PDA

View Full Version : American Elections and Politics



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Kevin Bonham
28-02-2007, 12:53 AM
OK, it's a long way to go but everyone's bored with lame-duck Shrubby so let the silly season commence!

I will add further candidates to this list on request provided that at least one bookmaker is quoting them at less than 50-1 to win.

Axiom
28-02-2007, 01:13 AM
OK, it's a long way to go but everyone's bored with lame-duck Shrubby so let the silly season commence!

I will add further candidates to this list on request provided that at least one bookmaker is quoting them at less than 50-1 to win.
Ron Paul is the best bet for the american people, but as we 'all know' whats best for the american people is not the best bet on who will become president! ;) :(

The 'smart'(?) MONEY is on yet another ,dare i say it, globalist puppet (party immaterial of course) :(

i wonder how many of those Diebold electronic voting machines they will have operating this time? and IMO this doesnt matter to the globalist 'employers' more to the competing company cartels vying for 'the job' !

Garvinator
28-02-2007, 01:36 AM
Should be a public poll.

Kevin Bonham
28-02-2007, 01:44 AM
Should be a public poll.

I'll make the "who do you think will win" one a public poll, but I won't start that one until the field is a little more settled, in particular until it's clear if Gore will run or not.

I didn't make this one a public poll because I thought it could distort the outcome.

Kevin Bonham
28-02-2007, 01:55 AM
hey KB, That poll list looks more like a criminal line up!

:lol:


Ron Paul is the best bet for the american people, but as we 'all know' whats best for the american people is not the best bet on who will become president!

Paul is an interesting character. I didn't know they still had libertarians that diehard in the Republican Party (albeit towards the social-conservative end of the libertarian spectrum in some respects.)

66-1 at Ladbroke's and William Hill's if you're feeling lucky about the American people throwing big government in the can over the next 22 months. :lol:

Some comparative odds for all candidates here (http://odds.bestbetting.com/specials/politics/usa/president-2008) for anyone interested.

Axiom
28-02-2007, 02:07 AM
:lol:



Paul is an interesting character. I didn't know they still had libertarians that diehard in the Republican Party (albeit towards the social-conservative end of the libertarian spectrum in some respects.)

66-1 at Ladbroke's and William Hill's if you're feeling lucky about the American people throwing big government in the can over the next 22 months. :lol:
I actually heard Ron Paul interviewed.....guess where? :) ......THE ALEX JONES SHOW !! ......about a month ago or so.

And sadly, my 'criminal line up' shout,although made me chuckle too, is more than a little too close to reality for comfort, unfortunately :(

Axiom
06-03-2007, 10:44 PM
Guiliani's father was a mafia leader : FACT
Guiliani lied about his family's criminal connection on signing his oath of office : FACT

AND NOW THIS http://www.*******s.com/articles/terror/giuliani_terror_attack_will_make_president.htm

No.2 Criminal revealed soon......

Garvinator
06-03-2007, 10:53 PM
I am 'rather' concerned that some people are willing to put their money on Arnie to win the 2008 election :eek: :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Axiom
06-03-2007, 11:28 PM
I am 'rather' concerned that some people are willing to put their money on Arnie to win the 2008 election :eek: :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
GG- we do have some realists amongst us, you know! :)

Kevin Bonham
06-03-2007, 11:30 PM
Yeah, I saw one poll that said 82% thought he wouldn't be a good President!

Axiom
06-03-2007, 11:35 PM
Yeah, I saw one poll that said 82% thought he wouldn't be a good President!
yes,i too, have found polls useful in supporting ones position :)

Axiom
14-03-2007, 11:46 PM
http://www.*******s.com/articles/sept11/giuliani_firefighters_urge_peeling_of_911_onion.ht m

Kevin Bonham
15-03-2007, 12:02 AM
I'll be interested to see if Chuck Hagel runs. It seems he is stirring up a bit of trouble as a Republican potential candidate who is against the war in Iraq. His press conference where he played with the media a few days ago was funny.

Axiom
15-03-2007, 12:12 AM
I'll be interested to see if Chuck Hagel runs. It seems he is stirring up a bit of trouble as a Republican potential candidate who is against the war in Iraq. His press conference where he played with the media a few days ago was funny.
media report designed to ridicule this anti-war stance or just funny as it exposed the ludicrous justifications? havent heard much about ron paul in the media :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
15-03-2007, 12:15 AM
media report designed to ridicule this anti-war stance or just funny as it exposed the ludicrous justifications? havent heard much about ron paul in the media :rolleyes:

Naaah, nothing to do with the issues. He sorta trolled them by calling a press conference at which he said he would discuss his future and then using it to say he hadn't yet made up his mind. They all groaned!

Axiom
15-03-2007, 12:30 AM
Naaah, nothing to do with the issues. He sorta trolled them by calling a press conference at which he said he would discuss his future and then using it to say he hadn't yet made up his mind. They all groaned!
ahh, ok, just a bit of showtime.

Denis_Jessop
15-03-2007, 06:49 PM
Is Kinky Friedman running this time? I still have his bumper sticker from two campaigns ago.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
15-03-2007, 07:22 PM
He ran for governor of Texas in 2006 and raised quite a lot of money but finished fourth.

Axiom
15-03-2007, 08:29 PM
Is Kinky Friedman running this time? I still have his bumper sticker from two campaigns ago.

DJ
GOOD ON YOU! DJ!:clap: :clap: :clap: .........incidently ,recently a guest on the alex jones radio show!


tune in free via www.*******s.com

Carl Gorka
16-03-2007, 04:57 PM
OK, it's a long way to go but everyone's bored with lame-duck Shrubby so let the silly season commence!

I will add further candidates to this list on request provided that at least one bookmaker is quoting them at less than 50-1 to win.

I want this one to win....http://www.love22.com/

bergil
17-03-2007, 03:50 PM
I want this one to win....http://www.love22.com/I liked this promise.
18. (U.S. VOTERS REGISTER RIGHTS)(REGISTRATION AND EDUCATE) HOW TO VOTE!

Axiom
17-03-2007, 04:38 PM
I liked this promise.
18. (U.S. VOTERS REGISTER RIGHTS)(REGISTRATION AND EDUCATE) HOW TO VOTE!
bergil ,just curious, how would you describe your political stance, i get a clue from your avatar, but, just in more defined terms.

Axiom
17-03-2007, 09:11 PM
Giuliani is a very evil criminal, as professor wayne barrett of columbia university outlines in his new book called " Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani "

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2007, 03:32 PM
I do remember a time when Giuliani was more or less universally hated.

Axiom
18-03-2007, 04:04 PM
I do remember a time when Giuliani was more or less universally hated. YES,especially by the disadvantaged,poor,and black in NYC !, now its any INFORMED person !

arosar
18-06-2007, 10:34 AM
This lass knows exactly who she's voting for.

http://barelypolitical.com/

AR

pax
18-06-2007, 10:35 AM
Someone better add Ron Paul to the list so Jono has someone to vote for.

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2007, 11:11 PM
Someone better add Ron Paul to the list so Jono has someone to vote for.

If so, he'd get two votes!

However I am firm about the conditions stated in post 1. :D

pax
18-06-2007, 11:42 PM
If so, he'd get two votes!
You're not a closet libertarian are you Kev?

However I am firm about the conditions stated in post 1. :D
Well if you believe the online polls, Paul must be odds-on favourite :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2007, 11:47 PM
You're not a closet libertarian are you Kev?

I probably am to a degree, but the other Ron Paul supporter I referred to was of course Axiom.

I haven't voted on this thread yet.

pax
19-06-2007, 12:10 AM
I probably am to a degree, but the other Ron Paul supporter I referred to was of course Axiom.

Ah, yes.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-06-2007, 12:09 PM
I want this one to win....http://www.love22.com/
anti-donut party?

Igor_Goldenberg
25-06-2007, 12:12 PM
Ron Paul is the best bet for the american people, but as we 'all know' whats best for the american people is not the best bet on who will become president!
I agree on that. IMHO Giuliani is the closest, at least in terms of views on economics.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-06-2007, 12:15 PM
Guiliani's father was a mafia leader : FACT
Guiliani lied about his family's criminal connection on signing his oath of office : FACT

While every politician is a crook, I'd still like to see some credible evidences.

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2007, 12:44 PM
Someone better add Ron Paul to the list so Jono has someone to vote for.

No, he is libertarian, not conservative.

Fred Thompson is not on the list.

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2007, 12:04 AM
Fred Thompson is not on the list.

Rectified. Was not even on the radar when I started this thread but is now at quite short odds, probably because the Republicans are realising Romney, Giuliani and McCain all have their problems.

I've also added Michael Bloomberg, and some mug firm is only willing to take 33-1 re Ron Paul so he is now on the list.

bergil
26-06-2007, 12:27 AM
I am 'rather' concerned that some people are willing to put their money on Arnie to win the 2008 election :eek: :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Why are you concerned? Is it because not being born in America he isn't able to be president or just because he was a film star?

Garvinator
26-06-2007, 12:36 AM
Why are you concerned? Is it because not being born in America he isn't able to be presidentExactly. Was 'concerned' that people are willing to bet on a person who is completely ineligible.

Capablanca-Fan
26-06-2007, 05:58 PM
Rectified. Was not even on the radar when I started this thread but is now at quite short odds, probably because the Republicans are realising Romney, Giuliani and McCain all have their problems.

And once Thompson officially stands, the GOP will realise that he has problems too. But elections are about selecting the best available; or should be. Protest voting against an imperfect candidate is so much nose cutting.


I've also added Michael Bloomberg, and some mug firm is only willing to take 33-1 re Ron Paul so he is now on the list.

Maybe there should be a new poll?

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2007, 07:03 PM
Maybe there should be a new poll?

I think sometime close to the first primary (scheduled for early Jan 2008), when we probably know who of the big guns is definitely in or out, would be a good time for that. I doubt people here would have changed their minds all that much yet, even with new candidates added (though it's a shame we don't have a changeable anonymous vote function here). Maybe about November I'll do another one.

pax
10-10-2007, 08:58 AM
It sounds like Fred Thompson is singularly failing to save the Republican party's bacon now that he has actually joined the hustings. It will be interesting to see if he fares any better in his first debate.

The Christian conservatives are threatening to put up their own candidate if Guiliani gets the Republican nomination (on account of him being a devil spawned baby murderer). And I strongly suspect that Ron Paul may be persuaded to run as an independent when he finally realises he is not going to win the Republican nomination. Either of the above would scupper the already minimal chances of the Republicans getting up.

Edit: *Reads the early reports on the debate* - Nope, doesn't look like FT fared any better. But I do like this:


Mr. Romney, known for delivering scripted and memorable sound bites at these debates, offers one that the audience loves. He says this campaign is a bit like “Law & Order,” in that it has a huge cast, it seems to go on forever, “and Fred Thompson shows up at the end.”

Mr. Thompson has a quick comeback: “And to think I was going to be the best actor on the stage.”

Axiom
12-10-2007, 05:54 PM
Ron Paul Wins Debate In Another Landslide
Congressman comes out on top despite being given least time, least questions and despite CNBC pulling its poll half way through
http://*******s.net/articles/october2007/111007Paul.htm

Capablanca-Fan
12-10-2007, 07:27 PM
The Christian conservatives are threatening to put up their own candidate if Guiliani gets the Republican nomination (on account of him being a devil spawned baby murderer).
Could be that they actually want an alternative to the party of ambulance chasers, race baiters, feminazis, the More-On crowd and debauched Hollywood has-beens. And they are on solid ground even pragmatically. The GOP was in the political wilderness when they tried to be Democrat-Lite, because the loony left would vote for the real thing rather than the imitation, while the right would not bother. But a real conservative like Reagan won in a landslide. Giuliani is another Dem-Lite in many areas, except for the one where Pax lives up to his name, since he is realistic about the Islamofascist threat unlike the Defeatocrats who now want to surrender in the war that most of them voted for.

Axiom
12-10-2007, 08:16 PM
Could be that they actually want an alternative to the party of ambulance chasers, race baiters, feminazis, the More-On crowd and debauched Hollywood has-beens. And they are on solid ground even pragmatically. The GOP was in the political wilderness when they tried to be Democrat-Lite, because the loony left would vote for the real thing rather than the imitation, while the right would not bother. But a real conservative like Reagan won in a landslide. Giuliani is another Dem-Lite in many areas, except for the one where Pax lives up to his name, since he is realistic about the Islamofascist threat unlike the Defeatocrats who now want to surrender in the war that most of them voted for.
Giulini like his father is pure corrupt criminal , RON PAUL is the only REAL alternative to the grand treacherous crime syndicate.

Capablanca-Fan
12-10-2007, 09:17 PM
The Christian conservatives ...:
Oh yeah, and look at the way the Dem front-runners are now pretending to be "people of faith". When Bush proclaimed his Christianity, the Leftmedia went apoplectic, but when the Dems make noises about their supposed Christian faith (and re-create Jesus in the image of Marx), they get a pass from the same media. Oh no, there is no leftist media bias, of course not. In reality, the media give them a pass because they know full well that it's a pretense, and they are still fellow secularists. The Dems idea of eternal life is another government program.

Kevin Bonham
12-10-2007, 10:28 PM
In reality, the media give them a pass because they know full well that it's a pretense, and they are still fellow secularists.

Or because they reckon it's vaguely sincere but figure benign wishy-washy Democrat Christianity is better than the bible-thumping no-more-sincere alternative?

As far as I'm concerned, if a country is stupid/biased/closed-minded enough to refuse to elect an open atheist as its President specifically on account of that belief (and polls frequently show that atheism is a bigger public perception barrier to the Presidency than any status with respect to sexuality, adultery, divorce, ethnicity or religion) then it absolutely deserves to get a closet agnostic/atheist who pretends to be a Christian to get votes.

Davidflude
13-10-2007, 12:59 AM
Whatever happens the republicans will struggle to find a candidate who is as big a drongo as George Bush Junior.

Capablanca-Fan
13-10-2007, 01:37 AM
Or because they reckon it's vaguely sincere but figure benign wishy-washy Democrat Christianity is better than the bible-thumping no-more-sincere alternative?
It's debatable that it is less sincere, since Christianity by definition is following Christ, not Marx. In any case, it is hardly a coincidence that the Evangelical Christians voted overwhelmingly for the GOP while secularists seem to love the Dems.


As far as I'm concerned, if a country is stupid/biased/closed-minded enough to refuse to elect an open atheist as its President specifically on account of that belief (and polls frequently show that atheism is a bigger public perception barrier to the Presidency than any status with respect to sexuality, adultery, divorce, ethnicity or religion)
I wonder if Mormonism is as big a perception barrier ...


then it absolutely deserves to get a closet agnostic/atheist who pretends to be a Christian to get votes.
If someone is dishonest enough to pretend, then he is not worthy to be president. Mind you, that describes the Dems perfectly (and many of the GOP too).

Capablanca-Fan
13-10-2007, 01:38 AM
Whatever happens the republicans will struggle to find a candidate who is as big a drongo as George Bush Junior.
Interesting that he has higher qualifications and better grades than both alGore and John "I live off both my wives' inheritances" Kerry.

Axiom
13-10-2007, 02:19 AM
The International Murdoch Media Smearing Of Ron Paul Begins

By Darryl Mason

The Rupert Murdoch media in the United States mostly pretends Ron Paul doesn't exist, or simply doesn't matter. As hard a myth that is to maintain, Murdoch is clearly backing Giuliani and Billary and no-one else for the White House in 2008. Like most American elites, Murdoch doesn't care if it's Billary or Giuliani, just as long as it isn't Ron Paul in the White House come 2008.

In Australia, now that Ron Paul's infamy is spreading fast, and his reputation as one of the more credible and interesting Republican candidates is taking root, the Murdoch media has decided to kill off the story of a real presidential underdog before it excites too many journalists down under.

The first shot from Murdoch's Australian media claims that Ron Paul's impressive dominance of internet campaigning is merely the result of a "fake online campaign."

Wait. Here's the full headlines from news.com.au :

Republican Ron Paul In Possible 'Fake Online Campaign'

In the story, journalist Mark Schliebs makes a fistful of accusations of online fraud, based on little more than his own opinion and the strategic use of words like 'possible' and 'may'. If the headline wasn't bad enough, check out the opening paragraph :

A candidate for the US presidency is being buoyed by a massive online campaign that may be a fake grassroots movement organised by party staff.
It gets worse, and far more dubious :

YouTube footage of Texan Republican Congressman Ron Paul, whose candidacy has been overshadowed in the media by competitors Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain, has been viewed by tens of thousands of people in the last week.

http://yournewreality.blogspot.com/2007/10/international-murdoch-media-smearing-of.html

Capablanca-Fan
13-10-2007, 11:56 AM
The International Murdoch Media Smearing Of Ron Paul Begins

By Darryl Mason

The Rupert Murdoch media in the United States mostly pretends Ron Paul doesn't exist, or simply doesn't matter. As hard a myth that is to maintain, Murdoch is clearly backing Giuliani and Billary and no-one else for the White House in 2008. Like most American elites, Murdoch doesn't care if it's Billary or Giuliani, just as long as it isn't Ron Paul in the White House come 2008.

In Australia, now that Ron Paul's infamy is spreading fast, and his reputation as one of the more credible and interesting Republican candidates is taking root, the Murdoch media has decided to kill off the story of a real presidential underdog before it excites too many journalists down under.

The first shot from Murdoch's Australian media claims that Ron Paul's impressive dominance of internet campaigning is merely the result of a "fake online campaign."

Wait. Here's the full headlines from news.com.au :

Republican Ron Paul In Possible 'Fake Online Campaign'

In the story, journalist Mark Schliebs makes a fistful of accusations of online fraud, based on little more than his own opinion and the strategic use of words like 'possible' and 'may'. If the headline wasn't bad enough, check out the opening paragraph :

A candidate for the US presidency is being buoyed by a massive online campaign that may be a fake grassroots movement organised by party staff.
It gets worse, and far more dubious :

YouTube footage of Texan Republican Congressman Ron Paul, whose candidacy has been overshadowed in the media by competitors Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain, has been viewed by tens of thousands of people in the last week.

http://yournewreality.blogspot.com/2007/10/international-murdoch-media-smearing-of.html
Ron Paul seems to have a lot of very good qualities.

Axiom
13-10-2007, 03:30 PM
Ron Paul seems to have a lot of very good qualities.
Unlike this despicable creature -

Judging Giuliani by the company he keeps?

AFP | October 10, 2007

Way back in June, Time's David Von Drehle asked an interesting question: ?How many alleged criminals can a law-and-order candidate be associated with before it starts to hurt?? The question, of course, was in reference to Rudy Giuliani, after Thomas Ravenel, the chairman of Giuliani's presidential campaign in South Carolina, was indicted on cocaine distribution charges, which, of course, came on the heels of revelations about Giuliani's connections with Bernard Kerik.

