to two terms. Fresh from their memory of FDR, their amendment had the result of keeping Ike from being re-elected in 1960. "Ready! Fire! Aim!"
Most everybody who thinks deeply about these kinds of things knows that messing with the Constitution is something done only reluctantly, and without the kind of partisan motivations that are unsuccessfully pushing this gutting of the delicate balance struck in Philadelphia 200 years ago. "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it."
Sidney Riley
01-27-08, 17:18
Let me clue people in ... Most everybody who thinks deeply about these kinds of things knows that messing with the Constitution is something done only reluctantlyAnd let me clue you in...no one is messing with the Constitution.
The Constitution says absolutely nothing about how electors get appointed. Nothing. It gives that power to the state legislatures (Article II, Section 1).
Up until now, 48 of the 50 state legislatures have followed the winner-take-all method (Maine and Nebraska are the two that don't). But the Constitution says nothing about that. Nothing for...nothing against...nothing period.
What's happening with the National Popular Vote initiative is being done in strict accordance with the Constitution. It is being passed state by state, in the respective legislatures, just as the Constitution envisioned.
The only reason those three states...did anything along these lines is because their legislatures are heavily Democratic.Well, if your position is that this is a partisan thing, then you're in trouble. If you do that math you will see that enough states have both Democratic Governors and Democratic legislatures (both houses) to provide 155 electoral votes.
Furthermore, enough additional states have solidly blue bi-cameral legislatures (i.e., veto proof) to provide 85 more electoral votes.
So 240 out of 270 required votes would appear to be in the bag if this is partisan. And that's just for now. If 2008 trends follow 2006 trends, the state houses will be even bluer (not to mention perhaps another Democratic governor or three).
So to me this looks pretty, you know, solid.
Well, if your position is that this is a partisan thing, then you're in trouble. If you do that math you will see that enough states have both Democratic Governors and Democratic legislatures (both houses) to provide 155 electoral votes.This is going nowhere, because most Democrats are not so stupid as to mess with the Constitution as those in the legislature in Maryland, with some of whom I have had personal dealings. Rocket scientists they ain't.
Sidney Riley
01-27-08, 19:25
This is going nowhere, because most Democrats are not so stupid as to mess with the Constitution as those in the legislature in Maryland, with some of whom I have had personal dealings. Rocket scientists they ain't.Let's see...you can't seem to comprehend the difference between "messing with the Constitution" and following the guidelines of Article II, Section 1 regarding electoral appointments...but it's other people who ain't rocket scientists? LOL! OK, dude...enjoy your life.
Let's see. You can't seem to comprehend the difference between "messing with the Constitution" and following the guidelines of Article II, Section 1 regarding electoral appointments. But it's other people who ain't rocket scientists? LOL! OK, dude. Enjoy your life.Great post. Reality and truth; not opinions by people who are a fraction out of their depth.
Argento
AllIWantIsLove
01-27-08, 23:29
< snip >
What's happening with the National Popular Vote initiative is being done in strict accordance with the Constitution. It is being passed state by state, in the respective legislatures, just as the Constitution envisioned. < snip > I don't have the legal smarts to be debating this. But it seems to me like an attempt to alter the way we elect presidents without altering the constitution. And I have always thought that it's the purview of the constitution to determine how we elect presidents. Why not ACTUALLY alter the constitution? And what will happen if this passes in all 50 states and then one state changes it mind?
I'm from a state (NY) which does not allow for referendums. So if / when I learn that this is being discussed in the NY state legislature, I will be asking my state representatives how it is that this measure which gives the people more power to determine the president is not being put before the people.
I'm surprised, but glad, that I learned about this here. Thanks to whoever brought it up.
Bob
Sidney Riley
01-28-08, 07:52
. It seems to me like an attempt to alter the way we elect presidents without altering the constitution. And I have always thought that it's the purview of the constitution to determine how we elect presidents. Why not ACTUALLY alter the constitution? Once more, Article II, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution states: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
In other words, the Constitution gave us a flexible means of changing the way we appoint electors (to elect the President) without having to change the Constitution itself.
Up until now, we've generally used the winner-take-all system. If someone wins 51% of the state's popular vote, they get all that state's electors. But there's nothing sacred about that. The Constitution does not say that's how it has to be done.
And what will happen if this passes in all 50 states and then one state changes it mind?First, it doesn't need all 50 states to work. It only need enough states so that the sum total of electoral vote equals or exceeds 270. If and when enough states pass the legislation to achieve that, it's almost certain the rest of the country will go along. But again, any state can appoint electors in the manner they see it.
Right now Maine and Nebraska each appoint electors in a manner that differs from how the other 48 states do. No problem.
I'm from a state (NY) which does not allow for referendums. So if / when I learn that this is being discussed in the NY state legislature.This legislation has been introduced to the New York state (by Republicans)
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=NY
I don't know the status.
Once again, I call for the impeachment of Bush, the all time worst President!Sid, just hold your breath and wait 11 months and you'll have your wish - evil Bush will be gone and (this is probably not your wish) President McCain will be inaugurated.
(P.S. - Do you have any doubt that if you got your wish and the Democrats were in control the budget would be $4.5 trillion and not $3 trillion? Your desires seem to be rather contradictory - which is OK, because nobody pretends that BDS sufferers have a normal, logical thought process. ;) )
Rock Harders
02-04-08, 14:44
Hunt-
I will give you 2/1 on a $100 USD bet that McCain WILL NOT be elected president in November.