But Von Drehle posed the question far too early ? the number of alleged criminals with close ties to Giuliani has gone up considerably since then. Ben Smith has the latest.

A prominent Texas Republican has sued Rudy Giuliani's law firm and a close friend and partner of Giuliani's, Kenneth Caruso, alleging that Caruso, the firm and others ?schemed and conspired to steal $10 million.?

J. Virgil Waggoner, a Houston businessman and philanthropist, filed the previously unreported suit in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan in July. He alleges that Caruso, his former lawyer, conspired with Waggoner's investment adviser to cover up the disappearance of $10 million Waggoner invested through a Caribbean bank, the British Trade & Commerce Bank.

Waggoner claims Caruso ?may have also been romantically involved? with the investment adviser.

The Caribbean bank was shut down after its handling of Waggoner's investment came to light, and its president was later jailed for money laundering.


As Greg Sargent added, ?In this case, Caruso isn't just a business partner ? he's a close friend of the Mayor who worked on his mayoral campaigns and even advised him when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.?

If it were just Caruso were the only controversial character close to Giuliani, it'd be far easier to cut the former mayor some slack. But I've been keeping a list of these associates, and it's getting pretty long.

* Giuliani inexplicably backed Bernie Kerik, and made him the city's police commissioner, after he'd been briefed on Kerik's organized crime connections.

* Thomas Ravenel, the chairman of Giuliani's presidential campaign in South Carolina, was indicted on cocaine distribution charges.

* Arthur Ravenel, the replacement chairman of Giuliani's presidential campaign in South Carolina, has characterized the NAACP as the ?National Association for Retarded People,? and has an unusual fondness for the Confederate battle flag.

* Alan Placa was accused by a grand jury report of sexually abusing children, as well as helping cover up the sexual abuse of children by other priests. Giuliani then put Placa, his life-long friend, on the payroll of Giuliani Partners. (Adds Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, which tracks suspected priest abuse, ?I think Rudy Giuliani has to account for his friendship with a credibly accused child molester.?)

* Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the family-values conservative caught up in a prostitution ring, was not only Giuliani's top Senate backer, he was also the regional chairman of Giuliani's campaign.

I've never seen a presidential candidate have this much bad luck, in such a short period of time, in picking the wrong people to be associated with

Axiom
15-10-2007, 10:42 PM
It is sad to see so many critically thinking chessplayers not voting for a truly heroic libertarian representative of the people RON PAUL .

Read this interview and be more informed so as to be able to make more informed decisions.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/paul_10-12.html

Kevin Bonham
15-10-2007, 11:07 PM
I still haven't voted in the poll. Still thinking about it. :lol:

Paul is indeed a remarkable libertarian except that he supports states rights over individual rights on certain moral issues, which gives him a conservative tinge.

Aaron Guthrie
15-10-2007, 11:15 PM
I think the names are of a high standard, except "Fred Thomson". I don't like that name.

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2007, 11:20 PM
I still haven't voted in the poll. Still thinking about it. :lol:
There are a lot of supporters of Defeatocrat "in big government we trust" candidates among Aussie chessplayers it seems; quite mystifying.


Paul is indeed a remarkable libertarian except that he supports states rights over individual rights on certain moral issues, which gives him a conservative tinge.
Interesting. He sounds a lot better than Giuliani.

Speaking of individual rights, are some as individual as they seem? Thomas Sowell has a column (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020405.asp) about how Germany legalized prostitution, then threatened to deny a German girl unemployment benefits if she refused to take a "job" as a "sex worker". That's been a theoretical argument I've heard in Australia and NZ, but theory has become practice in Krautland.

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2007, 11:21 PM
I think the names are of a high standard, except "Fred Thomson". I don't like that name.
Do you like "Ron Paul"? I don't like first names turned into surnames. :hmm:

Axiom
15-10-2007, 11:23 PM
I still haven't voted in the poll. Still thinking about it. a rare bird indeed ;)


Paul is indeed a remarkable libertarian except that he supports states rights over individual rights on certain moral issues, which gives him a conservative tinge.
which rights?

better a remarkable representative libertarian with any tinge, than the rest of the non representative sell outs !

Aaron Guthrie
15-10-2007, 11:23 PM
Do you like "Ron Paul"? I don't like first names turned into surnames. :hmm:Ah, I hadn't given full consideration to this name. I don't like that one either.

Garvinator
15-10-2007, 11:35 PM
Speaking of individual rights, are some as individual as they seem? Thomas Sowell has a column (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020405.asp) about how Germany legalized prostitution, then threatened to deny a German girl unemployment benefits if she refused to take a "job" as a "sex worker". That's been a theoretical argument I've heard in Australia and NZ, but theory has become practice in Krautland.
I wonder what the AWA would be for that.

Axiom
15-10-2007, 11:36 PM
There are a lot of supporters of Defeatocrat "in big government we trust" candidates among Aussie chessplayers it seems; quite mystifying. mystifying indeed, unless one considers the brainwashing media's role in keeping people grossly ill informed !



Interesting. He sounds a lot better than Giuliani. Jono, i have to say , i am very impressed by your critical thinking and openess to question your pposition according to the information. Not only here with ron paul, but earlier on another thread where you stated you were reconsidering your view on the war on drugs....which incidently is another of ron paul's wise policies ie. to abandon the irrationality of such a war !
So a hearty- good on you sir !

Aaron Guthrie
15-10-2007, 11:36 PM
I wonder what the AWA would be for that.You agree to being fd over by your employer and your customers. (Two elephants walk off a cliff. Boom, Boom.)

Kevin Bonham
16-10-2007, 12:22 AM
That's been a theoretical argument I've heard in Australia and NZ, but theory has become practice in Krautland.

Not just theoretical - there was an actual Australian case involving a man being advised to apply for a job as a sex worker (which turned out to be female only). The funniest remark of the saga was from the brothel owner in question, which was along the lines of "Look, does he want the job or doesn't he?"

Capablanca-Fan
16-10-2007, 12:27 AM
mystifying indeed, unless one considers the brainwashing media's role in keeping people grossly ill informed !
Yeah, the media have much to answer for.


Jono, i have to say , i am very impressed by your critical thinking and openess to question your pposition according to the information. Not only here with ron paul, but earlier on another thread where you stated you were reconsidering your view on the war on drugs....which incidently is another of ron paul's wise policies ie. to abandon the irrationality of such a war !
So a hearty- good on you sir !
Thanx. The libertarians make good comparisons with Prohibition. Indeed, Prohibition really worked, and I don't mean that sarcastically (nor am I a teetotaller). Drunk and disoderly conduct, cirrhosis and admissions to hospitals for alcohol psychosis dropped by 60% or more, and alcohol consumption itself dropped 50%. But the unintended consequences were huge black market prices for alcohol, leading to funding of the crime empire of Al Capone and the political empire of the Kennedys, and lots of alcohol-related crime such as gang wars.

Now we see illegal drugs funding criminals and terrorists, gang shootings and burglaries for the lower people who steal for money for the next fix. There should be no doubt that illegal drugs are harmful (that's why they were made illegal), and basically enslave people, so are the opposite of real freedom. And undoubtedly drug laws are responsible for many people avoiding them. But are we seeing worse unintended consequences again? Milton Friedman also opposed the "war on drugs".

Another one is the nanny states around the world now even monitoring our pseudoephidrine intake, just in case innocent users wanting a decent decongestant might make an illegal drug out of it. Or we have to settle for crappy phenylephrine with its big rebound congestion.

Intuition
16-10-2007, 11:27 AM
A don't care as long as its a human option would have been nice :)

Capablanca-Fan
16-10-2007, 01:15 PM
A don't care as long as its a human opinion would have been nice :)
Would a drover's dog not satisfy you then? :hmm:

Axiom
16-10-2007, 06:16 PM
Who here is familiar with the Franklin Cover-up ?
Any opinions?

http://www.thelawparty.org/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm

Basil
16-10-2007, 06:32 PM
Who here is familiar with the Franklin Cover-up ?
Any opinions?

http://www.thelawparty.org/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm
I have an opinion. But I can't share it. I've been bought - and a cover-up is well and truly ensconced. This post will self-destruct in 10 minutes.

littlesprout85
17-10-2007, 07:07 PM
Wohooo -

Its that time of year When the harvest come inz & a chill is in the night air :D On top of this its a prez election year- Lets not waste time here.

Sprouty would like to Vote for the Wild Party this election- We All Know that this Canidate Is truly worthy :D

Sprouty Is Voting For ALICE COOPER #1

-Sprout :)

Aaron Guthrie
17-10-2007, 07:11 PM
Wohooo -

Its that time of year When the harvest come inz & a chill is in the night air :D On top of this its a prez election year- Lets not waste time here.

Sprouty would like to Vote for the Wild Party this election- We All Know that this Canidate Is truly worthy :D

Sprouty Is Voting For ALICE COOPER #1

-Sprout :)You have to fight, for your right, to par-tay.

(I will be voting for a rival candidate, but one with a similar platform ;))

Axiom
19-10-2007, 03:11 PM
Neo-Cons Push for Hillary’s Nomination
by Paul Hogarth‚ Oct. 16‚ 2007

As I’ve written before, conservative pundits love Hillary Clinton and despise the party’s liberal base. While Karl Rove and George Bush have predicted that she will win the nomination, there’s a more basic reason why the right would be content with a President Hillary Clinton. It would not shift the political center of gravity, nor upset the current power structure where conservatives have flourished. In his October 12 column for the Washington Post, neo-conservative Charles Krauthammer lauded Hillary Clinton’s candidacy – calling her the “Great Navigator.” Never mind the rhetoric that she currently gives to win the primary, he said, for Hillary’s “liberalism is redeemed by her ambition; her ideology subordinate to her political needs.” While many liberals currently support Clinton, the right understands that – in a year where Democrats will probably win the Presidency – Hillary is the best that they can hope for.

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/skins/beyondchron/images/links.gif

Kevin Bonham
19-10-2007, 07:52 PM
^^^

Interesting snippet posted by Ax there. I do think there is a lot of the "communitarian" (leftish on economics but still fairly socially conservative) about Hilary.

Axiom
19-10-2007, 09:18 PM
^^^

Interesting snippet posted by Ax there. I do think there is a lot of the "communitarian" (leftish on economics but still fairly socially conservative) about Hilary.
lucky voters , getting a real choice of difference ! :doh:

might give greater credence to reports the bush's and clintons vacation together ! :lol:

and reinforces the idea its basically a one club cartel running the fake democratic republic

but people are waking up, indicated by all time low confidence in both parties as polls reveal and the swelling support for a truly great man RON PAUL !

Axiom
22-10-2007, 01:15 AM
Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has broken through to the top tier of Republican candidates running for president.

He knows it, GOP voters know it, and as previously reported; media outlets are grudgingly admitting it.

Fox News, to their credit, has already started giving Paul more air coverage than before. Paul was a guest on Fox Business News yesterday.

Ron Paul commented on the issue in a message to supporters, “The blackout is ending; our campaign is starting to get mainstream media attention, thanks to growing donations and volunteers.”
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=128737



Ron Paul continued in his message to supporters:

“All over America, our support is wide and deep and growing, and young people are joining like never before. After the Dearborn debate, I went to the University of Michigan for a rally. 2,000 students turned out, something that has happened to no other candidate this year.”

Axiom
01-11-2007, 12:42 AM
Ron Paul's Presidential Odds Drastically Slashed
Britain's biggest bookie has Texas Congressman 12/1 to win White House, down from 66/1

http://www.************.com/articles/october2007/311007_presidential_odds.htm

... where are you pax ? :)

Axiom
01-11-2007, 05:32 PM
Preparations for "Operation Puppet Changeover" continue unabated.


Weapons Industry Dumps Republicans, Backs Hillary

By Leonard Doyle, Independent UK. Posted October 31, 2007.



The U.S. arms industry has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party and is putting their money on Hillary Clinton
http://www.alternet.org/story/65869

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2007, 06:27 PM
Affirmative Action "No dogma has taken a deeper hold with less evidence—or in the face of more massive evidence to the contrary."
Cultural Bias "Life is culturally biased. . . . As limited human beings, we must make our choices among the alternatives actually available. A culture-free society has never been one of those alternatives."
The Media "The public apparently has no 'right to know' that the politically correct conclusions they keep hearing may not be factually correct."
Immigration "The fact that immigrants were once valuable additions to the country does not mean that the same thing may be arbitrarily assumed today, any more than the fact that horses and buggies were once the best way to get around means that we should rely on them today."
The Minimum Wage "What is the minimum wage law but an unfunded mandate imposed on private organizations? It is like impulse buying and charging it to somebody else's credit card."
Multiculturalism "Are we to indulge in absolute fantasy and say that statistical 'diversity' promotes better intergroup relations, against blatant evidence that it is poisoning people against one another?"
Social Security "Nothing is more grossly a transfer of wealth from those with less to those with more. . . . Once we face up to the fact that Social Security is welfare for the elderly, we need to ask ourselves why affluent people of any age should be a burden on others."
The Litigation Explosion "The very idea that the burden of proof is on the party who makes a legal charge has gone out the window as far as whole categories of charges are concerned. This is true in . . . so-called women's issues, racial issues, environmental issues, and other crusades pushed by strident activists."

Axiom
01-11-2007, 07:09 PM
Affirmative Action "No dogma has taken a deeper hold with less evidence—or in the face of more massive evidence to the contrary."
Cultural Bias "Life is culturally biased. . . . As limited human beings, we must make our choices among the alternatives actually available. A culture-free society has never been one of those alternatives."
The Media "The public apparently has no 'right to know' that the politically correct conclusions they keep hearing may not be factually correct."
Immigration "The fact that immigrants were once valuable additions to the country does not mean that the same thing may be arbitrarily assumed today, any more than the fact that horses and buggies were once the best way to get around means that we should rely on them today."
The Minimum Wage "What is the minimum wage law but an unfunded mandate imposed on private organizations? It is like impulse buying and charging it to somebody else's credit card."
Multiculturalism "Are we to indulge in absolute fantasy and say that statistical 'diversity' promotes better intergroup relations, against blatant evidence that it is poisoning people against one another?"
Social Security "Nothing is more grossly a transfer of wealth from those with less to those with more. . . . Once we face up to the fact that Social Security is welfare for the elderly, we need to ask ourselves why affluent people of any age should be a burden on others."
The Litigation Explosion "The very idea that the burden of proof is on the party who makes a legal charge has gone out the window as far as whole categories of charges are concerned. This is true in . . . so-called women's issues, racial issues, environmental issues, and other crusades pushed by strident activists."

Brilliant ! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Capablanca-Fan
21-11-2007, 06:19 PM
Ron Paul Isn't That Scary (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JonahGoldberg/2007/11/21/ron_paul_isnt_that_scary)
By Jonah Goldberg

Goldberg thinks that Ron Paul hasn't a hope of winning, and doesn't agree with his foreign policy. But he describes Paul as a "culturally conservative libertarian", an honorable man who will not let personal preferences override his philosophy, and laments:


But there's something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican Party, while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog. It's even weirder because it's probably true: Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that's what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike.

Axiom
21-11-2007, 06:37 PM
But there's something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican Party, while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog. It's even weirder because it's probably true: Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that's what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike.
:clap: :clap: :clap: Highly illustrative of current political reality.
I could argue that there is a collective cognitive dissonance that allows this acutely ironical political reality, or perhaps some theory based on the informed decision making process !? :)

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2007, 11:04 PM
Current Centrebet odds (Gore still kept safe although he is a scratching, just in case he changes his mind):

President - WINNER
CLINTON, Hillary 1.80
GIULIANI, Rudolph 6.00
OBAMA, Barack 8.00
ROMNEY, Mitt 9.00
GORE, Al 11.00
THOMPSON, Fred 16.00
PAUL, Ron 17.00
EDWARDS, John 21.00
MCCAIN, John 26.00
BLOOMBERG, Michael 41.00
HUCKABEE, Mike 41.00
RICHARDSON, Bill 71.00
RICE, Condoleezza 81.00

Ron Paul is ahead of John McCain!

Axiom
01-12-2007, 01:23 PM
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/ronpship_dees.jpg

Capablanca-Fan
06-12-2007, 03:29 PM
“I’m hearing that Hillary is ready to kill Bill. But it has nothing to do with his roving eye... By claiming that he had ‘opposed Iraq from the beginning’ —when the record clearly shows otherwise—the former president served voters a piping hot reminder that the Clintons have frequently had an on-and-off relationship with the truth.”
—Arianna Huffington

Axiom
06-12-2007, 04:38 PM
“I’m hearing that Hillary is ready to kill Bill. But it has nothing to do with his roving eye... By claiming that he had ‘opposed Iraq from the beginning’ —when the record clearly shows otherwise—the former president served voters a piping hot reminder that the Clintons have frequently had an on-and-off relationship with the truth.”
—Arianna Huffington
yes, and not unlike the record with truth the bushs have had.
the clintons and bushs represent a criminal cartel in terms of real politik.
the congress now has an 11% approval rating , the people have lost faith in the status quo 2 party farce.
they are turning towards liberty.
ron paul is winning debates and polls, but the corporate alligned media is desperately trying to prop up the untenable.

Axiom
12-12-2007, 02:15 PM
The Planned Collapse Of USA
By Peter Chamberlin
MortysCabin.com
12-11-7

There is no shortage of speculation about "why" our leaders are still adamantly planning for the destruction of Iran, in the face of overwhelming popular opposition, even though everyone except the neocons and their allies believes that America would not survive our own actions. An irrational attack is planned and apparently the decision has been chiseled in stone. It may be for Israel. It may be for oil. Maybe it is for world domination?

We are launching a nuclear world war to save us from ourselves. "We have found the enemy and he is us." --Pogo. We risk blowing the world apart, to avoid watching America slowly choke on its own excesses.

The government has known for decades that America is on a countdown to self-destruction. Among the elite it is common knowledge that our "global economy" must one day collapse from its own dead weight. In 1974 an intensive research project was undertaken by the Stanford Research Institute and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation for the Dept. of Education. Their final report was released as the Changing Images of Man. It was compiled by the SRI Center for the Study of Social Policy, Director Willis Harmon. This is a far-reaching investigation into how the basic nature of man might be changed. The Aquarian Conspiracy describes the implementation of their work in the real world..

The most reassuring part of "Images" is that it confirms my own conclusions about our crisis, but it is also the most disturbing part, for it confirms my worst reservations about this time.

The object of the research was the development of a plausible vision of the future in which democratic methods survive, major problems are managed successfully if not resolved, and the unfolding of the human potential continues to expand. In other words, the postulation of a "desirable future" including feasible paths to its realization . . .

The government was looking forward to a very troubling future, trying to figure out the best path through it. The plan was to find ways to shape and mold mankind into a new cultural image, complete with new ideas and ideologies, even religious ones. The root of the problem was human nature, and solution was to reshape the competing forces of daily life, in order to forge a new image of a new human nature. The researchers were brutally honest in seeking all available knowledge pertaining to their research, and in assessing the current common image of man-on-earth.

The research revealed that there were a multitude of crises that were about to intersect in America's near future. Not the least of these converging catastrophes was a rapidly approaching breakdown of both American capitalism and democracy. The collapse was a natural result of globalism and monopoly capitalism. The basic greed that powers the system eroded the American political and economic structures, exposing the foundation of immorality and unfairness that amplifies the social unrest. The Stanford researchers clearly predicted that the American economy was destined to collapse from its own dead weight. The data also showed that that economic collapse was to be accompanied by disastrous social repercussions, such as rioting and upheaval, which would lead us into a "garrison state."

The thing about this research is that this work has confirmed that our economy based on parasitic capitalism, where the small elite sits atop the heap of men and gorges on their lifeblood, is destroying the social fabric of America. This system is based on a stacked deck, where the top elite always reap the profits that are made to rise to the top through the corporate profits-based system. The research confirmed that the growing inequities of such a system were ever increasing and with them, elevated social tensions. A system based on usury and putting everyone in the "poor house" is an economic order that is guaranteed to produce a democratic revolution, whenever the misery index of the armed populace exceeds the limits that they are willing to peacefully bear, without striking back at the source of their misery.

Changing Images of Man predicts an American economic collapse and a "garrison" (police) state," if the overwhelming inequities of our economic system are not corrected by powerful multinationals making more humane decisions. Alternatives to this doomsday scenario are discussed, all of which point to the need to devote all available resources towards transforming the image of man, changing man's nature, instead of altering the corrupted economic system which has brought America to this dire state. In this government study it was inappropriate to denounce the evil culprits behind all our troubles (who pull the strings on government itself), even though the task was to document and remedy the damage that they have done. Instead, they are cited as the hopeful "saviors," that we should look to for help and leadership. The hypocrisy of the hegemons! The authors admit that it is "utopian in 1974 to think of the multinational corporations as potentially among our most effective mechanisms for husbanding the earth's resources and optimizing their use for human benefit -- the current popular image of the corporation tends to be more that of the spoiler and the exploiter."

Instead of charging the people who are responsible for our situation (such as men like David Rockefeller), for manipulating our economy and our democracy to maximize their profits, the multi-national corporations and their owners were exalted as the potential saviors of mankind. Rockefeller and the elite have consistently taken steps to dominate the world by controlling people through "humanitarian" projects which, in the end, turn out to be profit mechanisms. The "green revolution" to spread corporate farming to the Third World has been the key to globalization's destabilizing of world labor markets, in order to create populations of "refugee workers," who are willing to go anywhere to find work for slave wages. This is the cause of the wave of illegal immigration into the US from Mexico. This is part of the proof that there are powerful individuals who are using their economic power to undermine nations in a long-term scheme to gain control of nations and multiply their profits.

Here <http://www.constitutionforum.net/main_good_government.html>David Rockefeller admits media collusion with his one world plans: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the light of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

Rockefeller writes on page 405 of his memoirs: "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." (<http://lonelantern.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=356>Activists Go Face to Face With Evil As Rockefeller Confronted)

Everything that "Images" suggested to remedy shortcomings in the economic system was based on the assumption that men like this would acquire a new corporate benevolence, with CEOs gaining basic humanity. According to Rockefeller himself (who freely admits his efforts to replace America with a "one world" order), he has been working for the greater good of man, all along.

Their conclusions on American political shortcomings were that these would be tended to by the new improved humane politicians, sort of like Bush's "compassionate conservatives." Step 4 of their six-part strategy to "Bring About a Non-Catostrophic Transformation" -- "Encourage a politics of righteousness and a heightened sense of public responsibilities of the private sector . . . A politics of righteousness might have been laudable in any generation; it may be indispensable for safe passage through the times just ahead."

The report authors recognize the inevitability of the rising new image of man, describing it as a quasi-religious awakening within the collective mind of man, man's new human nature, relating it to the actual process of spiritual learning that has been going on within religions for thousands of years. They praise Freemasonry and the skills and disciplines inculcated within its members, speculating that their ways might be the key to shoring-up our free enterprise democratic society.

They developed a strategy to revitalize America's motivational images, symbols and institutions, outlining five separate approaches to the problem, describing the pluses and the pitfalls of each, according to their effects upon society. These approaches are defined as "restorative, simulative, manipulative, persuasive and facilitative." Restoration of crumbling icons works best in the early stages of societal transformation (revitalization cycle). The simulative strategy introduces new ideas, whenever the collapse of the old order becomes apparent. The manipulative strategy seeks to limit individual freedoms. Persuasive propaganda phase is to be coupled with proven mind control techniques, to keep down the social upheaval and shape the emerging image.

"No doubt existing consciousness-changing, behavior-shaping, subliminal persuasion, and other conditioning techniques could be used to accomplish some sort of transformation of sobering proportions (we ought to be able to be more effective than Nazi Germany). After previously citing Nazi reinvigoration of the Germanic icons and ideals."

The transforming revitalization process mirrors the psychiatric process of leading a patient through a psychotic break and the restructuring of his life, but on a national scale.

Once the transformation becomes apparent, social stability will become a problem, especially when society feels pushed by overextending the simulative stage. Actions taken to increase the polarization between "transformation enthusiasts and the conservatives" are called "constructive," except when it is desirable to take actions that "contribute to social cohesion." They were searching for the best path to bring about a controlled deconstruction of everything that "America" means and the reconstruction of a new improved vision of America. They are midwifes to the delivery of the "New World Order," as they go about the dirty business of guiding society through that predicted period of "friendly fascism."

The great anomaly is given as the great chasm between an efficiently functioning profit-driven capitalist society and the human needs and desires of that society which go unmet, so that "profits" can be taken. In fact, the "profit" really amounts to the bread that is taken from the poor. The inequities and the unfairness of the corporate system are causing the breakdown of American capitalism and American democracy. The American catastrophe is causing the breakdown of the world economy for the same reason, the basic inability of monopoly capitalism to meet the basic needs demanded by the world's people.

Bush's appointed task is to bully America through this turbulent period of upheaval, with as little disruption of corporate activity as possible. Government has taken the words of this study to heart, preparing a manipulative transformation, to divert or preempt the coming collapse of our nation with a massive war today. This is also one of the primary reasons for the coming world war, to serve as a prelude to American martial law. Instead of calling out the troops after the insurrection has begun, they plan to call out the troops first. If the American military is to forcefully control the homeland, including their own relatives, then the troops must first be convinced that the nation's survival depends upon their patriotic actions. This is why the world war against Iran has not started yet, because our National Guard must first be convinced that its duty is to put down the American rebellion which will surely accompany the bombing of Iran. The timing for their great takeover is crucial, if they want to move America past (through) the social unrest as quickly as possible.

Here are the "Elements of a Strategy for a Non-catastrophic Transition":

1. Promote awareness of the unavoidability of the transformation.

2. Foster construction of a guiding vision of a workable society built around the new image of man and new social paradigm.

3. Foster a period of experimentation and tolerance for diverse alternatives.

4. Encourage a politics of righteousness and a heightened sense of public responsibilities of the private sector . . . A politics of righteousness might have been laudable in any generation; it may be indispensable for safe passage through the times just ahead.

5. Promote systematic exploration of and foster education regarding man's inner life, his subjective experience.

6. Plan adequate social controls for the transition period while safeguarding against longer-term losses of freedom . . . Regulation and restraint of behavior will be necessary in order to hold the society together while it goes around a difficult corner.

There must be a new economics to deal with the "new scarcities." Arguing for corporate America to adopt a humanitarian aspect, the argument is made for an alternative "new socialism," where important sectors like energy might be nationalized for the good of the country, and greater pressure put upon corporations to mandate a sort of social awareness of employee needs, as much as shareholder profits.

"The appropriate question may be not so much how to bring about a transformation . . . but rather how to facilitate a non-catastrophic transformation." [page 195]

"Construct a guiding version of a workable society, built around a new positive image of humankind and corresponding vision of a suitable social paradigm. As the old order shows increasing signs of falling apart, some adequate vision of what may be simultaneously building is urgently needed for mobilization of constructive effort. The guiding vision has to include some way of providing for full and valued participation in the economic and social affairs of the community and society, especially for those who are physically and mentally able to contribute but find themselves in a state of unwilling idleness and deterioration of spirit."

Despite all the report's shortcomings and its hypocrisy, it does make some sound observations about what is needed for our immediate survival. We should take it as a guide to what our government knows about the coming mega-crisis and a template to help us see what changes we could make if there were truly a new economy, a new social contract, a new American state. For it is obvious to all those who take the time to look, that we are headed into period of national freefall, when American society plunges head first, into a dark abyss of uncertainty, as the old order passes away, and the New World Order rushes in to fill the void.

We are seeing the planned collapse of America, coming down the road we are on. What are we going to do to get our nation off that highway to hell?



ANSWER: -

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/rp_dees.jpg

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2007, 03:42 PM
My Interview with Ron Paul (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/2007/12/12/my_interview_with_ron_paul)
By John Stossel
Wednesday, December 12, 2007


...
What should government do?

Ron Paul: Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look at and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. That was the responsibility of the federal government, not to run our lives and run everything in the economy and extend the interstate-commerce clause and the general-welfare clause to do anything they want to do.

So defense, the military, police forces enforce contracts, and that's about it?

That's it. We would have a court system to enforce contracts, and when people do harm to others, when they take property or injure property, or pollute a neighbor's air, I think there's a role for government to protect our environment through private-property rights.

So keep us safe, enforce contracts, run the courts, pollution rules and otherwise butt out? Leave us alone?

Basically that, which would mean if I'm elected, I should immediately take a pay cut. You know, because I wouldn't have so much to do.

The Department of Education. You'd get rid of it?

Yes. We don't need it.

How will people get educated?

We might get better education. The evidence shows, since the 1950s, since the federal government's gotten involved, the quality of education has gone down, and the cost has gone up.

The federal government should have no role?

There's no authority for it, and they've proved themselves inefficient. The one city they're totally in charge of is Washington, D.C. Thirteen thousand dollars a year per student. They have more guns, more drugs, more violence. So there's no evidence that the government can do a very good job.
...
Failure of government how?

We spent $40 billion on intelligence gathering, and it didn't prevent (the 9/11 attacks) from happening. But the government was in charge of the airlines. FAA, they were supposed to inspect the people as they went on, and you weren't supposed to resist any takeovers, and (passengers and pilots) weren't allowed to have a gun. Maybe if you and I had the airlines, we might have said, "Hey, you know, we want to protect our passengers. Maybe we should have a stronger door on there, maybe we ought to give our pilots a gun." So 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

So government creates too many rules, and the wrong ones?

That basically it. Most of the time well-intentioned -- but good intentions will not solve our problems.
...

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2007, 11:29 PM
Huckabee added to poll.

pax
13-12-2007, 11:36 PM
Huckabee added to poll.

Good point. He's been doing well in the polls for quite some time now.

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2007, 11:41 PM
Good point. He's been doing well in the polls for quite some time now.
True. We might need a new poll now though.

pax
13-12-2007, 11:48 PM
True. We might need a new poll now though.

Maybe wait for Iowa to weed out a few of the also-rans, and then run separate polls for the Dem and GOP nominations.

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2007, 12:10 AM
I'm trying to work out whether it's possible to replace the existing poll on this thread with a new one or whether it's necessary to start a new thread.

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2007, 02:08 PM
I am just about to create a new poll so for the record the votes on the old poll were:

Democrats

Clinton 6
Obama 6
Gore 5
Edwards 0

Republicans

Giuliani 2
McCain 2
Paul 1
Romney, Thompson 0
(Huckabee only added yesterday so we won't count him)

Don't care so long as it's not a Democrat 1
Don't care so long as it's not a Republican 1
Bloomberg (IND) 0

By the way although there is still speculation about Bloomberg running, he denies it.

New poll should be up soon.

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2007, 02:17 PM
OK, the new poll is up. From the previous list of candidates I have removed Gore (D) and Bloomberg (Ind) as they have said they are not running. I have left all the rest in.

Other candidates may be added on request if I am satisfied that they have a ghost of a chance. (Some of those in the existing list probably don't).

Axiom
15-12-2007, 02:03 PM
Estulin: Elitists Consider Assassinating Ron Paul
Best-selling author and Bilderberg sleuth says intelligence sources told him highest levels of U.S. government discussing what result would be if Congressman was killed
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, December 14, 2007



Best-selling author and Bilderberg sleuth Daniel Estulin says he has received information from sources inside the U.S. intelligence community which suggests that people from the highest levels of the U.S. government are considering an assassination attempt against Congressman Ron Paul because they are threatened by his burgeoning popularity.

Estulin, whose information has unfortunately proven very accurate in the past, went public with the bombshell news during an appearance on The Alex Jones Show today.

"I am getting information from my sources that there are people involved from a higher level of the American establishment who are seriously considering - this has not been confirmed - but assassination is definitely on the agenda and I pray to God that this is not the case," said Estulin.




Estulin, an award winning investigative journalist, said that he was given the information from a source that has been reliable for over a decade in providing accurate projections of future events based on what the elite were discussing in their own circles and that assassination was a serious option should the Ron Paul Revolution continue to pick up steam.
Estulin, author of the global bestseller The True Story of the Bilderberg Group described the concept as a "trial balloon from the inner core within the inner core - it hasn't gone beyond that but it is obviously on the table because I think needless to say they are very much concerned," he added.


Best-selling author and award winning investigative journalist Daniel Estulin.

Ron Paul himself has stated on a previous occasion that he is aware of the dangers of being such a bold icon for freedom and understands that political assassinations have occured in the past.

In a June appearance on The Alex Jones Show, Congressman Paul acknowledged that such a threat is "real," agreeing with a number of historical examples where leaders were killed or attacked for successfully standing up to the system. "That's right. They'll do it," Paul said, making reference with Alex Jones to upstarts like Andrew Jackson, "The Kingfish" Huey Long, Bobby Kennedy, George Washington and even George Wallace.

Estulin pointed out that his past predictions about global events were very accurate because of the solid information provided to him from within Bilderberg and the elite. Over 18 months ago Estulin correctly made the call that the Iran war had been delayed and was probably off the table, which is looking to be exactly the case after the release of the recent National Intelligence Estimate. Estulin in featured at length in Alex Jones' film Endgame, in which he is also filmed making the prediction based on his sources.



Estulin said his sources were from within the intelligence community and they were telling him that "the people of the highest levels of government - not related in any way at least visually to George W. Bush - the first initial conversation of what might happen if we were to do this," has taken place.

"The Ron Paul phenomenon has galvanized an entire nation," said Estulin, adding that both the people who discovered the plot and its potential protagonists are terrified at the consequences of what such an action will be because of the difficulty in judging just how severely the general public will react.

Estulin said that the conspirators, which he described as a "small circle of intimates," were discussing what the effect would be if Congressman Paul was "removed" - they are being very careful to use the word "remove" rather than more volatile terms, but Estulin was told directly that "remove" was a euphemism for assassinate.

Estulin said he may be able to be more specific on exactly who is discussing such an action in future, but warned that Ron Paul's staff should be aware of the issue.

Click here to listen to the MP3 interview with Daniel Estulin.
http://www.************.com/articles/december2007/121407_assassinating_paul.htm

Axiom
19-12-2007, 02:15 PM
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton : Two Families, Three Decades In The White House, The Very Best Of Friends

YOUR NEW REALITY
Tuesday December 18, 2007



Hillary Clinton likes to give the impression that she stands utterly opposed to President George W. Bush, and that she believes he has ruined the United States during his seven years in power.

But it's all a lie. The Clintons and the Bushes are really the best of friends, as we pointed out on this blog almost two years ago.

Such good friends in fact, that Bill Clinton has announced that his wife's "number one priority" on taking control of the White House would be to send him and former President George H.W. Bush on a world tour to declare the United States is "open for business and cooperation":


Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America's reputation by the current president - Bush's son, George W. Bush.

"Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife's "number one priority" would be as president.
Her "number one priority", eh? Sure, nothing more important than bilking the US taxpayers for a victory lap of the world by the Bush-Clinton 'family' regime.

And this announcement is supposed to help Hillary Clinton get elected?

Are these people insane?


They're supposed to be enemies. But they're really good friends

More than 40% of Americans have never known the White House without a Clinton or Bush in the West Wing. Fatigue and nervousness amongst young American voters of what the president himself called "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton" is now one of the biggest hurdles Hillary Clinton has to overcome, but more likely than not the families will find a way to install her in the West Wing at the end of next year.

So Bill and Hillary Clinton are now claiming that President George W. Bush has screwed up the country so badly that he, Pappa Bush and a host of other dignitaries will have to tour the world to announce that the bad times are over?

How fascinating it is to see that not so long ago, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were sharing quality phone time on how to run the White House.

From YNR, January 2006 :

Mr Bush said he checked in with Mr Clinton occasionally.
"And you know, he says things that make it obvious … that we're kind of, you know, on the same wavelength about the job of the presidency," he said.

And what "wavelength" is that? President Bush didn't explain.

And now, less than two years later, Bill Clinton is announcing that if his wife wins the White House, he will be sent on a diplomatic mission to try and undo the damage done by his "brother" George W.?

Please. How stupid do these people think we are?

More on the very close relationships in the Bush-Clinton Presidential Family :

US President George W. Bush thinks it's funny that Senator Hilary Clinton could be the next President of the United States.

Despite the fact that both her and her husband Bill Clinton have savaged the Bush 2 Administration, and mocked the President for being dumb and careless and out of touch, there are no hard feelings from the Bush Family.

Bill Clinton spends an awful amount of time doing charity gigs with his former rival and fellow ex-President George Herbert Walker Bush. They've become great friends and current President Bush thinks of Bill as a member of the family now.

"That's a good relationship," Bush said of his dad's flourishing mateship with "my new brother".

President Bush thought it was "fun" to watch his father and Clinton together at the funeral of Pope John Paul.

When asked about who might be the next President of the United States, Bush mused about how future historians might look back and view the decades when only a few key members of two old American families held the most powerful office in the world as "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton", he said.

Who needs elections?

http://www.************.com/articles/december2007/181207_b_Bush-Clinton.htm

Kevin Bonham
19-12-2007, 07:40 PM
Just a reminder to posters that there is a new poll now with a revised list of candidates (mainly, Gore has been removed). If you voted in the original poll, please vote in the new one.