Hunt, as an educated and successful man, I really do not understand how you could think that Bush has done EVEN ONE thing to enhance the direction / future / condition of the US. The reputation of the US abroad is ruined, the country is nearing bankruptcy internally, and a few mis-events could realistically cause a chain-reaction leading to the collapse of the dollar. Bush and his cronies have successfully re-set the environment in the US to the days when the robber-baron capitalists exploited the middle and lesser classes to an embarrassing degree. The over-invoiced government domestic contracts of 100 years ago have been replaced by no-bid military-industrial complex agreements overseas in which the no bids are awarded to companies owned by the Presidents's own friends and colleagues. Start, a war, award taxpayer-funded contracts to your friends, let those friends over-charge the taxpayer for services (or lack thereof) they provide, then have those friends fund your next election campaign.
Suerte,
Dirk Diggler
Karl Rove to join FOX Newschannel. Why don't they just superimpose a big elephant head on the tv screen when this show starts? LOL.
Much more savings with less military procurement. More savings with more isolationism. A simple oil conservation would do much for the dollar. I can't go on--it is just too irritating-- the top level conspiracy that helps the Bush constituency (oil, military, industrial) that supports every evil oil dictator in the world, mas, mas mas!If it's all a crooked conspiracy to favor Big Oil, how come Bush can't seem to get his cronies the clearance to drill even one well in that barren wasteland called ANWR, the one that has 20 billion barrels of oil sitting underground? And it's not a whole lot of trouble up there, either - a few dozen polar bears are a lot less dangerous than a few thousand crazed Muslim terrorists like they have in Iraq.
If it was all a crooked conspiracy, Sid, opening up ANWR would have been done already: Representatives and Senators buy very cheap, as the Chinese have found out. Only a few million in "contributions" to a half dozen recipients would do the trick. (Oh - and there's no oil at all in Afghanistan, so why the fuck did Evil Bush dispatch the Army over there? Perhaps because some desperadoes based there killed 3,000 people six years ago? Nah! Because we know that was an inside job by McChimpyBushalliburton, wasn't it?)
And Dirk, I don't agree with your assessments but I agree to take on your bet. Get Jackson your $200 and I'll send him my $100 and we'll settle up on the morning of November 5th!
Peace to you both, my friends - we may disagree on things, but I like you both. And I will be doubly pleased to take my friend Dirk's money! ;)
Sidney Riley
02-04-08, 23:21
Once again, I call for the impeachment of Bush, the all time worst President!You should thank your lucky stars for Bush. His incompetence, ineptitude, cronyism, and partisanship have energized the country as it hasn't been energized in years, and it has done more to revitalize the Democratic Party than anyone could have imagined.
The current Democratic Congress is a harbinger; a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate is a distinct possibility come this November,.
And, with Ann Coulter threatening to campaign for Hillary if McCain gets the nomination:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc
And Susan Eisenhower leading the Republican crossover to Obama:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476
A Democratic President is almost assured. Results:
* The Federal bench is going to be re-liberalized for sure.
* Some manner of national health care will take root.
* Taxes are going to get rebalanced and the deficit is going to get a little bit more under control.
* Don't expect any sort of immediate pullout from either Iraq or Afghanistan. No matter what anyone says, we're not going to pull the plug (nor should we)
The far right blogsphere and the Limbaughs and Coulters of the country will whine and bray, but it won't be with the same power that they had when Bill Clinton was President. The Republican Party has pretty much shot its wad (as the current presidential lineup reflects. ..as the mass Republican exodus from Congress reflects...as the color of various statehouses reflects) and it will be a while until they get their act back together. The Republicans are pretty much in the same boat the Democrats were in in '68 or thereabouts. At this point, leadership of the country is the Democrats' to lose.
And in large part, this is all because of George Bush.
So don't be too hard on the guy. He delivered for us. Heh...heh...
Much more savings with less military procurement. More savings with more isolationism. A simple oil conservation would do much for the dollar. I can't go on--it is just too irritating-- the top level conspiracy that helps the Bush constituency (oil, military, industrial) that supports every evil oil dictator in the world, mas, mas mas!I think we will lose a lot more if we simply get out of Iraq and AF now. I highly doubt a nation could lose money after winning the war. AF is for it's location, Iraq has natural resouces, and Iran is in the middle of AF and Iraq.
We have been doing this idiocy for almost 200 years. Let the Taliban and Drug Lords fight it out! Get the fuk out!
-------------------------
Bushies want high prices for existing oil! They don't want new supply (ANWR) Answer this Hunt--why has there been zero effort to conserve petrol products? Why has there been only minimal tokenism in the effort to develop alternative energy sources? Why are sugar cane imports severely restricted?
-------------
Congressmen can be bought for a very few thousand dollars. I have been there and witnessed them begging for donations and giving their votes for peanuts.Sid, you say we're in Afghanistan in order to Christianize it? Are you serious? :eek:
As for conserving oil, I'll give you the answer to your question, which is based on supply and demand. In the long term, "conservation" doesn't work. If you conserve oil and use less of it and the price drops, you discourage production and exploration of new supplies. If you have high demand and high prices, you encourage production and exploration of new supplies. It's the iron law of supply and demand at work, writ large.
All the CAFE standards and oil conservation requirements will do not one thing to produce a new barrel of oil. On the other hand, $100 or $200 a barrel oil will not only encourage development of new supplies, it will also set the market loose on development of true alternative energy sources - something no government program or dictate will ever do.
I'm disappointed your macroeconomics professor was so ineffectual that he didn't imprint this lesson on your brain stem. But worry not, most politicians forgot their supply and demand lessons as well.
(A Yahoo and CNN report) They claim he was shot in the back by 2 gunmen, not shot in the front by Sirhan Sirhan!I saw two of these "experts" briefly interviewed the other day. Not very impressive. Beware nutcases looking to make a name for themselves.
Beware nutcases looking to make a name for themselves.My exact thought when I heard them.
Normally, CNN should be accurate. Surely, it should be easy to determine if RFK was shot in the back.Hey El Sid,
No offense intended, but I agree! If RFK had been shot in the back it would have been known long before now! There is a cottage industry of so called experts who pop up every so often with "amazing" information that might indicate a conspiracy with any number of events in the past. CNN and any other number of reputable and less reputable media organizations air this stuff for two reasons-1. The populace is intrigued and will watch, resulting in increased viewing numbers and hopefully increased advertising rates and 2. On the off chance that the "experts" are right, then CNN or whomever doesn't want to be left out and looking like they got scooped.
People love this kind of silliness and can't get enough of it, thus we will continue to see it ad nauseum. Just this week the Titanic tragedy was blamed on BAD RIVETS! I ain't no structural engineer but I'm guessing that iceberg would have laughed at the better rivets as well.:)
CITGO IS CHANGING.
Verified with www.SNOPES:
DO NOT BUY FROM PETRO EXPRESS!
'PETRO EXPRESS' IS ALSO 100% OWNED BY 'CHAVEZ.'
BOYCOTT 'CITGO' AND 'PETRO EXPRESS'.Maybe you should actually read that snopes article: http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/citgo.asp
"Many different oil companies buy crude oil from Venezuela, so even Americans who shun CITGO brand gasoline have no guarantee that they aren't still sending their money to that country. And although Citgo may be owned by Petrleos de Venezuela, it is a formerly American company which is still headquartered in the U. S. (in Houston, Texas) employs 4,000 people, and supplies 14,000 independent retailers with gasoline and other petroleum products -- Americans with no substantive connection to Venezuela who would be economically harmed by such an action. (Citgo also provides free or discounted heating oil to low-income communities and tribal reservations within the United States. And, of course, in today's oil market Citgo could likely find alternative buyers for its products far more easily than the U. S. Could make up the shortfall created by a cut-off of Venezuelan oil."
CITGO IS CHANGING.
'PETRO EXPRESS' IS ALSO 100% OWNED BY 'CHAVEZ.'
BOYCOTT 'CITGO' AND 'PETRO EXPRESS'.Hmm. Buy my gas from countries of the middle east who have pronounced their hatred for us for 30 years and have actively acted against us (9/11) or from a paper dictator who hates everyone?
Are you advocating boycotting just Chavez or those in the middle east? If you advocate boycotting both for their hatred of the US, you have better sell your car and not fly anywhere anymore!
Hard decision but I think I prefer to support Chavez over those in the middle east. Chavez's dictatorship will be relatively short-lived compared to those in the middle east.
Suerte.
Stowe
So, Sidney, do you use public transportation in Buenos Aires or do you take taxis all the time? Taxis? Yeah, I thought so.
Gato Hunter
05-29-08, 05:52
This post said something about hitchhiking earlier, was it edited?
Daddy Rulz
06-06-08, 12:26
True story:
My best friend marries an Argentine, after they get married while she is waiting for her visa to move here (49 weeks, obviously she might be a terrorist) she got pregnant (yes by him) went to full term and had a baby. The child was conceived in Mexico brought to term and delivered in Argentina. Because my buddy still resided in the EEUU she (child) was granted an American passport at birth and is considered a native born US citizen.
Six months ago they all, moved to BsAs. My buddy of course has not renounced his membership in the land of the somewhat free and home of the kinda brave, he just lives down there like Dickhead and Davey. He called me last night and his wife might be, probably is, pregnant. Because he resides there, this next child of the same parents will not be issued a US passport and will not be considered a native born American. If at some point if they decide to come back here, she (the wife) still has a visa he will have to apply for a residency visa for his on fucking child! What if he doesn't come back for years, could the child be denied the ability to live in his own fathers homeland? What if it's later and the child is an adult, my buddy moves back gets in an accident, could only one of his kids come and see him in the hospital?
Seriously how fucked up is this? Is it right or does he have something wrong here? I'm having a hard time believing it.
True story:
Because he resides there, this next child of the same parents will not be issued a US passport and will not be considered a native born American. If at some point if they decide to come back here, she (the wife) still has a visa he will have to apply for a residency visa for his on fucking child! What if he doesn't come back for years, could the child be denied the ability to live in his own fathers homeland? What if it's later and the child is an adult, my buddy moves back gets in an accident, could only one of his kids come and see him in the hospital? I am pretty sure that children of US citizens born outside of the US can get a US passport, though there may be age restrictions. (For example, they would have to get their passport before 18)
I have a coworker here who is a US citizen and has two children who were both born here, have never been to the US, and have US passports. Also, I know many other expats in other countries whose children were born overseas but have US passports.
Thomaso276
06-06-08, 13:11
It is my understanding that children born overseas to amercian citizens have citizen status. Not necessarily the wife who must go through visa process.