It appears at present that Hilary Clinton's momentum is faltering and Obama is becoming a more serious threat to win the Democratic nomination. But there is still a very long way to go.

Interesting how the Democratic race is really a race in two now (Edwards and the minor candidates are sideshows) while the Republican race is still extremely open. Quite different to last time when the Democratic race was a dog's breakfast.

Axiom
22-12-2007, 10:22 PM
Cynthia McKinney To Run For President
Former Congresswoman Announces Bid To Be Green Party Candidate
Comments 7
ATLANTA, Dec. 20, 2007



Cynthia McKinney, a former Georgia congresswoman, talks at a news conference Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2007, in Madison, Wis. where she is seeking the nomination of the Green Party for president. (AP)


A
(AP) Former Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney, who was ousted from office last year after a headline-grabbing scuffle with a Capitol Hill police officer, has decided to seek the presidency - as a Green Party candidate.

In a video posted on the Internet on Tuesday, McKinney criticized the war in Iraq and complained about Democrats and Republicans, saying both parties are beholden to corrupt corporate interests. She called the Green Party "my new political home."

McKinney, 52, registered to vote in California after a group called Run! Cynthia! Run! began drafting her as the Green Party's candidate there. Since then, she had made campaign appearances in Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

In the more than seven-minute video first posted on her Web site on Sunday, then on YouTube on Tuesday, McKinney had particularly harsh words for her former party.

"The Democrats do not speak for us," she said. "The Democrats are no different than their Republican counterparts."

McKinney served six terms representing a suburban Atlanta district but was defeated in 2006 by DeKalb County Commissioner Hank Johnson. She had been the first black woman elected to Congress from Georgia.

One of her final acts in Congress was to introduce a bill to impeach President Bush, saying he misled Congress into approving the war in Iraq and violated the law by secretly spying on citizens. She once claimed Mr. Bush had been warned of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

McKinney is one of at least seven Green Party candidates for president. The party will select its presidential nominee at its July 10 convention in Chicago.

She's an angel amongst demons, just hope she knows the Greens are owned by corporate interests too ! :(

pax
22-12-2007, 11:50 PM
The sudden emergence of Mike Huckabee has been very impressive. In the matter of a couple of months, he has come from single digit polling to frontrunner, and looks to be the favourite for Iowa. I don't suppose it should be all that surprising, since all of the other leading candidates have big problems in securing the genuine support of a large part of the Republican base. Despite having lead the Republican field for some time, I don't believe Giuliani could ever win the nomination.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2007, 01:33 AM
The sudden emergence of Mike Huckabee has been very impressive.
Even has Chuck Norris' support.


In the matter of a couple of months, he has come from single digit polling to frontrunner, and looks to be the favourite for Iowa.
You might like him. He loves high taxes and big government.


I don't suppose it should be all that surprising, since all of the other leading candidates have big problems in securing the genuine support of a large part of the Republican base. Despite having lead the Republican field for some time, I don't believe Giuliani could ever win the nomination.
Right. Giuliani has too many positions diametrically opposed to that of the GOP base, and those who disliked the Klinton's sleazy personal life would find the same thing to dislike in Giuliani. And even some GOP supporters likely fear that if he were the nominee, many of the base would stay at home (or is it work?) on election day.

pax
23-12-2007, 11:44 PM
You might like him. He loves high taxes and big government.
He seems to have avoided any actual policy announcements in favour of developing a likeable media persona. It seems to be working a charm so far.



Right. Giuliani has too many positions diametrically opposed to that of the GOP base, and those who disliked the Klinton's sleazy personal life would find the same thing to dislike in Giuliani. And even some GOP supporters likely fear that if he were the nominee, many of the base would stay at home (or is it work?) on election day.
Ridiculous week-day voting. Grr.

Capablanca-Fan
24-12-2007, 05:43 PM
Ridiculous week-day voting. Grr.
No dispute there. It's quite astounding how the world's only superpower has such backward policies in many areas.

Kevin Bonham
25-12-2007, 11:00 PM
Right. Giuliani has too many positions diametrically opposed to that of the GOP base, and those who disliked the Klinton's sleazy personal life would find the same thing to dislike in Giuliani.

Curious about your placement of the apostrophe there. Did you intend "Klintons' sleazy personal life"? As far as I'm aware only one of them is known to have had a sleazy personal life so far - though I am no fan of the other.

As for Huckabee, I am normally averse to speculative fascism calls in politics but I thought Ron Paul's secondhand warning about those who come to politics draped in the flag and carrying the cross was very likely appropriate.

In policy terms I would not be too averse to Guiliani as he is quite liberal on social issues while being unlikely to give the communitarian claptrap beloved of the Clintons (both) and Gores (both) the time of day. But I find him somewhat flaky and unconvincing as a politician. He often seems to pop up taking the credit when it is debatable if it is really his.

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2007, 12:50 PM
Curious about your placement of the apostrophe there. Did you intend "Klintons' sleazy personal life"? As far as I'm aware only one of them is known to have had a sleazy personal life so far - though I am no fan of the other.
Yeah, Slick Willy was the only one personally sleazy, but his wife enabled it by her politics of personal destruction of Willy's opponents.


As for Huckabee, I am normally averse to speculative fascism calls in politics but I thought Ron Paul's secondhand warning about those who come to politics draped in the flag and carrying the cross was very likely appropriate.
I don't like a lot of Huckabee's leftist politics, but Ron Paul went too far on the fascism label, and it makes Paul look like a conspiracy theorist.


In policy terms I would not be too averse to Guiliani as he is quite liberal on social issues
I didn't think you would be, but it might drive away a lot of the GOP. If he were standing as a Democrat, he might be as appealing to the general population as Lieberman was in CT.


while being unlikely to give the communitarian claptrap beloved of the Clintons (both) and Gores (both) the time of day.
What is this communitarianism?

Kevin Bonham
26-12-2007, 03:03 PM
Yeah, Slick Willy was the only one personally sleazy, but his wife enabled it by her politics of personal destruction of Willy's opponents.

Don't really see a causal connection there. Suspect Bill would have been a sleaze whether he was President of the USA or a used-car salesman.


I don't like a lot of Huckabee's leftist politics,

What is leftist about him? I wasn't aware of anything!


but Ron Paul went too far on the fascism label, and it makes Paul look like a conspiracy theorist.

Most likely he is a conspiracy theorist. That's the worry with him. Rather than his being a libertarianism that speaks to those who just happen to genuinely desire freedom, it's a libertarianism that speaks primarily to the alienated, resentful and paranoid.


I didn't think you would be, but it might drive away a lot of the GOP.

Yes. Guiliani is a big problem for morally conservative Republicans, both for his views and for his personal life. They may well be feeling they should just about vote Democrat, and this is why many Republicans are looking for just about any hack who they can say is a more typical Republican.


What is this communitarianism?

A political philosophy that is similar to left-liberalism but has a strong focus on so-called community values. Hence Tipper Gore especially as a force pushing censorship of "offensive" lyrics in music, normally thought of as a right-wing concern, but I think all the Gores and Clintons have leanings in that sort of direction and none of them are real "liberals".

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2007, 08:16 PM
Don't really see a causal connection there. Suspect Bill would have been a sleaze whether he was President of the USA or a used-car salesman.
But the wife of a used car salesman would most likely have kicked him out. But the hugely ambitious first lady with designs of her own on the presidency lashed out at his challengers, which is an enablement of his sleaze.


What is leftist about him? I wasn't aware of anything!
He loves the nanny state, raising taxes and state spending (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/05/mike_huckabee_is_a_liberal_a_c.php), illegal immigration, and he released a convicted rapist, Wayne DuMond, early who went on to sexually assault and murder another woman. Some have said Huckabee is another Carter.

Capablanca-Fan
27-12-2007, 11:06 AM
John Stossel's interview with Ron Paul (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/2007/12/26/dr_no,_r-texas?page=2)


John Stossel: Your district is subject to floods, but you vote against FEMA. Why?

Ron Paul: Because I think FEMA helps create the flood problems. (Without subsidies,) if it's risky on the Gulf Coast to build there, the insurance prices will go up. If (they're) too high, nobody will build there, or they'll build there with full risk. Flood comes, wind blows your house away, you don't get reimbursed. So there might be (only) modest building in those areas. But if the government subsidizes the insurance, saying, "If you build there, don't sweat it, we're going to bail you out," more people move into the flood-prone areas. Then who are the people that have to bail you out? Somebody that lives out in the desert. It's unfair, it's not good economics. You create more problems, more houses get flooded, and it becomes a general problem rather than an individual problem. We have undermined is the principle of measuring risk. Then people do things that they wouldn't have otherwise done.

You also say, "no farm subsidies."

No, I can't quite find (the farm-subsidy program) in the Constitution.

Don't we need farm subsidies to make sure we have food?

It is totally unnecessary. I think (subsidies) push the prices of food up, and maybe (that) makes it more difficult for poor people to buy food. If there's a subsidy, it means the taxpayer was taxed to pay a huge corporate farmer. So it hasn't helped the people. And why should we assume that the farmers wouldn't be productive? They're hard working people. I never voted for farm subsidies, and I represent a farm district.

They forgive you for that?

The farmers will support me, but not the (farm lobby) organizations.

Most crops don't have subsidies. Yet we have plenty of (unsubsidized) peaches and plums.

When I go to the grocery store, I always marvel: Isn't it wonderful how we can see so much fresh produce there, and the prices aren't regulated? It was a fallacious argument back in the '30s that the Depression came from free markets and therefore we had to have a safety net. We gave up on believing in freedom and understanding how the market works.

Kevin Bonham
27-12-2007, 09:54 PM
Some have said Huckabee is another Carter.

Naturally I was against him on account of him being such a bible-thumper but you're doing a pretty good job of disabusing me of any idea that he might have any positive qualities at all! :D

pax
04-01-2008, 12:52 PM
Early returns in Iowa make it look like a win for Obama and Huckabee.

Latest counting at 20:53 Iowa time:

Barack Obama : 36% DECLARED WINNER
John Edwards : 30%
Hillary Clinton : 30%
Bill Richardson : 2%
Joe Biden : 1%
Chris Dodd : 0%
Mike Gravel : 0%
Dennis Kucinich : 0%
Uncommitted : 0%

Precincts Reporting: 1459 of 1781 - 82%

Mike Huckabee : 34% DECLARED WINNER
John McCain : 13%
Mitt Romney : 25%
Fred Thompson : 14%
Ron Paul : 10%
Rudy Giuliani : 4%
Duncan Hunter : 0%
Tom Tancredo : 0%

Precincts reporting: 1160 of 1781 - 65%

pax
04-01-2008, 12:55 PM
Even though Giuliani completely ignored Iowa, 4% is a dreadfully bad showing. And perhaps the most damaged candidate on the Republican side is Romney with only 23% despite investing heavily in Iowa. Thompson and McCain are probably moderately happy with 13-14%.

Obama's 36% is very strong indeed, after polls had him neck and neck with Clinton and Edwards coming in. Looks like the Obama campaign must be well organised on the ground. Edwards will probably fade away now, as Iowa was expected to be a strong state for him.

Davidflude
04-01-2008, 02:40 PM
According to The Australian Obama has clearly won

Capablanca-Fan
04-01-2008, 02:42 PM
Early returns in Iowa make it look like a win for Obama and Huckabee.

Latest counting at 20:53 Iowa time:

Barack Obama : 36% DECLARED WINNER
John Edwards : 30%
Hillary Clinton : 30%
Bill Richardson : 2%
Joe Biden : 1%
Chris Dodd : 0%
Mike Gravel : 0%
Dennis Kucinich : 0%
Uncommitted : 0%

Precincts Reporting: 1459 of 1781 - 82%

Mike Huckabee : 34% DECLARED WINNER
John McCain : 13%
Mitt Romney : 25%
Fred Thompson : 14%
Ron Paul : 10%
Rudy Giuliani : 4%
Duncan Hunter : 0%
Tom Tancredo : 0%

Precincts reporting: 1160 of 1781 - 65%
Good grief, both GOP and Dem supporters around the US can't be happy that two airheads won. B. Hussein Obama has no legislative achievements to his name and is more famous for eloquent speech about uniting America while proposing discredited old 1960s policies, while Hickabee is a young Jimmy Carter in both foreign policy and domestic economic policies.

pax
04-01-2008, 03:00 PM
I'm curious as to why you refer to Obama as "B. Hussein Obama" - the man goes by his first name, not his middle name. I hope you don't buy the 'Obama is a closet Islamist' line?

pax
04-01-2008, 03:02 PM
According to The Australian Obama has clearly won

Yes, the margin looks to be bigger now - 38/30/29 for Obama, Edwards, Clinton. In the Republican race, McCain may have sneaked into third which would be a good result for him.

Capablanca-Fan
05-01-2008, 12:20 PM
I'm curious as to why you refer to Obama as "B. Hussein Obama" — the man goes by his first name, not his middle name.
Why not?


I hope you don't buy the 'Obama is a closet Islamist' line?
Not at all. He is a closet secularist.

BTW, the crass FPP voting is even crasser in a field of lots of relatively strong candidates. Preferential voting is even more important in the primaries than in the main election.

Axiom
05-01-2008, 04:03 PM
Huckabee Exposed as New World Order Puppet
The National Expositor
December 29, 2007

Mike Huckabee recently named Richard Haas (the President of the CFR) as his advisor on foreign policy. CNN’s WOLF BLITZER asked "Who are your principal foreign policy advisers, Governor?" Mike Huckabee responded: "Well, I have a number of people from whom I get policy. I’m talking to Frank Gaffney, I talk to Richard Haas"

So what does Richard Haas believe in? Here’s an article below which was written by Haas for the Tapei Times. It basically states the Bill of Rights and Constitution should be given up in favor of a cooperative world body run by elite consensus. Who needs individual rights in the techno-futuristic world police state? And you thought liberty was in jeopardy now? Just wait till you see what your children will have to deal with. Get activated folks, These police state freaks want to shape your future into a control grid enforced through the fear based reaction to state sponsored false flag terror.

State Sovereignty Must be Altered in Globalized Era

In the age of globalization, states should give up some sovereignty to world bodies in order to protect their own interests

By Richard Haass

Taipei Times - For 350 years, sovereignty — the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states — has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion.

The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.

Less is more

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.


Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize that they would be worse off if no country did.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization. At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows — within and across borders — of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, the US’ preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.

Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue — correctly — that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilizing refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The NATO intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

Conditions needed

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation.


The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens rather than from what states do to one another.

Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Opportunity: America’s Moment to Alter History’s Course.

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2008, 04:39 PM
Not at all. He is a closet secularist.

Since professed faith in the Lawd is known to be essential to election in the USA (atheism is a bigger barrier to being elected than virtually everything else you can think of that has been polled), sounds like a closet secularist is about the best that we can hope for. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
05-01-2008, 05:59 PM
Since professed faith in the Lawd is known to be essential to election in the USA (atheism is a bigger barrier to being elected than virtually everything else you can think of that has been polled),
Probably why misotheists gravitate towards the media, academe, bureaucracies and judgeships rather than elected positions.


sounds like a closet secularist is about the best that we can hope for. :lol:
You have a lot of choices then: all the Dems and Giuliani at least.

But Hickabee certainly can't count on automatic support from Christian conservatives any more than "born again" Jimmy Carter, despite Iowa. Most Christian conservatives realise that they are voting for commander in chief, not pastor in chief. This is something that self-loathing Catholic Garry Wills didn't get, when he bleated about Americans overwhelmingly booting out Carter in favour of divorcee Reagan.

Capablanca-Fan
05-01-2008, 10:18 PM
A political philosophy that is similar to left-liberalism but has a strong focus on so-called community values. Hence Tipper Gore especially as a force pushing censorship of "offensive" lyrics in music, normally thought of as a right-wing concern, but I think all the Gores and Clintons have leanings in that sort of direction and none of them are real "liberals".
Thanx. So what do you think of Chairman Rudd's government decree of mandatory Internet filters (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm)?

pax
05-01-2008, 10:21 PM
Thanx. So what do you think of Chairman Rudd's government decree of mandatory Internet filters (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm)?
Well intentioned, but hopeless and destined to fail.

pax
05-01-2008, 10:25 PM
BTW, the crass FPP voting is even crasser in a field of lots of relatively strong candidates. Preferential voting is even more important in the primaries than in the main election.

Indeed. The Democratic primaries are a perfect example of where Condorcet voting would be much better than even preferential voting. Clinton finished third in Iowa, but she could easily have been the preferred candidate to both Obama and Edwards, but we will never know.

The electoral process in the US is such a shambles that it's amazing that it works at all.

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2008, 11:07 PM
Thanx. So what do you think of Chairman Rudd's government decree of mandatory Internet filters (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm)?

Yes it is an example of a similar sort of mentality and Rudd does have mild communitarian tendencies, though he is generally more liberal than Howard. Not one of Labor's better policies at this election IMO.

So far I have seen inadequate detail on the precise filters proposed, which in itself is a worry, and the whole thing appears to be a hastily-assembled feelgood policy. I'm also concerned about costs being passed onto consumers, about sites being targetted incorrectly, that the whole thing isn't going to work very well anyway and may even cause parents to be lax in the false impression that their kids can't hack around it, and that it is effectively an extension of the current system of censoring movies, FTA TV and video games that had grown too restrictive under Howard anyway with quite a few valid (if often somewhat pretentious) films getting banned.

OTOH, my other forum has quite a bad porn spam problem, and in the last few months some of it has been kiddie-porn (even the titles of the posts are the sort of thing you definitely don't want to have on your forum) so in the unlikely case that it cleans up that lot effectively I shan't be entirely disappointed.

Capablanca-Fan
05-01-2008, 11:19 PM
Yes it is an example of a similar sort of mentality and Rudd does have mild communitarian tendencies, though he is generally more liberal than Howard. Not one of Labor's better policies at this election IMO.
Agreed.


So far I have seen inadequate detail on the precise filters proposed, which in itself is a worry, and the whole thing appears to be a hastily-assembled feelgood policy. I'm also concerned about costs being passed onto consumers, about sites being targetted incorrectly, that the whole thing isn't going to work very well anyway and may even cause parents to be lax in the false impression that their kids can't hack around it, and that it is effectively an extension of the current system of censoring movies, FTA TV and video games that had grown too restrictive under Howard anyway with quite a few valid (if often somewhat pretentious) films getting banned.
Yeah, they tend to filter our far too much, while not stopping anything for those that know how to get it. Our adopted daughter is at a Christian uni in America, and is often frustrated that non-porn sites are blocked by its heavy-handed filter. Filters also slow down the internet connection (http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23001130-15306,00.html):


Senator Conroy's predecessor Helen Coonan moved away from insisting internet service providers offer filtering after a 2006 NetAlert study showed the filters were expensive, difficult to set up, frequently inaccurate and drastically slowed the network performance.