When I was doing this at the embassy here in BA there were a couple of Arg. Young people (18-23 years old) getting visas for US because their Dad was American.
A trip to the embassy would be worthwhile.
I dunno but I had a GF whose parents were both 100% American and she was born in the UK while the dad was in the military and she had to be naturalized. I know a bit about what you are talking about Daddy and my question is: why should this potential person have a right to US citizenship? Not trying to flame and don't care one way or the other. Just want to explore the concept of citizenship and what it means.
Certainly the reverse is true in that any non-US citizen who can sneak into the country and give birth, the kid is a citizen automatically. Let's explore that concept too.
Not sure about your ex-GF but a child born to US citizen parents anywhere in the world is definitely a US citizen as is any child born within the territory of the United States.
There are a few caveats around residency of the parents in the first case which might be the source of the problems for your ex and DL's buddy.
http://www.uscitizenship.info/en_US/faq/citizenship/ans/c15.jsp
I'm sure both of these paths to citizenship seemed reasonable when the US Constitution was written and the US was a nation of immigrants looking to grow. We seem to get worked up about it over the years whenever "we" don't like the immigrants (which has been about everyone at some point) and we usually use words like "security", jobs, or "national identity" to cloak our bigotry.
Personally, I support citizenship by birth. But I'm not sure there's much to discuss as it strikes me as purely a matter of personal preference. Kind of like blondes vs brunettes.
I always wondered about that whole thing as it was contrary to my own understanding. It came up when we went to Jamaica. She told the immigration people that she had been naturalized at the age of 10. Her dad was US military, and her mom was 100% American. They gave her a ration of shit coming back into the country. Later she showed me her naturalization papers. My guess would be, her dad was so fucking ignorant he had her naturalized unnecessarily. He was one dumb son of a be@tch and she was not too swift herself. She had big tits, though.
Didn't FDR have some kid who was born in Canada and they decided he was not eligible to be president? Isn't there some other rule about that which supersedes citizenship?
Didn't FDR have some kid who was born in Canada and they decided he was not eligible to be president? Isn't there some other rule about that which supersedes citizenship?Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:
Be a natural-born citizen of the United States; (No foreign born citizen allowed.)
Be at least thirty-five years old;
Have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.
That is why Arnold Schwarzenegger can never be president, unless they amend the constitution.
Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:
Be a natural-born citizen of the United States; (No foreign born citizen allowed.)From the website Easy Go provided, here is some interesting additional info:
http://www.uscitizenship.info/en_US/faq/citizenship/ans/g68.jsp
Is a child born outside the US to American parents legally eligible to become President?
Most likely yes.
The US Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Subsection 4) says: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
The term "natural born citizen" is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and it has never been the subject of any federal court ruling. Hence, its exact meaning could be subject to controversy.
While some have suggested that perhaps a "natural born citizen" must have been born on US territory (i.e., in keeping with the definition of a citizen given in the 14th Amendment), other legal experts believe the term refers to anyone who has US citizenship from the moment of his or her birth -- i.e., someone who did not have to be "naturalized" because he/she was born "natural" (i.e., born a citizen).
The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.
At least three Presidential candidates in recent memory were born outside the US proper:
* Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican candidate, was born in the Arizona Territory in 1909 (Arizona did not become the 48th state until 1912). Goldwater lost the 1964 election to Lyndon Johnson.
* George Romney, a 1968 Republican hopeful, was born in Mexico in 1907 to American parents who had moved there to escape anti-Mormon persecution in the US. (Contrary to a widely held popular misconception, by the way, Romney's parents were settlers in Mexico, not missionaries.) Romney's campaign fizzled following a gaffe about his having been "brainwashed" by the military establishment into supporting US involvement in the Vietnam conflict.
* John McCain, an early Republican hopeful in the current (2000) campaign, was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to American parents. McCain dropped out of the campaign in favor of the Republicans' eventual nominee, George W. Bush.
Some questions were raised at the time regarding both Goldwater and Romney's eligibility for the nation's highest office, but no formal legal challenge was mounted in either case.
We will probably never really know whether an American citizen born outside the US can become President (or Vice-President) until a lawsuit involving such a candidate finds its way into the courts. This could happen, of course, if a foreign-born candidate were elected and the electoral college's choice were challenged in court; or, more likely, if such a candidate's right to federal campaign subsidies (matching funds) were questioned.
Daddy Rulz
06-07-08, 02:41
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U. S. Citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U. S. Citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U. S. For the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U. S. To transmit U. S. Citizenship to the child.
Or his child actually, he won't satisfy the residency requirement.
Why is this important? Well for one reason, say things go very bad, very quickly in La Republica, some tin hat sends the tanks rolling down Libratador to Plaza de Mayo and the juntas are back. My buddy decides, "hmmm maybe this isn't such a great place to raise kids" and wants to return his family to the States. He can go, he's part of the club, his wife can go she has a green card, his daughter can go she's considered native born even though the placenta that sustained her through gestation went into a dumpster behind the Spanish Hospital in BsAs. But his bouncing baby boy (or whatever) well I guess they can leave him in Chaco with the crazy inlaws and start working on his paperwork when they get here. I'm sure there is something he could do after the kid is born to start getting the ball rolling on a green card. But it's his FUCKING KID, born in wedlock he, she or it should be able to follow the family where ever mom and dad can go.