Six filters were tested under optimised conditions, but the best responder resulted in an 18 per cent reduction in relative performance, while the worst cut performance by 78 per cent.

"The better-performing filters can process data at between 30-80Mbps, which would still provide sufficient performance for a small ISP," the report said.

"However, for larger ISPs with faster upstream connections, the use of such filters would severely reduce their performance levels."

I am not at all convinced that once the government has introduced such controls, it will be tempted to introduce more.


OTOH, my other forum has quite a bad porn spam problem, and in the last few months some of it has been kiddie-porn (even the titles of the posts are the sort of thing you definitely don't want to have on your forum) so in the unlikely case that it cleans up that lot effectively I shan't be entirely disappointed.
Most people wouldn't be. If there was a way of blocking undoubtedly vile crap like kiddie porn, I'd be for it.

Axiom
06-01-2008, 02:32 PM
An Open Letter
To The Old Media
1-5-8

Reality for you, Old Media representatives and executives, is self-fulfilling. That is, the reality broadcast through the airwaves and printed on dead wood has for so long influenced the way that the general public perceives reality, it has become inconceivable that a time would come when your pictures and words would no longer drive public opinion.

I am writing this to you as a final warning. That time has already arrived. Whether or not Dr. Paul threw his hat in the ring, it was inevitable. With the advent of the Internet, people from all over the world, able to tell their own stories and reflect their own perceptions to willing eyes and ears, have provided an awakening and shake at the very foundations of what you currently perceive to be reality.

When your advertising agencies began collecting demographic information and targeting consumers as collective groups who thought as one, that was the beginning of the end for you. When our own government started aiding and abetting this collectivism through expanded census - defying the very nature and intent of a census - the demise of media influence was propelled further. Your agencies and marketing professionals kept refining the data, methods and messages you directed toward these groups until we, who were once just open-mouthed consumers, have finally slipped through your fingers.

I was there when it began as were many of my colleagues - when the "Internet" was a few land-line-connected mainframes via 300-baud modems and the government's idea of electronic mail was less timely than the U.S. Postal service. Its development began slowly. In 1986, we were still using UUCP to send each other messages over the Internet and USENET to broadcast our opinions to anyone who could subscribe. In 1991, the web browser and HTTP arrived. Your reporting of this occurred only in those papers and television programs directed toward that demographic of college-educated geeks whom you thought cared about such things. You certainly didn't cover it as the earth-shattering, reality-altering event that it was.

Tim Berners-Lee's contribution to the Internet (and those who have refined HTTP) was as important as Gutenberg's creation of the practical printing press. But you really didn't see it coming. Had the general population conformed to the reality you were broadcasting and printing at the time, we'd probably never have moved from zero to 100 billion worth of e-commerce per year in the U.S. by the time 16 years had passed.

Now, once again, we are at a time when you are witnessing history but are not aware of its significance. I'm talking about the Ron Paul Revolution.

Consider this: In 1991, the general population in the U.S. was not favorable to gun control. About 42% of the population favored a ban on handguns. But propaganda that you produced and published promoted the idea that the second amendment was an anachronism in this modern age and actually a danger to society. By 1993 53% favored gun control. Your coverage and commentary of high-profile shooting crimes and dubious opinion polls helped to solidify the view that gun control was a national desire and thus the Brady Bill finally made it through Congress. This was similar to what happened leading up to the Gun Control Act of 1934. Old Media characterization of Chicago's mob wars helped to give Congress the public support to pass, in direct violation of the constitution, the first national gun-control law. In 1993, most of the gun-crimes were committed by the hands of criminals profiting from drug prohibition but the sensational "postal" incidents were what carried the news day.

Finally, on April 19, 1993, 84 men, women and children were burned to death at the hands of Federal Police, ostensibly to enforce provisions of the 1934 law and its revisions of 1968. Most of you in the Old Media still do not realize what a galvanizing event this was. On its ten-year anniversary, you were still publishing already-rebutted stories in an attempt to justify the Federal Government's actions.

In 2007, when the Virginia Tech gunman killed so many, your polls showed that a majority of the respondents were in complete opposition to any gun control measures as a response to that tragic event. What happened? The Internet happened. Between 1994 and 2007, pro-second amendment writers, both professional and amateur, made their case for the constitution and the wisdom of the founding fathers. For many, re-doubled efforts were fueled by Waco. And Ron Paul stood alone in Congress during many of those years defying the status quo and defending the constitution.

The same sort of thing occurred in 1776. The Boston Massacre, a galvanizing, violent event, occurred six years before Thomas Paine's Common Sense propelled a small band of freedom-seekers into a formidable movement which finally freed itself from the chains of the British Empire. You can look back on the years leading up to the colonist's war with the British and see some amazing similarities to what is occurring today.

When the Old Media was new, before the collectivist targeting of people as "consumers" and when ordinary colonists were printing their own newspapers, a Revolution had begun. The colonists were the subjects of a tyrannical empire which continued to erode their liberties and fortunes in order to prosecute unnecessary and belligerent wars; enriching Rulers who had little or no concern for their subject's interests.

Men, women and children from varied political and religious backgrounds grew tired of the tyrants who wished to rule them and banded together to promote liberty and independence. They produced an amazing variety of artifacts to promote these ideas and to turn public opinion to their way of thinking. Silver flatware engraved with pro-Liberty images, paintings, drawings, poems, songs, tea sets, signs, pamphlets, letters, quilts and flags. The ingenuity, optimism and apparently inexhaustible enthusiasm made the revolution's success possible.

And so, while you keep scratching the surface and proclaiming that we are just a bunch of kooks and geeks who spend all of our time on the Internet, we, the modern revolutionaries, are also engaging in the same sorts of activities as did our predecessors. We've written poems, songs, and pamphlets. We've produced videos, radio shows and newspaper ads. We've launched a blimp, painted signs on barns, houses and cars. We've raised 10 million dollars in two one-day fund raising events. We've put our candidate in the top-tier of fund raising. We've voted him the top contender in almost every Internet poll, in more than half of the straw-polls held around the country and have mobilized over 80,000 volunteers (and growing) for the cause of liberty.

We've organized rallies in every state, many of which have been attended by thousands of real-life individuals who crave freedom and still you keep pretending that we're going to fizzle out or simply go away, embarrassed by defeat, when in fact we're enjoying a healthy and steady rate of growth.

While you've rejected change and cling to your old ways, we've embraced change. When you tried to tell us about the "new economy" we recognized it for what it was: The old Federal Reserve-driven boom-and-bust centrally-planned economy. We're not buying what you have to sell and in some cases, we're even shorting your stock and profiting from your demise.

We're young, old, Republican, Libertarian, Democrat, Anarchist, Green, Constitutionalist, Christian, Muslim, Jews, Atheist, Pagan, homeschooling, no-TV-watching, TV-watching, raw milk-drinking, pasteurized milk-drinking, farmer's market-shopping, alternative building, single, divorced, 2.5 kid-having, 3-car-having, bicycle-riding, fitness-fanatic, farmer, no-car-having, sedentary, public school-attending, Gay, Straight, Black, Yellow, Red, Brown, White, Man, Woman, child. We're the demographic group to whom you have never marketed. We believe that we're smart enough to manage our own affairs and don't need government hand-outs.

We're tired of being told about a Social Security trust fund that never existed, a government that is here to help us and an income tax that really, really does make us liable to pay - cross our hearts and hope to die (just don't read the law please). We're tired of being treated like children. We treat our own children much better than the bureaucrats, whom you constantly claim have our best interests at heart, treat us.

We're tired of being told that we should live our lives in fear of people six thousand miles away; who hate us because we're free, when we aren't actually free. We're tired of being told that every encroachment upon our freedoms is justified because the world is "different now." Different from what? Does our dictator wear a different brand of suit than the one whose country was bombed into oblivion on his orders?

Whether you are yourselves frightened, or you just want us to be frightened, we're giving up fear.

We. Are. No. Longer. Afraid.

If there is just one message beyond what you find at the surface, take that with you. We're past fear, we've gone beyond cynicism and our apathy has been cured.

Perhaps you could understand if you would only allow yourself one moment to take Dr. Paul's utterances seriously. However, if you won't move beyond the surface and won't take even a moment to imagine what it would be like to live in a truly free society, then you will see your fortunes reversed.

As much as we'd love you to join us, we understand that you may want to cling to the status quo. We apologize for the inconvenience but the status quo just will not do. Allowing a continuance of the status quo will render us all penniless and at the mercy of the same people who are now managing us into bankruptcy.

Yours in Freedom,


January 4, 2008

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy


Rody Martin
Marblemount, WA

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2008, 10:08 PM
Romney grabbed most of the spoils at the more or less irrelevant Wyoming Republican convention just held. He got 8 delegates to 3 for Thompson and 1 for Hunter.

This comment from www.electoral-vote.com re Republican reaction to Huckabee is interesting:


The bashing of Mike Huckabee–from the Republicans–has begun. Not a peep from the Democrats. They like Huckabee. They think he’s in over his head and will be easy prey in November, in the unlikely event he gets that far. It’s the Republican establishment that hates Huckabee. The reason is clear but the media are scared to talk about it. The truth is what the current administration really cares about is tax cuts, especially big ones for the rich. What was the first thing George Bush after Jan. 20, 2001? Tax cuts, including lowering the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 35%. If you are making $10 million a year, that’s $460,000 extra in your pocket. After Bush’s 2004 victory, he said that the election gave him political capital and he intended to spend it. So what did he do? He spent two months traveling around the country trying to sell a plan to privatize (read: phase out) social security. He didn’t spend two months trying to get a constitutional amendment banning abortions or forbidding same-sex marriages. He could have, but didn’t want to spend his political capital that way. Even when pleasing the Base was cheap he didn’t do it. Remember that his long-time friend, Harriet Miers, was his first Supreme Court nominee, and he asked her to withdraw only after the Base protested loudly. The Republican party’s dirty little secret is that upper management really doesn’t care much about the social issues; they care about taxes. They trot out the social issues just before each election to whip the Base up into a frenzy and conveniently forget about them after winning. Huckabee is a real threat because he sincerely believes in the Bible. He’s not just making it up to get votes. He’s become their Frankenstein monster and must be eliminated.

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2008, 12:10 PM
This comment from www.electoral-vote.com re Republican reaction to Huckabee is interesting:
Yes. It seems more misguided populism. Since the "rich" pay by far most of the tax, it is not surprising that tax cuts will benefit the "rich". Economist Walter Williams wrote in Congressional and Leftist Lies (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/11/14/congressional_and_leftist_lies):


But what about those tax cuts for the rich? Are the rich now sharing a smaller burden of the federal income tax because their fair share of the burden has been shifted to the poor? The most recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) statistics can give us some guidance. In 2005, the top 1 percent of income earners, those with an annual adjusted gross income of $365,000 and higher, paid 39 percent of all federal income taxes; in 1999, they paid 36 percent.

In 2005, the top 5 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $145,000 and higher, paid 60 percent of all federal taxes; in 1999, it was 55 percent. The top 10 percent, earning income over $103,000, paid 70 percent. The top 25 percent, with income of over $62,000, paid 86 percent, and the top 50 percent, earning $31,000 and higher, paid 97 percent of all federal taxes.

What about any argument suggesting that the burden of taxes have been shifted to the poor? The bottom 50 percent, earning $30,000 or less, paid 3 percent of total federal income taxes. In 1999, they paid 4 percent. Congressmen know all of this, but they attempt to hoodwink the average American who doesn't.

Of course, it is not giving anything to the "rich" but stopping the government from confiscating as much of their earnings.

And "phasing out" social security was really making that system more in line with Australia's, so people can invest for their own retirement as opposed to paying a social security tax, and the investment can be inherited. The current American scheme is really a giant pyramid scheme, where today's workers pay social security tax to support today's retirees (on a pittance), in return for being supported by the future workers when they retire.

However, Bush has been disappointing in his cronyism, exemplified by the Harriet Myers debacle mentioned. And I certainly don't trust the GOP establishment since they really do use the social conservatives for their own ends. GWB has certainly forgotten a cardinal rule: "dance with the one who brought you".

Axiom
07-01-2008, 01:49 PM
http://www.************.com/pictures/jan08/060108pers2.jpg

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2008, 02:33 PM
http://www.************.com/pictures/jan08/060108pers2.jpg
Yeah, it was very poor to exclude Rob Paul.

Garvinator
07-01-2008, 02:38 PM
Yeah, it was very poor to exclude Rob Paul.
:lol: :lol:

pax
07-01-2008, 02:56 PM
Yes, it's hard to see any fair criteria whereby Paul could be excluded now. IMO the ABC criteria (4th or better in Iowa, or 5% in one of four NH or national polls) were very clear and fair - excluding Hunter from the Republican and Kucinich and Gravel from the Democrat debates.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2008, 07:04 PM
Thought it would be interesting to see if I could find an online quiz similar to the ones I have posted about before (the Political Compass, the OzPolitics one, etc)

These are my results for the selectsmart.com 2008 Presidential candidate selector (http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html)

I am not surprised that the top candidate on mine (apart from "Theoretical Ideal Candidate") is an independent; shame he isn't running.

I am also not surprised that mine ranks most of the Democrats ahead of most of the Republicans, or that it ranks the Republicans in an order with Paul, Giuliani and McCain above Romney and Thompson with Huckabee last of the serious contenders.

The essence of why I don't all that much like Hillary, which is probably a personality thing as much as a policy thing, has fallen through the cracks of the survey, eg it has her well ahead of Edwards, but it would be much closer than that.

The essence of why I detest Gore has also fallen through the cracks as there are not enough questions of the form "what is your attitude towards a candidate who is a globetrotting eco-zealot who PJ O'Rourke correctly described as having the brains of a King Charles Spaniel?"

Would be interesting to see others' results on this quiz as it is reasonably detailed and does not exclude serious candidates.


1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (73%) Information link
3. Dennis Kucinich (70%) Information link
4. Barack Obama (66%) Information link
5. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (66%) Information link
6. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (63%) Information link
7. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (61%) Information link
8. Mike Gravel (61%) Information link
9. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (60%) Information link
10. Hillary Clinton (60%) Information link
11. Al Gore (not announced) (58%) Information link
12. Ron Paul (55%) Information link
13. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (55%) Information link
14. Bill Richardson (49%) Information link
15. John Edwards (47%) Information link
16. Rudolph Giuliani (45%) Information link
17. John McCain (42%) Information link
18. Alan Keyes (38%) Information link
19. Mitt Romney (36%) Information link
20. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn, endorsed Giuliani) (33%) Information link
21. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (33%) Information link
22. Fred Thompson (31%) Information link
23. Tom Tancredo (withdrawn, endorsed Romney) (31%) Information link
24. Sam Brownback (withdrawn, endorsed McCain) (28%) Information link
25. Mike Huckabee (26%) Information link
26. Chuck Hagel (not running) (25%) Information link
27. Elaine Brown (24%) Information link
28. Stephen Colbert (campaign halted) (24%) Information link
29. Duncan Hunter (24%) Information link
30. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (21%) Information link

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2008, 07:16 PM
I am also not surprised that mine ranks most of the Democrats ahead of most of the Republicans, or that it ranks the Republicans in an order with Paul, Giuliani and McCain above Romney and Thompson with Huckabee last of the serious contenders.
Why is Kucinich so high though? I thought Paul might rank higher. The Dems seem to want more government control, so what is so high about them? It's still rather hard to see what Obama stands for; he hasn't actually done much as a legislator, but there is plenty of rhetoric about "bringing America together" which is silly.


The essence of why I detest Gore has also fallen through the cracks as there are not enough questions of the form "what is your attitude towards a candidate who is a globetrotting eco-zealot who PJ O'Rourke correctly described as having the brains of a King Charles Spaniel?"
Good one!

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2008, 07:22 PM
1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Stephen Colbert (campaign halted) (90%) [know nothing about him]
3. Mitt Romney (88%) [I actually voted for Fred Thompson on the poll; Romney is a flip-flopper]
4. Tom Tancredo (withdrawn, endorsed Romney) (83%)
5. Alan Keyes (82%)
6. Sam Brownback (withdrawn, endorsed McCain) (80%)
7. Chuck Hagel (not running) (79%)
8. Duncan Hunter (79%)
9. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (72%)
10. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (69%)
11. Fred Thompson (66%) [surprisingly low]
12. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn, endorsed Giuliani) (65%)
13. John McCain (62%)
14. Mike Huckabee (59%)
15. Rudolph Giuliani (55%)
16. Ron Paul (54%) [I like him better than the previous three, because he is great domestically but lousy on foreign policy]
17. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (53%)
18. Bill Richardson (30%)
19. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (25%)
20. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (24%)
21. John Edwards (22%) [He's a shyster lawyer and super-rich hypocrite who pretends to be the poor's friend]
22. Mike Gravel (22%)
23. Al Gore (not announced) (21%)
24. Hillary Clinton (21%)
25. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (18%)
26. Barack Obama (16%)
27. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (15%)
28. Dennis Kucinich (10%)
29. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (8%)
30. Elaine Brown (7%)

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2008, 07:26 PM
Why is Kucinich so high though? I thought Paul might rank higher.

Paul is rather anti-abortion, albeit via the back door of state's rights. I not only picked the pro-abortion response but also gave it a high priority.

Paul is also anti-gun-control. I picked the pro-gun-control response but left the priority at medium.

I am unsure why Kucinich is so high, possibly drugs and the death penalty. I picked the anti-Iraq-war response but also picked the no-deadline-for-withdrawal response. (My reason for the latter is I believe America should get out of there, but saying they will do so at a specific date would be inflexible.)


The Dems seem to want more government control, so what is so high about them?

Virtually all the candidates want more federal government control of something or other, with the exception of Paul who wants to cede it in some of the few areas where I consider it important to maintain it.


It's still rather hard to see what Obama stands for

I think it is more a case that he is running a campaign driven by personality, symbolism and marketing above policy detail, than that there is no policy detail.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2008, 07:31 PM
Elaine Brown is the Green Party candidate.

jeanie
07-01-2008, 09:02 PM
This is somewhat off-topic, but the best place to put it. I'm always intrigued as to how interested other nations are in U.S. politics. I have a friend in Melbourne (I'm from the US/Florida) who follows American Politics more than I do.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2008, 09:10 PM
This is somewhat off-topic, but the best place to put it. I'm always intrigued as to how interested other nations are in U.S. politics. I have a friend in Melbourne (I'm from the US/Florida) who follows American Politics more than I do.

Part of the reason is that what goes on in the USA affects the world.

Another part is that your system is so different to ours (in some ways far more complicated and in other ways much simpler), which makes it interesting for us to follow.