It's kind of fucked up here in the EEUU but overall it's still in the top 20 as far as quality of life (unless you wanna bang skinny women) and his kid won't be part of the club, the only member of the family without the shitting eagle passport.
Argentina is proud of it's citizenship, if any of your parents are Argies no matter how long they have been gone, why they have been gone, if you have never in your fucking life been to Argentina they will give you a passport.
They could solve the problem by coming back for the birth. The mother is Argentinian so getting the kid back to BsAs is as simple as a trip to any embassy. I may suggest this to him.
DH why shouldn't the kid have citizenship, his dad is a citizen.
So is this saying he had to be in the US for the five years prior to the birth? That doesn't make sense. That implies she had to be in the US at the time of conception. I read that to say he had to be in the US for a total of five years overall when the kid was born, which he was, right? I mean, he grew up in the US, yes?
I don't have kids and won't so I have no position on whether the kid should or shouldn't be a citizen. I am just interested in people's views on citizenship and what it means. My friend in the States who was born and raised in Buenos Aires until age 16 had to renounce her Argentinean citizenship to get US citizenship. That seems kind of bogus too.
The requirement says nothing about the physical presence being immediately prior to the birth of the child so I'm guessing it's during the parent's lifetime prior to the birth of the baby. Which sounds like a way to ensure that citizenship doesn't become multi-generation hereditary right without physical ties to the US, e. G. The kids of a dual nationality citizen that has never lived in the US don't automatically become citizens. Apparently, we only want citizens that are not too far removed from physical ties to the US. Works for me.
DR, if your friend's first baby is a citizen despite being born outside the US, he must have satisfied the physical presence requirement at that time which means all his within-wedlock children are going to automatically be US citizens. He just needs to file an FS240 form at the US embassy. But if the word of some random guy looking up stuff on the Internet isn't good enough, he could actually go to the embassy and ask. I'd be interested in hearing what he needs to do to prove he has met the physical presence requirement. Five years of resident tax returns?
My guess is that every country has some limitations on the way citizenship is passed through birth. I'd want to know the dirty details before proclaiming comparing the process in Argentina to that of the the US.
You are only forced to renounce citizenship in another country if you become a naturalized citizen of the US. Unlike dual citizenship through accident of birth (where you didn't make a choice) making a choice to become a US citizen requires becoming exclusively a US citizen. I've got no problem with that being one of the requirements for naturalized citizens.
To DH's larger question, I'd say that citizenship has two different meanings. First, it's an emotional question of identity. That's going to be a very personal thing. For example, I can't imagine being a citizen of any country other than the US. In my mind, the US is an ideal that I can't turn my back on rather than a reality that can be more easily rejected.
Second, it's a matter of practicality. My guess is that's somewhat specific to your circumstances, your country of citizenship, and your country of residency. If you are not a citizen of the country where you live, you have to screw around with visas, understand when you are going to be treated differently than citizens, and deal with the laws of your home country that still pertain to you, e. G. A non-resident US citizen is still subject to US taxes on worldwide earning so you still have to do tax returns following an extra set of confusing rules for non-residents. I've got to think life is easier when citizenship and residency are the same.
Here's a good FAQ I ran across. Pretty interesting stuff about dual citizenship. I like it because he appears to be a really smart guy, I. E. He agrees with me on the issue of physical presence. Although I'm a bit suspicious because he's a US / Canadian dual citizen and any country that thinks all things involving ice and sticks is a sport is deeply suspicious.
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/index.html
Sydney.
As you must know, Newsmax.com is a far-right political website with an axe to grind about the Democratic Party. Do you really expect anyone to take this kind of stuff seriously?
Generally speaking you do have to renounce allegiance to all other nations when naturalizing. But that declaration made to the new country means nothing to your native country and you don't lose your native citizenship.
Treason may strip your native citizenship, other than that it's nearly impossible even if you want to.
And, in the case of USA, even if you do manage to successfully renouce your citizenship before US officials, which is unlikely, you're usually still liable for US taxes as a "US person" on your worldwide income until the day you die (later for your estate).
If you renounce your US citizenship, in most cases you are only required to file US tax returns for ten years. Also under certain circumstances you can barred from visiting the US, if you are deemed to have renounced for tax purposes. There are some income tests and so forth to see if you would be subject to that restriction, and some of what I have read indicates this isn't being enforced anyway.
http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/uploads/images/BzY_UPAYff5oPjv7KZIc3g/acs_hkrenunciation.pdf
That is a renunciation package if anyone wants to go for it. Note that you have to disclose your net worth and a whole lot of other bullshit.
Maybe my friend did not lose her Argentinean citizenship (she says she did) but she did have to turn in her Argentinean passport. There might be ways around that, like report your passport lost, get another one, and turn in the old one. Not sure if they could check. This was late 70s so I doubt they could have checked on her back then.
Here is a link to the "expatriation tax" rules, from IRS Publication 519:
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p519/ch04.html#d0e4151
Daddy Rulz
06-08-08, 02:55
My buddies first child is a US citizen because while she was born in Argentina he resided in the US at the time of her birth. He no longer resides in the US so according to his immigration lawyer (used to obtain his wifes resident visa) this next child will not be granted US citizenship at birth because he (the dad) no longer resides in the US, is not in BsAs working for the government, or has taken temporary residence outside the US while working. He has moved to BsAs with no intention of returning here at this time.
I personally don't know as I'm not an immigration lawyer nor do I play one on TV. I'm repeating third party hearsay, which while not admissible in court, could be considered accurate because he (my buddy) has no reason to lie to me and has proved trustworthy in the past. Now it is possible his lawyer has it wrong.
I do however concede that it is both pathetic and sad that I have to write about this and not pussy because I'm still stuck in the EEUU. Though with prices the way they are there and not being rich like DH, Exon and Sid, nor having ever played a rich guy on TV maybe I'm riding out the storm leading to the next crash at a good place.
You ought to give your buddy the references we've dug up here and have him ask his lawyer to explain why they don't apply in his situation. Or get a new lawyer. Because nothing I've read says jack shit about needing to be a resident at the time of the birth of the child. It seems pretty clear that as long as he has lived in the US at least 5 years with 2 of them after age 14, he can have as many kids in wedlock as he wants all over the world.
Since it doesn't appear that he's going to change his living arrangements anyway, at least he should try to file the paperwork after the kid is born.
Some stuff is more important than hearing about Exon's latest jack-off material.
Daddy Rulz
06-08-08, 12:06
I have forwarded the link you posted along with this thread to my buddy and commanded him (if the pregnancy is confirmed by scientific method) to make an appearance at the Embassy and demand his rights. I also told him to hire some picitaros if needed.
Thanks for the food for thought and I will buy you a coffee at Exedra if we are ever there together and I have brought along the wheelbarrow full of pesos said coffee will require. Oh wait Exedra is closed, make it Tejanolibres place.
So, Sid, who do you feel would make a good president? Everything is always about the negative with you. I think Capt Dave would be a good choice. Plus he needs a job.
Bloomberg or maybe Jon Corzine would have been okay by me although I thinkhe is still pretty busted up from that car wreck. Bill Richardson maybe too. I would be better than any of those guys but I already have a really easy job with low stress so would not be interested. Plus I inhaled.
Sydney.
As you must know, Newsmax. Com is a far-right political website with an axe to grind about the Democratic Party. Do you really expect anyone to take this kind of stuff seriously?Yea, and besides, everybody knows that the only important thing is who gives the most inspiring speech in which they promise to give me the most free money.
Thanks,
Jackson
Where's the candidate that supports continued high deficits, no changes to a Social Security System that's going to be bankrupt, continued subsidies for oil companies that have made zilions in profits in the last couple of years, no health care insurance for 50+ million Americans, and ignoring a housing problem where 1 in 11 homeowners in danger of losing his house? Not to mention continuing to ignore the problems of Medicare costs and public pensions?
Too bad we don't have a choice that pretends problems don't exist and is primarily concerned about putting a couple of more bucks in the pockets of the "haves". After all, we elected a guy just like that last time and it's worked out so well.
Rationing? The other problems can be easily solved?
No point in trying to have a discussion when we've strayed so far from reality.
Where's the candidate that supports continued high deficits, no changes to a Social Security System that's going to be bankrupt, continued subsidies for oil companies that have made zilions in profits in the last couple of years, no health care insurance for 50+ million Americans, and ignoring a housing problem where 1 in 11 homeowners in danger of losing his house? Not to mention continuing to ignore the problems of Medicare costs and public pensions?
Too bad we don't have a choice that pretends problems don't exist and is primarily concerned about putting a couple of more bucks in the pockets of the "haves". After all, we elected a guy just like that last time and it's worked out so well.Yea, and besides, everybody knows that the only important thing is who gives the most inspiring speech in which they promise to give me the most free money.
Thanks,
Jackson
Rationing? The other problems can be easily solved?
No point in trying to have a discussion when we've strayed so far from reality.Reality is just an illusion for people who can't handle drugs.
Daddy Rulz
06-08-08, 20:08
Reality is just an illusion for people who can't handle drugs.Speaking from personal experience, no truer words have been spoken on this forum.
My buddies first child is a US citizen because while she was born in Argentina he resided in the US at the time of her birth. He no longer resides in the US so according to his immigration lawyer (used to obtain his wifes resident visa) this next child will not be granted US citizenship at birth because he (the dad) no longer resides in the US, is not in BsAs working for the government, or has taken temporary residence outside the US while working. He has moved to BsAs with no intention of returning here at this time.
I personally don't know as I'm not an immigration lawyer nor do I play one on TV. I'm repeating third party hearsay, which while not admissible in court, could be considered accurate because he (my buddy) has no reason to lie to me and has proved trustworthy in the past. Now it is possible his lawyer has it wrong.I believe the advice of that lawyer is wrong. A child born to a US citizen anywhere in the world - regardless of the US parent's domicile - is also a US citizen. As a practical matter, such a child is recorded on a State Department form as a child of US citizens born abroad. Absent contemporaneous reporting of birth, proving citizenship can be more problematic.
http://www.travel.state.gov/law/info/overseas/overseas_703.html
Rationing and huge petrol conservation would be another!Sidney, I am really astounded as to your lack of elementary knowledge of the law of supply and demand. If you want to increase the supply of oil, increase demand, raise the prices by such demand, and additional supply will inexorably follow. "Rationing and huge petrol conservation" will lead in the long run to less supply.
I really don't buy the idea of an oil crisis - it's bullshit ginned up by the media and Congress. There's no crisis when 50 billion barrels of oil in the US (in Alaska, off the West and East Coasts, off Florida, and in federal lands in the West) are made off-limits by environmentalist diktat. There's enough US oil to run this country for 100 years at current production.