Probably a third part is that many Australians are obsessed with anything American given how much there is from the USA on television here.

Australians hardly care about British elections at all even though we were settled primarily from there and have historical constitutional links with the UK.

pax
07-01-2008, 09:17 PM
1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Stephen Colbert (campaign halted) (90%) [know nothing about him]
That's hilarious.

Stephen Colbert is a satirical right-wing political talk show host. He is a caricature of a right-wing nutjob.

pax
07-01-2008, 09:36 PM
Remarkably similar to Kevin's, but with lower percentages. As usual with these things, I wasn't really satisfied with the range of answers available.



1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Dennis Kucinich (65%) Information link
3. Barack Obama (64%) Information link
4. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (60%) Information link
5. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (60%) Information link
6. Al Gore (not announced) (60%) Information link
7. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (58%) Information link
8. Hillary Clinton (56%) Information link
9. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (56%) Information link
10. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (56%) Information link
11. John Edwards (50%) Information link
12. Mike Gravel (45%) Information link
13. Bill Richardson (45%) Information link
14. Ron Paul (42%) Information link
15. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (38%) Information link
16. Rudolph Giuliani (32%) Information link
17. Mike Huckabee (30%) Information link
18. John McCain (30%) Information link
19. Elaine Brown (29%) Information link
20. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn, endorsed Giuliani) (28%) Information link
21. Mitt Romney (26%) Information link
22. Sam Brownback (withdrawn, endorsed McCain) (21%) Information link
23. Alan Keyes (20%) Information link
24. Fred Thompson (20%) Information link
25. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (19%) Information link
26. Chuck Hagel (not running) (18%) Information link
27. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (17%) Information link
28. Tom Tancredo (withdrawn, endorsed Romney) (16%) Information link
29. Duncan Hunter (15%) Information link
30. Stephen Colbert (campaign halted) (13%) Information link

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2008, 09:40 PM
My other forum is very left-wing and teeming with Kucinich fans; I reckon if some people there take the quiz they will be getting 85+% Kucinich and daylight second.

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2008, 09:48 PM
That's hilarious.

Stephen Colbert is a satirical right-wing political talk show host. He is a caricature of a right-wing nutjob.
What are his policies?

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2008, 09:51 PM
Remarkably similar to Kevin's, but with lower percentages. As usual with these things, I wasn't really satisfied with the range of answers available.
Me neither. Al Gore, "the globetrotting eco-zealot who PJ O'Rourke correctly described as having the brains of a King Charles Spaniel" is quite high on your list, but not as high as the caricature of a left-wing nutjob, the vegan loony Dennis Kucinich, the fan of Venzuela's would-be Castro Chavez (http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/08-12-04solidarity.htm) and Iran's Ahmadi-nutjob (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184229693289000.xml&coll=2), who went even more leftie to cozy up to the Dem establishment.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2008, 09:53 PM
Poll result here seems to be imitating the Republicans' general dilemma of lack of an obvious frontrunner. At present Huckabee, McCain, Thompson and Giuliani have one vote each, as does "Don't care so long as it isn't a Democrat", with Romney on zero.

Obama now has most of the Democrat action whereas on the earlier poll it was split between Obama, Gore and Clinton.

Axiom
07-01-2008, 09:53 PM
completed the quiz TWICE !
both times got this

"We are unable to service your request at this time.
Please come back at a later date. "

:wall:

pax
07-01-2008, 10:02 PM
What are his policies?

http://selectsmart.com/president/2008/Colbert.html

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2008, 10:03 PM
caricature of a left-wing nutjob Dennis Kucinich

For the most part Kucinich strikes me as just a consistent across-the-board leftist rather than an extremist or nutcase, although being a consistent across-the-board leftist by Australian standards (say, a typical new-style ALP Left member) is quite an extreme position in America. There are cases, though, where he crosses the line, and having read about some of his voting record I'm a bit surprised the quiz ranked him so high (for me) while ranking the Green so low.

Kucinich was one of two to vote against a motion calling on the Security Council to charge Ahmadinejad with genocide. The other was ... Ron Paul!

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2008, 10:04 PM
completed the quiz TWICE !
both times got this

"We are unable to service your request at this time.
Please come back at a later date. "

:wall:

Try scrolling down from that. I got that too but found my results when I scrolled down.

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2008, 10:10 PM
For the most part Kucinich strikes me as just a consistent across-the-board leftist rather than an extremist or nutcase, although being a consistent across-the-board leftist by Australian standards (say, a typical new-style ALP Left member) is quite an extreme position in America.
He seemed to move even more leftward as a matter of expediency.


Kucinich was one of two to vote against a motion calling on the Security Council to charge Ahmadinejad with genocide. The other was ... Ron Paul!
Yeah, saw that. Paul is definitely lousy on foreign policy, and reminds me of the Americans who didn't want to enter WW2. It's a shame, because his libertarian ideas of limiting government are great as domestic policy, and are more consistent than the other GOPs.

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2008, 10:12 PM
http://selectsmart.com/president/2008/Colbert.html
Oh right. Not surprising that a quiz can't distinguish between genuine positions and caricatures. There wasn't any left-wing caricature—I thought Kucinich but he is actually serious.

pax
07-01-2008, 10:19 PM
Oh right. Not surprising that a quiz can't distinguish between genuine positions and caricatures. There wasn't any left-wing caricature—I thought Kucinich but he is actually serious.
I don't think any left-wing caricatures have declared their candidacy ;)

Axiom
07-01-2008, 10:21 PM
1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Ron Paul (70%) Information link
3. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (52%) Information link
4. Stephen Colbert (campaign halted) (47%) Information link
5. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (43%) Information link
6. Barack Obama (43%) Information link
7. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (41%) Information link
8. Dennis Kucinich (40%) Information link
9. Tom Tancredo (withdrawn, endorsed Romney) (39%) Information link
10. Alan Keyes (39%) Information link
11. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (38%) Information link
12. Mike Gravel (38%) Information link
13. Al Gore (not announced) (36%) Information link
14. Duncan Hunter (35%) Information link
15. Sam Brownback (withdrawn, endorsed McCain) (34%) Information link
16. John McCain (33%) Information link
17. Fred Thompson (32%) Information link
18. Mitt Romney (31%) Information link
19. Bill Richardson (30%) Information link
20. Chuck Hagel (not running) (30%) Information link
21. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (29%) Information link
22. Rudolph Giuliani (28%) Information link
23. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (28%) Information link
24. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (27%) Information link
25. John Edwards (26%) Information link
26. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn, endorsed Giuliani) (24%) Information link
27. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (23%) Information link
28. Hillary Clinton (22%) Information link
29. Elaine Brown (21%) Information link
30. Mike Huckabee (18%) Information link

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2008, 10:25 PM
The quiz seems to have Axiom sussed out pretty well!

Note the yawning gulf between Paul and the others in those results.

McManigal appears to be a Libertarian, Augustson is a Green.

Axiom
07-01-2008, 10:32 PM
Yeah, saw that. Paul is definitely lousy on foreign policy, and reminds me of the Americans who didn't want to enter WW2. It's a shame, because his libertarian ideas of limiting government are great as domestic policy, and are more consistent than the other GOPs.

Ron Paul's consistency goes still further,with his foreign policy, in my view.

You support smaller govt ,yet advocate greater global govt style interference via the use of half a million US troops stationed in a multitude of locations throughout the world.

You advocate greater individual responsibilty, yet advocate denying the same responsibilty to certain non conforming countries to sort out their own affairs.

Axiom
07-01-2008, 10:46 PM
The quiz seems to have Axiom sussed out pretty well!

Note the yawning gulf between Paul and the others in those results.

McManigal appears to be a Libertarian, Augustson is a Green.
I never thought i'd see in my lifetime such an honourable ,decent, consistently pro human, political candidate such as Ron Paul.

How effective he would actually be in pushing through his agenda, is open to question, as i was informed today by a born and bred texan ,that paul has done little to halt the illegal immigration flood during his time in office there.

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2008, 12:46 AM
Ron Paul's consistency goes still further,with his foreign policy, in my view.

You support smaller govt ,yet advocate greater global govt style interference via the use of half a million US troops stationed in a multitude of locations throughout the world.
It is not necessarily inconsistent. There are other libertarians like Larry Elder who argue that all other liberties are meaningless if a terrorist attack kills you, and that this is a real threat. Given this, and this is a question of fact not a question of being more libertarian than thou, it is reasonable to get them in their countries before they get us un ours.

Also, Israel is the most libertarian country in the middle east.


You advocate greater individual responsibilty, yet advocate denying the same responsibilty to certain non conforming countries to sort out their own affairs.
Or, removing a murderous despot who not only threatened the West but also denied the individuals within his country the right "to sort out their own affairs".

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2008, 09:42 AM
This is somewhat off-topic, but the best place to put it. I'm always intrigued as to how interested other nations are in U.S. politics. I have a friend in Melbourne (I'm from the US/Florida) who follows American Politics more than I do.
Heh, my wife is from Florida and she says I follow American politics more than she does ;)

As Kevin says, what happens in America affects us here. There is also some bemusement, because while America is the world's only superstar, they are quite backward compared to Australia in a few things, e.g.


They still stick to the stupid plurality voting system, where "spoilers" have a big effect in ensuring that candidates representing an unpopular view can win if the more popular view attracts a lot of candidates. Australia has preferential voting, so we can vote for the candidate we really like best, but also list others as second preferences, so the vote doesn't become, in effect, a vote for the least preferred candidate as it does in America.

And GWB tried to bring social security more in line with our system, where the employer pays 9% of the gross salary into an individual retirement account, and the individual can choose how much is invested into shares (stocks to Americans), bonds, property etc. And if the individual dies, the saved funds can be inherited. But in America, Bush's sensible plan to gradually replace the current the pyramid scheme with a schemewas demagogued out of court, e.g. by the hypocritical Retirement association claiming that the stock market was a "gamble", while at the same time offering stock-based mutual funds for its members!

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2008, 08:28 PM
It is not necessarily inconsistent. There are other libertarians like Larry Elder who argue that all other liberties are meaningless if a terrorist attack kills you, and that this is a real threat.

But a minor one statistically compared with numerous other causes of death that we take more or less for granted, and that we could probably do quite a lot about with the colossal amount of money spent pursuing "the war against terror" on foreign shores.

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2008, 10:50 PM
But a minor one statistically compared with numerous other causes of death that we take more or less for granted, and that we could probably do quite a lot about with the colossal amount of money spent pursuing "the war against terror" on foreign shores.
But if this pursuing of terrorists stopped more 11-9s from happening, this is money well spent. The economic damage of that alone was horrific. Anyway, this is a question of assessing risk, not of consistency.

As far as consistency goes, it is no wonder that B. Hussein Obama is popular with the Dem Left. Unlike Heilary and John "$400 haircut" Edwards, Obama voted against the war even when it was not so policitally expedient to vote that way.

pax
09-01-2008, 12:43 AM
As far as consistency goes, it is no wonder that B. Hussein Obama is popular with the Dem Left. Unlike Heilary and John "$400 haircut" Edwards, Obama voted against the war even when it was not so policitally expedient to vote that way.

He didn't vote against it, because he wasn't even in the Senate at the time! He expressed opposition, but I imagine that is considerably easier than actually voting opposition..

Axiom
09-01-2008, 02:00 AM
Ron Paul, Fox News, and the Conservative Life of the Lie

Jacob G. Hornberger
Lew Rockwell.com
Tuesday January 8, 2007

Last week television commentators Greta van Susteran and Shepard Smith, treading cautiously and with a bit of trepidation, wondered aloud why their employer, Fox News, was banning Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul from its New Hampshire presidential debate.

Permit me to explain the likely reason: the life of the lie, the life that conservatives have been living for decades.

Conservatives love to portray themselves as advocates of libertarian principles. For example, go to the websites of two classic conservative foundations – the Heritage Foundation and the Claremont Institute. You will find standard mantras that conservatives have employed since as far back as Ronald Reagan’s talks for General Electric in the 1950s: free enterprise, private property, limited government, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, our founding principles, and fundamental rights.

There is just one big problem, however: Conservatives do not practice what they preach. They instead live the life of the lie. Long ago, they threw in the towel in the fight for libertarian principles by embracing the big-government programs of both the welfare state and the warfare state.

(Article continues below)


It wasn’t always that way. Conservatives once genuinely believed in a society based on economic liberty and a constitutionally limited republic. For that matter, so did liberals, which is why Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, vetoed a $10,000 farm bill to aid struggling Texas farmers, with the admonition, “Though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.”

Thus, Americans in, say, 1889 lived without such socialist and interventionist programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public (i.e., government) schooling, drug laws, economic regulations, immigration controls, welfare, subsidies, income taxation, a Federal Reserve System, and fiat money. Equally important, they also avoided a standing army, conscription, foreign aid, nation-building, and involvement in foreign wars.

That is what it once meant to be an American. That is what it once meant to be free. That is the freedom that Americans once celebrated on the Fourth of July.

Not anymore. Today, freedom is defined by the grip that both the welfare state and warfare state have on the lives and fortunes of the American people. Both conservatives and liberals look to the federal government to be their daddy or, even worse, their god. They have assigned their federal daddy-god the task of taking care of their retirement, healthcare, education, employment, and business as well as protecting them from the terrorists, drug dealers, immigrants, communists, and other scary people.

In the process, they have brought a federal monstrosity into existence, one whose programs and powers violate the free-enterprise, limited-government mantras that conservatives continue to maintain on their websites and on their stationery.

While it’s true that liberals are as devoted to the welfare state as conservatives are, there is one big difference: liberals don’t make any pretense of being advocates of economic liberty and limited government. They are direct and straightforward defenders of the big-government welfare state.

Conservatives, on other hand, continue to portray themselves as advocates of libertarian principles. That’s what makes them people of the lie – people of hypocrisy – people who preach one thing and practice another.

Another popular conservative mantra involves the importance of taking “personal responsibility” for one’s actions. Unfortunately, it is a slogan that conservatives, in their life of lie, apply only to others, never themselves. After all, have you heard even one conservative taking personal responsibility for the 50 percent decline in the value of the dollar over the past 5 years? Of course not. Oh, they’ll stand foursquare in favor of “fiscal responsibility” and a “sound dollar” during those presidential debate forums but, at the same time, endorse every program, project, department, and agency that produces the out-of-control federal spending that has brought about the plunge in the dollar.

Compounding the conservative problem is another lie: that the big-government welfare state reflects “compassionate conservativism.”

Oh? You mean like the compassion shown for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are now dead or maimed at the hands of the U.S. war machine, deaths that conservatives cavalierly claim are worth the U.S. “success” in Iraq? Sure, we often hear laments for American soldiers who have lost their lives or limbs in Iraq, but not one conservative peep for the countless Iraqis who have lost their lives or limbs at the hands of the U.S. war machine.

And yet, the discomforting fact remains: Not a single one of those dead and maimed (and tortured) Iraqis ever attacked the United States.

In fact, Iraq might well be the ultimate manifestation of the conservative life of the lie. When it became evident that the fake and false WMD rationale could not be relied upon to justify an invasion of a country that had never attacked the United States, conservatives didn’t skip a beat, quickly shifting to their secondary “We did it for democracy” rationale for the invasion.

Never mind that at the same time they were funneling millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money into the coffers of Pakistani military strongman Pervez Musharraf, one of the world’s most brutal unelected dictators. In fact, never mind that conservatives had once partnered with Saddam Hussein himself – and, for that matter, with the Shah of Iran and countless other dictators around the world. Those are things that the conservative mind of the lie would rather not confront.

Thus, why would it surprise anyone that Fox News conservatives deeply resent libertarians and wish that we would simply go away? By maintaining our allegiance to free enterprise, private property, limited government, and the Constitution, we libertarians remind conservatives of what they have become – people of the lie, people whose lives now entail preaching the old libertarian mantras while embracing the principles of the big-government, welfare-warfare state.

But conservatives not only resent libertarians, they also fear us – or, more accurately, they fear our ideas. They know that ideas on liberty have consequences. They have the power to move people, especially people who are seeking the truth about freedom and our country’s heritage of freedom. As the Ron Paul campaign has demonstrated, ideas on liberty can ignite the hearts and minds of men and women one by one, young and old, both conservative and liberal, bringing us closer to the restoration of genuine freedom to our land.

Under the principles of free enterprise and private property, Fox News certainly had the right to ban libertarian Republican Ron Paul from its presidential debate. But what better evidence of the conservative life of the lie than Fox News’ continual use of its well-worn mantra, “fair and balanced”?

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2008, 10:25 AM
He didn't vote against it, because he wasn't even in the Senate at the time! He expressed opposition, but I imagine that is considerably easier than actually voting opposition..
That's true. And it is also more credible than Wilhelm Klinton claiming that he was always opposed!

Melanie Phillips writes in Princess Obama (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/436296/princess-obama.thtml):


Watching the cresting of the Obama tidal wave, it seems that the US is having its Princess Diana moment. Hillary Clinton, turning on the tears but only succeeding once again in thus underscoring her own cynical calculation, wails fruitlessly that Obama is all warm fuzzy feeling but no substance.

...

Welcome to Planet Diana. It was only with the death of the People’s Princess that the extent of Britain’s transformation from a country of reason, intelligence, stoicism, self-restraint and responsibility into a land of credulousness, emotional incontinence, sentimentality, irresponsibility and self-obsession became shatteringly apparent. Princess Diana was an icon of the new Britain because she embodied precisely those latter characteristics.

...

The effect is electric, but short-lived. That is because Dianafication is essentially empty, amoral, untruthful and manipulative; eventually voters see through it and realise they have been played for suckers. But while it lasts — and it creates presidents and prime ministers — reason doesn’t get a look in. Warm fuzzy feelings win hands down because they anaesthetise reality and blank out altogether those difficult issues which require difficult decisions. Obama appears to be on the wrong side of just about every important issue going; indeed, were he to be elected president he would be a danger to the free world. But hey – the guy makes people feel good about themselves; he stands for hope, love, reconciliation, youthfulness and fairies at the bottom of the garden.

In Britain, we understand to our cost why that makes a politician a winner. In America, it’s something quite new because until this moment it wasn’t obvious that the rot that has degraded the British mind had also penetrated the American psyche. Now we know better.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2008, 10:38 AM
Melanie Phillips writes in Hillary's gender bender (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/435471/hillarys-gender-bender.thtml):


In the Telegraph, Toby Harnden (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OIQSXFTVWGH2PQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQ WIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/07/wuspols507.xml) tells us that women are deserting Hillary in droves and are swooning over Obama instead. Poor old Hillary has made a major miscalculation. She assumed that because she was a woman – and a feminist to boot – she could take the women’s vote for granted. Stuck in the seventies mindset, she failed to realise that today men are the new women. Obama is far more ‘feminine’ than she is. That’s because he does open, warm, hopeful, sunny and casual whereas she does rational, shifty, stern, finger-wagging and uptight. Having doubtless spent her entire life as a feminist trying to erase all signs of femininity in order to be taken as seriously as any man, she now sees her lifelong ambition about to go down the tubes because her male rival exhibits what are assumed to be womanly ‘virtues’ whereas she embodies male ‘vices’.

You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2008, 02:40 PM
Clinton wins New Hampshire ahead of Obama and Edwards.
McCain won the Republican vote.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2008, 02:41 PM
Clinton wins New Hampshire ahead of Obama and Edwards.
Revived Heilary's chances then.

McCain won the Republican vote.
That's surprising. Who were 2nd and 3rd?

Ian Murray
09-01-2008, 04:19 PM
Revived Heilary's chances then.

That's surprising. Who were 2nd and 3rd?
Romney 2
Huckabee 3
Paul 4

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/08/primaries.main/index.html

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2008, 04:39 PM
Romney 2
Huckabee 3
Paul 4

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/08/primaries.main/index.html
Thanx for that. It seems even more crass for Fox to exclude Paul from the debate, although I don't buy the anti-conservative paranoia in Axiom's cited article. But he might like more of Paul's interview with John Stossel (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/2008/01/09/live_and_let_live,_says_one_candidate), this time on drugs and whether the government should save us from ourselves.

pax
09-01-2008, 04:44 PM
Very interesting. Just yesterday, Clinton was being written off by many in the media (and polls were giving Obama a 10+ point lead in NH). Just goes to show that polls mean little, especially in first-past-the-post races.

With only 17%, Edwards is surely finished. I wonder whether Obama or Clinton will promise him the VP spot in return for immediate withdrawal and endorsement? That could be pivotal in the lead-up to superduper Tuesday.

Who knows what's happening in the Republican race? Romney finished a strong second, so probably isn't out of it yet. Fred Thompson scored a pitiful 1%, and is probably finished. Giuliani managed to beat Ron Paul this time, finishing an inglorious 4th. New Hampshire is usually pretty Libertarian leaning, so it is hard to see Ron Paul doing any better anywhere else than the 8% he scored there.

pax
09-01-2008, 05:00 PM
Romney 2
Huckabee 3
Paul 4

AFAIK it's Giuliani 4 and Paul 5, but not by much.

Axiom
10-01-2008, 12:17 PM
Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire
Paul and Obama cheated out of 3rd and 1st by voting machines, hand count fraud
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, January 9, 2008



There were several major vote fraud issues to arise out of the New Hampshire primary revolving mainly around Ron Paul and Barack Obama, who were both seemingly cheated out of third and first places respectively as a result of rigged Diebold voting machines and deliberate malfeasance in the counting of hand-written paper ballots.

- Obama had a 13 to 15 point lead over Hillary Clinton heading into the primary. Nothing occured that boosted Hillary's numbers immediately before the election, in fact immediately after the staged crying incident, many pundits argued it could only have harmed her chances. And yet Hillary somehow managed to instigate a near 20 point swing to defeat Obama by three per cent. If not for her 7% swing as a result of Diebold voting machines, Hillary would have lost to Obama. If Obama was struggling he would probably contest this bizarre outcome, but he is likely to accept the results simply to save face.

- The New Hampshire town of Sutton admits that it voided every vote Ron Paul received. The Congressman got 31 votes and yet due to a "human error," Sutton reported zero votes for Ron Paul. How "human error" can explain not counting 31 votes in succession for one single candidate is beyond the pale and Ron Paul's campaign should ask for a recount across New Hampshire immediately.

- As soon as people went public with the fact that their votes in Sutton had not been counted, other districts where Paul had supposedly received zero votes, such as Greenville, suddenly changed their final tallies and attributed votes to the Congressman.

(Article continues below)


- Going into New Hampshire Ron Paul was polling in the early teens and was a strong bet to take third place behind McCain and Romney. Four days before the vote, Rasmussen had Paul at 14% - a significant lead over Huckabee on 11% and Giuliani on 8% - and yet Ron Paul finished with just 8%. Proof of clear vote fraud, allied with the fact that Paul's numbers show a 6% swing from normally accurate pre-polling forecasts, clearly indicate chicanery was at hand, especially considering the fact that Paul lost those crucial few percentage points to Giuliani as a reuslt of electronic Diebold voting machines which are known to be wide open to tampering and fraud.

- Going purely on hand-counts, which as we saw in Sutton were by no means angelic but at least harder to cheat on than Diebold voting machines without getting caught, Ron Paul would have won 15% of the vote and finished third. This figure would have more accurately correlated to the pre-primary polls rather than the ridiculous 8% he was eventually given.

- Numerous districts reported totals of anything up to 22% for "other candidates". What on earth does this black hole of "other candidates" mean? How can one vote for a candidate that is not on the ballot without spoiling the ballot paper? The district of Lisbon reported 22.5% votes for this mysterious "other" candidate, while in the large district of Londonderry, the "other" candidate received 10%. Many are now alleging that these "other" votes were merely siphoned from Ron Paul to keep his final number low.

- Rudy Giuliani, the 9/11 candidate who beat Ron Paul thanks to the aid of a 3% swing on Diebold voting machines, received 9.11% of the vote in three different towns. Coincidence or somebody's idea of a sick joke?

pax
10-01-2008, 01:42 PM
Polls can't lie - it must have been rigged!!

Axiom
10-01-2008, 02:01 PM
Polls can't lie - it must have been rigged!!forget the polls! just look at the selective "human error" !
" The New Hampshire town of Sutton admits that it voided every vote Ron Paul received. The Congressman got 31 votes and yet due to a "human error," Sutton reported zero votes for Ron Paul. How "human error" can explain not counting 31 votes in succession for one single candidate is beyond the pale and Ron Paul's campaign should ask for a recount across New Hampshire immediately."

pax
10-01-2008, 02:06 PM
A misattribution of 31 votes does not constitute malicious fraud, and hardly warrants a state-wide recount. You're just bitter that your man is destined to stay stuck in the single digits..

Axiom
10-01-2008, 02:39 PM
A misattribution of 31 votes does not constitute malicious fraud, and hardly warrants a state-wide recount.

Should i just go back to sleep now, everything is fine, there is no corruption, election fraud doesnt exist, its just human error,its just misattribution of the SAME candidate ,diebold machines are very accurate and whose results are totally transparent, never was election fraud ,never will be, government is good,they wouldnt lie to us, conspiracies never have and never will exist,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5251

Aaron Guthrie
10-01-2008, 03:02 PM
Whatever general results you want to extrapolate from the 31 votes, I suggest we extrapolate similar results about the author from this-
Rudy Giuliani, the 9/11 candidate who beat Ron Paul thanks to the aid of a 3% swing on Diebold voting machines, received 9.11% of the vote in three different towns. Coincidence or somebody's idea of a sick joke?

Axiom
10-01-2008, 03:21 PM
jJXRa2n6Fe4

pax
10-01-2008, 05:07 PM
Should i just go back to sleep now, everything is fine, there is no corruption, election fraud doesnt exist, its just human error,its just misattribution of the SAME candidate ,diebold machines are very accurate and whose results are totally transparent, never was election fraud ,never will be, government is good,they wouldnt lie to us, conspiracies never have and never will exist,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5251

I'm suggesting that you have no evidence. Every election has manual processing irrregularities - just ask Kevin who has worked as a scrutineer. That is precisely WHY you need scrutineers. The fact that these 31 votes are known, means that the error was presumably picked up and corrected.

As for Obama, it seems that the ONLY evidence is that he was leading the polls and lost the vote. Sorry, but that is no evidence at all, especially since he was level or trailing in all the polls four days previously.

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2008, 07:52 PM
I'm suggesting that you have no evidence. Every election has manual processing irrregularities - just ask Kevin who has worked as a scrutineer. That is precisely WHY you need scrutineers. The fact that these 31 votes are known, means that the error was presumably picked up and corrected.

Yeah, 31 vote errors on the day of polling are nothing. I have personally scrutineered at least three elections where 500-vote bundles were placed in the wrong candidate's pile, and in the last Hobart Council election an extremely misleading interim tally was issued which had some candidates on only about a quarter of their eventual share of the vote. Only those of us who were actually on the counting room floor knew what the hell was going on; those at the public tally display had no idea unless they were in contact with a scrutineer.

pax
11-01-2008, 05:31 PM
Speaking of Stephen Colbert, here is a pretty funny interview with Huckabee:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/10/huckabee-seeks-another-c_n_80892.html

Axiom
11-01-2008, 05:36 PM
Whatever general results you want to extrapolate from the 31 votes, I suggest we extrapolate similar results about the author from this-
sick joke ? coincidence? stastically viable coincidence?

Axiom
11-01-2008, 05:51 PM
The worst president ever ?

Iraq War Based On Fraud -
Bush Proven Immoral, Unethical
By Frosty Wooldridge
1-11-8

The latest in America's misguided leaders, George W. Bush proves the most immoral and unethical president in recent history. His legacy makes Richard Nixon and Lyndon Baines Johnson look like saints. His corruption makes Ulysses Grant's administration resemble Mother Theresa's chastity. He stands daily in violation of his oath of office to the U.S. Constitution.

The fact remains that Bush contrived and lied about weapons of mass destruction. He lied about Iraq being a threat to America. He manufactured a lie to create a hysterical and perceived danger by a sandbox thug named Saddam Hussein in the Iraq desert.

Bush fertilized a centuries-old civil war in a country that did nothing to provoke or instigate violence toward the USA. He pushed Muslims into deep and long lasting hatred toward the USA. He created terror where no terror existed.

The Bush War

Every month for the past six years, George Bush's Iraq War piled up dead American soldiers, now at 3,900, while Halliburton piled up billions of dollars in profits. More than 28,000 U.S. soldiers returned without legs and arms or suffered paralyzed bodies--while munitions dealers counted their billions of dollars.

In the same breath, according to the Johns Hopkins Report and <http://www.antiwar.com/>www.antiwar.com *George Bush killed 1.16 million Iraqi citizens thus far! He destroyed a functioning society and created over 2.5 million refugees. While Saddam ruled with terror, today, Iraq staggers through incredible violence on a daily basis.

"Enemy" deaths and "collateral damage"

George Bush advocated and used 'bunker busting bombs' filled with high density, depleted uranium which creates deadly radiation in Iraq that lasts for centuries. Experts say it creates mutations and cancer defects not only in the people and future children of Iraq, but it creates horrific consequences for the children of our U.S. soldiers who breathe its deadly contents daily while policing Baghdad. Of his failures as a man and as a president, his legacy of horribly disfigured babies, men and women make him the most immoral and unethical president of the 21st century.

Where peace reigned, Bush created war. Where respect and admiration for the U.S. abounded in the world after 9/11, Bush cultivated anger, animosity and deep distrust.

While he wages his farcical and preposterous "War on Terror" 10,000 miles away, he openly invites terrorists into the United States via open borders. He invites millions of illegal aliens into our country when enforcement of this nation's laws ranks on the low rung of his ladder. He's fostered three times more American citizens killed at the hands of illegal aliens on American soil than all the soldiers that died in the war zone. He's allowed hundreds of billions of dollars in drugs to cross over our borders without lifting a finger to stop them. Bush promotes our schools, hospitals and prisons to be overrun, distorted and destroyed by illegal aliens. His actions make his "War on Terror" the biggest fraud in the history of the United States.

While he sacrifices our young men and women as cannon fodder, he drives us into a $9 trillion debt that plunges our civilization into a financial crisis from which we may not recover. Who makes money? International and national bankers ride the 'interest wave' to uncounted billions of dollars. The military-industrial complex reaps a world-wind of profits.

While spending $2 billion a week in Iraq and $1 billion a week in Afghanistan, he leads protracted wars that do nothing for U.S. stability or safety.

All the while, he injects 572,000 military personnel onto 700 bases in 120 countries around the world. For what? Answer: the American empire. What result? Answer: ultimate collapse of America by driving it to the cliff of its own financial death.

If you still shake your head thinking Bush protects Americans from terrorists by attacking Iraq, I invite you to look back at similar political horse manure by Johnson and Nixon while they protracted the Vietnam War. Over 58,000 men gave their lives in the same senseless, trumped-up façade by politicians puppetted by the military-industrial complex. The fraud of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution created that war. Vietnam accomplished nothing but death for both sides. For that matter, you can say the same thing about Korea!

Our lower middle-class suffers foreclosures and job losses

At the same time, Bush degrades and debases America's middle class with an unending line of immigrants, both legal and illegal. He partners with multinationals and other corporations that offshore, outsource and insource millions of American jobs as he destroys our manufacturing base.

While he shreds America's middle class, he floods our country with millions from the third world. He creates a new slave class that will work any job for peanuts while it destroys our working poor and undermines our middle class. All the while, scant few of those immigrants speak our language or invest in our nation. They no more know what our U.S. Constitution means or what lives paid for its creation than they know the name of our first president.

What's happening in the meantime? He forces us to educate, feed, medicate and pay for incarceration for millions of poor, illiterate and unskilled that flood into our country.

Result of massive, relentless and unending immigration?

We face social, environmental, infrastructure, resource, water and carrying capacity consequences greater than anyone can imagine in 2008.

All the while, he takes away our individual freedoms with the Patriot Act while he allows terrorists open access to our country at their convenience. Homeland Security and threat levels prove the biggest deceptions and perpetrated skullduggery in the history of our nation.

What's the worst aspect of Bush's legacy? He does not respect our U.S. Constitution! He arrogantly supports the dissolution of our borders in favor of a North American Union. He signed the Security Prosperity Partnership that delivers our nation into the hands of the New World Order his father promoted. George 43 promotes the loss of our sovereignty, language and culture as a distinct nation.

No man ever did as much damage to the United States of America as George W. Bush. God help us make it through the next 12 months of his immoral and fraudulent control. If ever a president needs to be dismissed, George W. Bush's actions meet or exceed every article of impeachment.

Axiom
11-01-2008, 05:55 PM
Kucinich Asks for New Hampshire Recount in the Interest of Election Integrity

DETROIT--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the most outspoken advocate in the Presidential field and in Congress for election integrity, paper-ballot elections, and campaign finance reform, has sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesday’s election because of “unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots.”

“I am not making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf,” Kucinich stressed in a letter to Secretary of State William M. Gardner. But, “Serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days…It is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interest of public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the election machinery – not just in New Hampshire, but in every other state that conducts a primary election.”

He added, “Ever since the 2000 election – and even before – the American people have been losing faith in the belief that their votes were actually counted. This recount isn’t about who won 39% of 36% or even 1%. It’s about establishing whether 100% of the voters had 100% of their votes counted exactly the way they cast them.”

Kucinich, who drew about 1.4% of the New Hampshire Democratic primary vote, wrote, “This is not about my candidacy or any other individual candidacy. It is about the integrity of the election process.” No other Democratic candidate, he noted, has stepped forward to question or pursue the claims being made.

“New Hampshire is in the unique position to address – and, if so determined, rectify – these issues before they escalate into a massive, nationwide suspicion of the process by which Americans elect their President. Based on the controversies surrounding the Presidential elections in 2004 and 2000, New Hampshire is in a prime position to investigate possible irregularities and to issue findings for the benefit of the entire nation,” Kucinich wrote in his letter.

“Without an official recount, the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation will never know whether there are flaws in our electoral system that need to be identified and addressed at this relatively early point in the Presidential nominating process,” said Kucinich, who is campaigning in Michigan this week in advance of next Tuesday’s Presidential primary in that state.

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2008, 07:57 PM
One of the causes of the swing back to Hillary is that the Democrat ballot was not rotated, and Hillary got a very good draw and Obama a very bad one. That could have been worth about three points alone, but would never have been picked up by opinion polling.

Axiom
12-01-2008, 01:41 AM
Media Struggles To Whitewash Clinton Vote Fraud Suspicions
Professor offers new excuse - claims Hillary overturned a 13 point deficit because her name was higher on the ballot January 10, 2008
Paul Joseph Watson

The media has gone into overdrive trying to whitewash Hillary Clinton's inexplicable defeat of Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary and sideline questions about vote fraud, with the latest excuse being that Clinton's name appeared above Obama's on the ballot paper.

In reality, Clinton's reversal of a 10-13 point pre-polling deficit to Obama is highly suspicious and smacks of vote fraud, especially considering the fact that the New York Senator gained a crucial 7% swing thanks to provably vulnerable Diebold electronic voting machines.

In addition, the head polling clerk of the town of Sutton was forced to admit that they completely failed to count 31 votes for Republican candidate Ron Paul, initially reporting his final tally as zero.

The only mention in the establishment press of potential vote fraud in relation to the Clinton/Obama discrepancy fraud came on CNN at around 5:06am the morning after the primary.



"All the pollsters are unlikely to have made the same mistake so what could have happened? Something must have happened," remarks CNN's political analyst Bill Schneider.
(see you tube here http://www.*******s.com/articles/us/vote_08_nh_clinton_media_struggles_white_wash_vote _fraud_suspicions )


Hillary's show of staged emotion is cited as a potential reason for the change, but at the time it happened almost all pundits were in uniform agreement that Clinton tearing up only harmed her chances because it made her appear weak. Some even likened it to the infamous Dean scream , which mothballed Howard Dean's success in 2004.

Another excuse is that voters experienced a sudden bout of involuntary racism when they entered the polling booth and refused to vote for Obama, a black man. On the face of it this is patently absurd. New Hampshire isn't South Carolina or Mississippi, it's an urbane part of the country which includes a huge swathe of Independents - not normally noted for their racist sentiment. In addition, Obama swept Iowa which is packed full of evangelical phony Christians and other groups more closely associated with racist sentiment.

Schneider reluctantly moves on to the third and only plausible explanation - vote fraud.

But now the establishment have dreamed up a new excuse to stop people asking questions about the whole fiasco - Hillary Clinton won because her name was higher up on the ballot paper!

"Without a doubt, a big source of the discrepancy between the pre-election surveys and the election outcome in New Hampshire is the order of candidates' names on the ballot and in the surveys," says Stanford University professor Jon Krosnick . "Our analysis of all recent primaries in New Hampshire showed that there was always a big primacy effect -- big name, big-vote-getting candidates got 3 percent or more votes more when listed first on the ballot than when listed last."

Research does show that this has a minor impact of increasing a candidate's numbers, but only by a maximum average of about 2% - Hillary had to overturn a mammoth deficit of 10-13% ( Zogby had Obama leading her 42/29 per cent before the primary.