Additionally, the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Of course, we discourage its use and conversion into gasoline for the same reasons as we don't drill for oil in 90% of the US.
Ooooh! But we have some pretty windmills! And when the government pays the owners $20 billion of dollars a year in subsidies, they actually generate a little bit of electricity! Yipee! Maybe we can also give tens of billions of dollars to farmers to produce ethanol? Why not! Woo hoo! But of course they burn 1.3 gallons of gasoline to make 1 gallon of ethanol. But I have the solution! Give them another $50 billion in taxpayer subsidies! Woo hoo! Problem solved!
The Chinese are drilling for oil off the coast of Florida. But not the Americans.
You people whining about $4.00 a gallon gas are getting what you voted for, and getting it good and hard. Thank Congress, because they're responsible. The next President will also be responsible, because whether it's McCain or Obama, both of them are against drilling as well.
Daddy Rulz
06-09-08, 01:15
Even that perverted republican fuck Hunt99. I sent my buddy a link to this thread and will be going to the Embejado manyana. The thanks is for real because this was weighing heavy on his mind. Fucking lawyers, you just can't trust them, just look at Hunt.
Actually he just told me it wasn't a lawyer that told him this but some clerk at the embassy so I was off on all counts.
Thank you again for all that responded, yes I reluctantly include Hunt as well.
DR
I am not so big on drilling and I look at what Hunt said about having enough oil for 100 years. Maybe it is 50 years or 100 years or 357.876 years, But we know it is finite. If I were Captain of the Universe I would be looking at developing a renewable energy source that would not exhaust itself over some finite time span. Humans are intelligent, at least the top few percent of them. Let's work on renewable sources instead of inherently short-term solutions, such as "pumping more oil"; that seems selfish to me.
Yes, conservation. This means, among other things, using public transportation, drinking tap water, re-using plastic bags or not using them at all, and most importantly drinking Brahma in returnable bottles. We can either practice voluntary conservation or face imposed rationing, I think.
So tonight when I go to my favorite whorehouse I will take the bus and will have a quart of Brahma in a re-usable deposit bottle in re-used plastic bag. BTW for those of you who live in BA, you can buy soda pop in deposit bottles and it is a lot cheaper. Or so I heard.
Americans can claim citizenship in any of the 27 European countries that are in the EU based on the nationality of their parents, or in some cases, grandparents and great-grandparents. Citizenship in one of those countries allows you to live and work in any EU nation.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2008/06/07/s1a_dual_citizenship_0608.html
Sidney, I read your posts, but I do not see what it has to do with Rationing? Hunts point was that Rationing does not work. In the future if oil runs out, Rationing might have to take place, but right now, there is enough oil. Some of the countries like Iran can't even sell all their oil, because it is heavy sour. Iran has large volumes of crude sitting in tankers offshore waiting for buyers. If oil where really that hard to get, someone would buy it. Even if they have to retool to handle the heavy oil. China uses heavy sour oil, why are they not buying it? They are one of Iran's biggest costumers. About 1.5 months ago, Bloomberg article, said that they had 4 supper tankers sitting there, which was effecting tanker rates. Don't find the article now, but found this resent one, http://mwcnews.net/content/view/23115/0/ which "The country has large volumes of crude sitting in tankers offshore waiting for buyers."
I personally think rationing does not work. I am curious to see why you think it would?
Daddy Rulz
06-10-08, 01:48
Didn't the Democrats just take Congress a year and a half ago? Weren't the House and Senate held by the Republicans for with the exception of one year since 1995? Or is Wikipedia part of the left leaning media?
Like 12 years or something no? I'm confused how can it be the Democrats perfidy regarding our National Energy Policy? Up until a year ago the Republicans held all three branches, Exec, Judicial, and Leg.
I know, somehow it's still Bill Clintons fault. I'm sure that's what it is.
I've never claimed to be an educated man, but I do read the newspapers. The Republicans have owned the friggen country for the last 6 years. Passing this on the Dems is weak Sid and below you.
I know there haven't been conservatives in office these last 6 years and I'm sure that has something to do with Bills BBBJ in the oval but they where Republicans.
Daddy Rulz
06-10-08, 15:31
The article was a cut and paste. I don't agree with some of it.I'm glad you knew it wasn't a flame. Someday I really want to sit with you and chew this over. Obviously I respect your opinions, don't agree with them all but know they are arrived at by reason and not emotion.
Daddy Rulz
06-11-08, 15:41
As residential home sales dwindle, residential builders are crowding the commercial market.
They don't have the men, experience or equipment to compete but they are clogging the bid process. The company I'm working for is doing lay-offs for the first time in 8 years.
No bottom yet.
Hillary Clinton has taken to the internet to ask supporters to help with the more than $22.5 million in unpaid campaign debts — $12 million of which is owed to the candidate herself. Clinton has indicated she'll write her own loans to the campaign, leaving almost $10 million that the cash-strapped campaign needs to make good on (not to mention whatever debts she incurred in June)
With no indication that the Obama campaign is willing to assist with that debt (much to the frustration of some Clinton backers) the New York Senator issued a web video to solicit online donations from previous contributors. While she never actually asks for money (using her long-standing euphemism of asking them to visit her website, which is chock-full of "contribute" buttons) a text box next to the video makes a more direct appeal.
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/23/clinton-asks-donors-to-help-pay-down-debt/
Thomaso276
06-23-08, 22:35
I'll send her a peso in snail mail today!
Thats why everyone is selling Sidney.
Exon
How destructive to the U. S. Economy would a Barack Obama presidency be?
An exclusive Newsmax analysis warns: There could be a very rough time ahead.
Beneath Obama's flowery rhetoric lies a dangerous economic plan that will wreak havoc on the American economy.
Obama plans to return to the failed policies of high taxation coupled with an expansion of government spending.
Worse, Obama says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate — something he will easily accomplish with a Democrat Congress.
In the coming months — when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate — there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year.
All of these issues and more are explored in Newsmax magazine's special report "Obamanomics — the Coming Tax-and-Spend Nightmare," by Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund.
This Newsmax magazine special report gives Americans the first in-depth look at the Democratic presidential candidate's likely strategies — and how they will affect not just the larger economy, but your personal wealth as well.
Indeed, Obama makes no bones about his plans to go on a tax rampage. Not only would he increase the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to as much as 28 percent, he wants to allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which effectively raises taxes on Americans by tens of billions of dollars.
He also wants to do away with the $102,000 FICA payroll tax cap, which means anyone making over $102,000 would pay an additional 7 percent in taxes on earned income.
And the loan dividend tax rate George Bush implemented? Under President Obama it will be DOA!El Sid-don't tell me you buy this crap? Is this organization a subsidiary of Fox? Doing some work for McCain? Maybe this is one of the first of many attempts we will see in the future, where Obama is blamed for the economic meltdown clearly initiated in the Bushie administration. In fact, how can it be avoided, by Obama or McCain, regardless of what either of them do. The die is cast!
Capital gains and ordinary income should be taxed at the same rate.
In the coming months — when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate — there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year.''Hi Sid-how are we going to determine when the current stampede of asset sales stops and the cap gains rate increase stampede begins! Besides, they will get over any increase in capital gains in due time. They gots an itch and they gots to scratch it.
Wouldn't those people selling assets to reap the current low capital gains taxes probably just re-invest the proceeds in the same asset classes?
El Sid-don't tell me you buy this crap? Is this organization a subsidiary of Fox? Doing some work for McCain? Maybe this is one of the first of many attempts we will see in the future, where Obama is blamed for the economic meltdown clearly initiated in the Bushie administration. In fact, how can it be avoided, by Obama or McCain, regardless of what either of them do. The die is cast!Dogg,
Jackson watch's Fox news, loves it.
The fascist pig, thinks there "Fair & Honest"
Exon
Dogg,
Jackson watch's Fox news, loves it.
The fascist pig, thinks there "Fair & Honest"
ExonEX-seeing as how I like Jackson, I try to ignore this kind of information. If he continues to get worse however, maybe we can organize an "intervention". Get him sloshed and make him listen to Pete Seeger. Ha ha.
EX-seeing as how I like Jackson, I try to ignore this kind of information. If he continues to get worse however, maybe we can organize an "intervention". Get him sloshed and make him listen to Pete Seeger. Ha ha.Or,
We could tie him up and I'll bring some of my "Ugly" friends over from Checkers Pub and have them fuck him while we watch.
Exon
Dogg,
Jackson watch's Fox news, loves it.
The fascist pig, thinks there "Fair & Honest"
ExonExon,
Actually, the line is "Fair and Balanced".
If you ever watched the programming with an unbiased perspective, and kept track of how much air time is given to conservatives vs liberals, you might actually ascertain they generally attempt to give both perspectives equal time.
Of course, when you've spent your entire life watching news in which conservative ideas are criticized for 59 minutes, balanced by 1 minute of liberal ideas being criticized, then FOX News might appear "unbalanced" to you.
Thanks,
Jackson
Or,
We could tie him up and I'll bring some of my "Ugly" friends over from Checkers Pub and have them fuck him while we watch.
ExonWho exactly would you be trying to punish?
Me, or the observers?
See, I was thinking if Exon really wanted to punish Jackson he should make Jackson watch him fuck one of the hookers from Checkers. Or even just take him to Checkers; that by itself is pretty harsh punishment. I think "balanced" media and "unbiased perspectives" are pretty impossible to achieve, but then again I don't think we should punish people for having differing opinions.
Once I fucked an older, not too good looking hooker from Checkers and I enjoyed it. But I am a complete pig. Monica was her name.
Dogg,
Jackson watch's Fox news, loves it.
The fascist pig, thinks there "Fair & Honest"
ExonExon,
Would you please learn the difference between the words "there", "their", and "they're", because I'm no longer going to edit these things for you.
Thanks,
Jackson
Commas go inside quotation marks, not outside. You had that coming.
Daddy Rulz
06-28-08, 12:05
So please answer this one for me. Which is worse, tax and spend or don't tax and spend? The two largest deficits in our country's history where both created by Republican administrations backed by Republican legislation. I do have respect for the right though, they are already dumping this recession we are in, or not in depending on which channel you watch, on Obama that's pretty fucking brilliant. Personally I kind of hope McCain wins just to watch the rhetoric change.
I have "there," "their," and "they're" down, it's "where," and "were" that kill me.
As an accomplished monger and Sr. Member of this board I decree that going into Checkers is enough.
Jax I prefer Exon's posts to be unedited, they are somewhat reminiscent of e. E. Cummings* work that way.
*note to Dickhead, e. E. Cummings singed his work with neither caps nor spaces, hence referring to him in this way is not poor grammar but rather a literary homage. Further note, all commas adentro.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.