However, with Barack Obama showing little interest in contesting the decision, it appears that no proper investigation of what happened will take place and Hillary will roll into Michigan safe in the knowledge that, as the anointed Neo-Con establishment candidate, she has the full support of crooked Diebold voting machines in her bid to steal the nomination even though a growing number of Democrats are rejecting her pro-war, big government underpinnings.

Adamski
12-01-2008, 08:17 AM
Speaking of Stephen Colbert, here is a pretty funny interview with Huckabee:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/10/huckabee-seeks-another-c_n_80892.html

Thanks for the clip, Pax. Enjoyed it.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2008, 12:07 PM
But now the establishment have dreamed up a new excuse to stop people asking questions about the whole fiasco - Hillary Clinton won because her name was higher up on the ballot paper!

Nobody I am aware of is claiming the difference between Hillary's actual results and the poll forecasts can be explained largely or even mostly by ballot order effects.

What it does do is narrow the gap that has to be explained. The average of polls was a gap of about seven points in Obama's favour, and Hillary won by three, so there's a discrepancy of ten points to be explained. If two or three points are attributed to ballot order effect, then you have seven or eight points remaining, which is only a 3.5-4% swing on a two-candidate basis.

There is some analysis from Rasmussen here (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/what_happened_to_polls_in_new_hampshire) that points to some of what may have happened. Some of the polls were not reliable because they were taken too far out from the election and hence failed to capture a late swing back to Hillary that was happening - exactly the same problem that left AC Nielsen high and dry in Australia on a badly wrong 57-43 when Galaxy, Morgan and Newspoll had the 2PP right to within a point.

Some snippets from the Rasmussen article:


Further support for this theory comes from Exit Poll data showing that an astonishing 38% of voters made up their mind in the final three days of the race (after Iowa). Of these, more than a third ended up voting for Clinton. These last minute decisions gave Clinton 14% of the vote overall (more than a third of her total vote).


The problem may also have resulted from the greatest challenge in polling--determining who will actually show up and vote. This is especially difficult in a Primary Election. It is possible, perhaps likely, that the polling models used by Rasmussen Reports and others did not account for the very high turnout experienced in New Hampshire. Rasmussen Reports normally screens out people with less voting history and less interest in the race. This might have caused us to screen out some women who might not ordinarily vote in a Primary but who came out to vote due to the historic nature of Clinton’s candidacy. The final Rasmussen Reports poll anticipated that 54% of the Democratic voters would be women while exit polls showed that number to be 57%.


A third possibility is that John McCain may have taken some independent voters away from Barack Obama. On Tuesday, Rasmussen Reports noted this two-front challenge but at the time thought it might represent a greater threat to McCain than Obama.

The latter is quite plausible to me as polls were showing an easy win for Obama, therefore independent voters may have decided to vote in the Republican race because they saw it as being likely to be closer; a bit like deliberately enrolling in a marginal electorate in Australia if you have a semi-legitimate opportunity to do so.

Finally, something that I, as a psephologist, have a great amount of awareness of is the uniqueness of certain electoral events. Polling is generally historically accurate, but there are circumstances under which it may not be so reliable, if an election is in some way unprecedented. In such cases, extrapolation from the past success of polling to this particular poll is not necessarily valid. Obama and Clinton are both unique candidates in the history of presidential elections and hence if there are going to be polling errors, one would expect them in the Democratic primary, whereas the Republican primary involves more traditional types of candidates (with the exception of Paul) and hence errors are less likely there.

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2008, 12:42 PM
Fred Thompson: 17 min talk explaining his conservative principles (http://youtube.com/watch?v=VblJq4j0_SE).

pax
16-01-2008, 12:52 PM
Romney won Michigan, as he really had to (if he couldn't win the state where his father was Governor, where could he?)

The real story is Giuliani with only 3%. The once unassailable frontrunner is now surely finished. I think his is going to go down as possibly the worst presidential campaign in history. Thompson is probably also destined to also-ran status with 4%. Ron Paul supporters will probably crow about beating Thompson and Giuliani (cue Axiom), but his 6% is an indication that his message still hasn't gone much further than his loyal but too-small fan base. Huckabee would be disappointed with 16%, but McCain should take great heart from his 30%. McCain now looks like a frontrunner in a three-horse race, but not by a large margin - he is quite likely to win South Carolina.

Clinton won the Democratic non-race (Obama and Edwards withdrew after Michigan was punished for breaching party rules). "Uncommitted" ran a very strong second with 34%. Kucinich and Gravel should really stop pretending to be running - if they can't manage more than 4% in a race lacking two of the leading candidates

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2008, 06:06 PM
Finally, something that I, as a psephologist, have a great amount of awareness of is the uniqueness of certain electoral events. Polling is generally historically accurate, but there are circumstances under which it may not be so reliable, if an election is in some way unprecedented. In such cases, extrapolation from the past success of polling to this particular poll is not necessarily valid. Obama and Clinton are both unique candidates in the history of presidential elections and hence if there are going to be polling errors, one would expect them in the Democratic primary, whereas the Republican primary involves more traditional types of candidates (with the exception of Paul) and hence errors are less likely there.
There is nothing unique about Obama and Klinton policy-wise. They both support failed 1960s big government as the answer to all woes.

As for "uniqueness", if certain Americans are silly enough to vote on the basis of sharing genes for lots of melanin production or XX chromosomes (or self-loathing leftist white males trying to assuage guilt), they deserve what they get . But the Leftmedia gives these shallow power-seekers a free pass for seeking the black or sisterhood vote. If it were a Republican saying "vote for me because I am white / male", then they would be rightly pilloried as bigots.

pax
16-01-2008, 06:44 PM
If it were a Republican saying "vote for me because I am white / male", then they would be rightly pilloried as bigots.

Sorry, I must have missed the press release where Clinton/Obama said "vote for me because I am female/black".

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2008, 08:05 PM
There is nothing unique about Obama and Klinton policy-wise.

This is true, but that is not what makes them psephelogically unpredictable. And it's not just one being female and one black that makes them unpredictable, but also that the one who is female is the wife of a former President while the one who is black is also relatively young, dynamic, charismatic etc.


As for "uniqueness", if certain Americans are silly enough to vote on the basis of sharing genes for lots of melanin production or XX chromosomes (or self-loathing leftist white males trying to assuage guilt), they deserve what they get .

From a psephelogical viewpoint, both those who are silly enough to vote for someone largely on those accounts and those who are silly enough to vote against them largely on those accounts are of interest in trying to predict a result.


If it were a Republican saying "vote for me because I am white / male", then they would be rightly pilloried as bigots.

I am sure that whichever ageing white male wins the Republican nomination will have their campaigns find ways of subtly insinuating that when the time comes.

That is, unless John Edwards pulls off a major miracle.

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2008, 12:20 AM
Sorry, I must have missed the press release where Clinton/Obama said "vote for me because I am female/black".
Evidently. Heilary sure turned on the waterworks for a sympathy vote in NH. And previously, when she was being cornered in debate, it was all those men being mean to her.

There are a number of blacks who endorse Obama for no apparent reason other than his skin colour.

But despite what KB says, it is most unlikely that the white GOP male candidate will play the race or gender card. After all, the GOP was the party founded to abolish slavery, while the Dems were the party of the KKK, flying Confederate flags, Jim Crow laws, resisters of the Civil Rights laws and pro-segregation governors that had to be broken when GOP President Ike sent in the National Guard. See also Democrats, Republicans and Blacks (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=718)by Thomas Sowell, himself black.

pax
17-01-2008, 12:43 AM
Evidently. Heilary sure turned on the waterworks for a sympathy vote in NH. And previously, when she was being cornered in debate, it was all those men being mean to her.
Come on. The media made a massive mountain out of that particular molehill.


There are a number of blacks who endorse Obama for no apparent reason other than his skin colour.
Who, and how do you know that is the reason? Lots of blacks also endorse Hillary. And there are plenty of whites who wouldn't vote for a black candidate.

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2008, 12:52 AM
Come on. The media made a massive mountain out of that particular molehill.
Obama was predicted to win NH, but she turned on the crocodile tears. The Leftmedia love her yet recognized the appeal to the Sisterhood.


Who, and how do you know that is the reason? Lots of blacks also endorse Hillary.
Oh yeah, in a black church, she did a lovely impersonation of what counts as "black English" these days, although the advocates of such "ebonics" are totally clueless to its origins in white English as spoken in the rough English-Scots borderlands whence the Southern American whites came (documented in Sowell's book Black Rednecks and White Liberals (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4234))


And there are plenty of whites who wouldn't vote for a black candidate.
Are there? But that's the problem: if Obama loses the presidential election, the Leftmedia will blame it on racist bigotry. It could never be that Americans saw through Obama's eloquent speechifying about "unity" to realise that he is utterly shallow and achievement-free, and merely proposes more discredited 1960s big government "solutions".

pax
17-01-2008, 01:04 AM
Obama was predicted to win NH, but she turned on the crocodile tears. The Leftmedia love her yet recognized the appeal to the Sisterhood.

What utter garbage. Why is it ok for male politicians to turn on the tears (which they do remarkably frequently), but if a woman does it it is somehow exploiting her gender? You are really ridiculous sometimes.

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2008, 01:44 AM
What utter garbage. Why is it ok for male politicians to turn on the tears (which they do remarkably frequently),
Who said it was OK?


but if a woman does it it is somehow exploiting her gender?
Nope, when Heilary in particular does it! But it's hardly surprising that you would defend someone as corrupt and power-mad as her.


You are really ridiculous sometimes.
Another common Anointed tactic: indignation replacing thought.:P

pax
17-01-2008, 08:58 AM
Who said it was OK?

Nope, when Heilary in particular does it! But it's hardly surprising that you would defend someone as corrupt and power-mad as her.

I'm not defending anyone. You are the one accusing Clinton of effectively saying "vote for me because I'm a woman". But what did any of it have to do with being female? I've lost count of the number of times male politicians have tearfully apologised from some piece of misbehaviour or another. Are they "appealing to the brotherhood", or "getting in touch with their masculine side"?

pax
17-01-2008, 09:18 AM
I wonder what Jono thinks of Huckabee's declaration that the Consititution should be amended to be in "God's standards":
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/15/huckabee-amend-the-constitution-to-gods-standards/

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2008, 09:33 AM
I wonder what Jono thinks of Huckabee's declaration that the Consititution should be amended to be in "God's standards":
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/15/huckabee-amend-the-constitution-to-gods-standards/
I wonder why you think I'd be a fan of Hickabee when he is actually quite liberal (that's why someone gave him my book Refuting Compromise) and lets rapists out of jail to commit worse crimes.

I am actually in favour of candidates who pledge to appoint judges in the Scalia/Alito mould who believe in interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning, not pretending it is a "living document" that "evolves" to fit the political preferences of leftist judges.

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2008, 08:53 PM
But despite what KB says, it is most unlikely that the white GOP male candidate will play the race or gender card.

The white male GOP candidate would certainly not be so stupid as to play it themself. But GOP supporters may very well find ways, ever so subtle, to just hint at it.

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2008, 11:07 PM
The white male GOP candidate would certainly not be so stupid as to play it themself. But GOP supporters may very well find ways, ever so subtle, to just hint at it.
Is there any evidence for this, esp. given the histories of the two parties? The Dems have always been the party that plays the race card. Before, it was supporting slavery and the Jim Crow laws. Now it's "affirmative action". Conversely, the GOP was formed to oppose slavery, had higher support for the Civil Rights laws, and is colour blind now in that it opposes affirmative action.

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2008, 11:18 PM
Is there any evidence for this, esp. given the histories of the two parties?

The history is irrelevant; what matters is the current distribution of support for the parties.

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2008, 11:22 PM
The history is irrelevant; what matters is the current distribution of support for the parties.
So is there any actual evidence that those close to the GOP candidate will play the race card? I rather hope instead that he will point out the things that black commentator Thomas Sowell does about how GOP policies will help blacks (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_31_06_TS.html) more than the grievance mongering of Je$$e Jack$on and Al $harpton and the teachers' union monopoly that keeps black children in failing schools.

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2008, 11:37 PM
So is there any actual evidence that those close to the GOP candidate will play the race card?

Given that the situation is unprecedented at presidential election history (if Obama gets the nomination) it's rather hard to provide evidence based on past experience of the situation.

I'm suspecting that it could happen though, typically because parties generally go for just about anything if they think it will work. But given the strife you get if caught playing the race card openly, they would have to be extremely subtle about it.

It may also depend on who the nominee is. McCain can be abrasive but is probably too decent to put up with any nonsense from his supporters, whereas if Guiliani gets it, he may well fight dirty, liberal values or no liberal values.

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2008, 11:56 PM
I'm suspecting that it could happen though, typically because parties generally go for just about anything if they think it will work. But given the strife you get if caught playing the race card openly, they would have to be extremely subtle about it.
But all I've seen so far are insinuation that if Klinton/Obama don't win, it will be because of America's widespread sexism/racism — not because America has largely got sick of high taxes, big government, failing schools run by teachers' unions who have an ironclad grip on the party of Klinton and Obama, defeatism, class warfare and activist judges legislating from the bench.


It may also depend on who the nominee is. McCain can be abrasive but is probably too decent to put up with any nonsense from his supporters, whereas if Guiliani gets it, he may well fight dirty, liberal values or no liberal values.
McCain's problem is that he delights in annoying supporters of his party. If he wins the nomination, it's likely that more GOPs will be turned away than Dems won.

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2008, 12:24 AM
But all I've seen so far are insinuation that if Klinton/Obama don't win, it will be because of America's widespread sexism/racism — not because America has largely got sick of high taxes, big government, failing schools run by teachers' unions who have an ironclad grip on the party of Klinton and Obama, defeatism, class warfare and activist judges legislating from the bench.

Oh no, I'm sure there will be plenty of pressure placed on the Democratic nominee (whoever they are) on those scores, and if the Democrats lose it will be because they struggle on such issues. Indeed if Obama is the candidate the public attack will most likely be based on (i) economics (ii) foreign policy (iii) experience.


McCain's problem is that he delights in annoying supporters of his party. If he wins the nomination, it's likely that more GOPs will be turned away than Dems won.

Absolutely, although McCain does play reasonably well among independent voters because of such stances.

pax
18-01-2008, 12:41 AM
McCain's problem is that he delights in annoying supporters of his party. If he wins the nomination, it's likely that more GOPs will be turned away than Dems won.
Who will you support when Thompson's bid fails?

Capablanca-Fan
18-01-2008, 12:44 AM
Who will you support when Thompson's bid fails?
Probably Romney. Paul's domestic policy is great but his foreign policy comes right out of the loony More-on Move-on playbook.

pax
18-01-2008, 01:25 AM
Probably Romney. Paul's domestic policy is great but his foreign policy comes right out of the loony More-on Move-on playbook.
I wonder how much Romney spends on his haircuts ;)

pax
18-01-2008, 11:12 AM
Probably Romney. Paul's domestic policy is great but his foreign policy comes right out of the loony More-on Move-on playbook.
More seriously, I wonder what you think of his proposal to spend $20 billion propping up Michigan's failing automotive industry..

Capablanca-Fan
18-01-2008, 11:29 AM
More seriously, I wonder what you think of his proposal to spend $20 billion propping up Michigan's failing automotive industry..
Presumably this is Romney, because Paul would not do such a thing, and neither would I. It is still taking money by force from some people to give to others. Thank goodness that people 100 years ago didn't countenance that sort of legalized theft, otherwise politicians would have spent billions propping up the failing horse and buggy industry that that was being destroyed by the very things that Michigan failing automotive industry makes.

Capablanca-Fan
18-01-2008, 11:39 AM
I wonder how much Romney spends on his haircuts ;)
Not as much as "man of the people" Edwards, the girly man who sends his very ill wife to fight his political battles for him. Of course, many of the people in the "other America" include pregnant women who can's find an Ob-Gyn, because insurance premiums skyrocketed so much to make their practice untenable, thanks largely to Edwards getting filthy rich on lawsuits where he used junk science to manipulate gullible juries and judges who wanted to play Santa Claus.

pax
18-01-2008, 01:39 PM
Not as much as "man of the people" Edwards, the girly man who sends his very ill wife to fight his political battles for him. Of course, many of the people in the "other America" include pregnant women who can's find an Ob-Gyn, because insurance premiums skyrocketed so much to make their practice untenable, thanks largely to Edwards getting filthy rich on lawsuits where he used junk science to manipulate gullible juries and judges who wanted to play Santa Claus.

I have no idea what you're talking about. But I will point out that the recent trend for "everybody needs an Ob-Gyn to have a baby" is completely crazy.

Capablanca-Fan
18-01-2008, 02:09 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about.

From John Edwards — will the real one please stand up (http://www.brookesnews.com/041207johnedwards.html)

Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 12 July 2004


John Edwards' reputation as a crusading lawyer defending the little people against ruthless corporate behemoths does not withstand scrutiny. I am not suggesting that all of his cases were without merit, merely that it is tacky if not downright suspicious for any lawyer to flaunt hard cases in defense of his other court actions in an effort to divert attention from the consequences of what he has done.

For instance, John Edwards won huge damages for Jennifer Campbell who was born with cerebral palsy. Edwards managed to convince the jury that the doctor was at fault for not delivering Jennifer earlier with a Caesarean operation.

The Edwards' case raised several points. First of all, how was the doctor to really know in the circumstances whether a Caesarean was necessary? If he had performed a Caesarean and Jennifer still developed cerebral palsy, as we now have good reason to believe would have been the case, would Edwards have still sued the doctor for malpractice? Furthermore, let us not forget that medicine is not an exact science, as anyone who has been to his doctor recently would know.

The fact is that John Edwards ruthlessly used junk science to win his case — regardless of the consequences for future mothers. Even the New York Times reported that "Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder [cerebral palsy] is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins." Nevertheless, trial lawyers insist that juries consisting of laypersons are capable of making scientific-based judgments.

The ramifications of Edwards' trial-lawyer instincts to win at all costs have been enormous for expectant mothers and the medical profession. Many obstetricians have left the profession because they could not afford the huge malpractice insurance bill that the likes of John Edwards imposed on them.

This has left the "little people" with fewer doctors to deliver their babies. Pregnant women in rural Mississippi, for example, have found it increasingly difficult to find obstetricians because so many have abandoned the field.

But reducing the supply of obstetricians is not the only way in which John Edwards and his voracious trial-lawyer colleagues have endangered the lives of expectant mothers and their unborn children. By intimidating doctors into performing Caesareans these lawyers have increased the risk of death, acute pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, hemorrhage and infection for these women and their babies.

Any businessman who got rich by selling a product that had the same consequences as John Edwards' court actions would have been jailed long ago.

If John Edwards cares so much about the little people why did he strenuously oppose a bill in the North Carolina Legislature that would have set up a fund care for every baby born with cerebral palsy?

Because the bill would have removed the massive damages that lawyers like him have been able to extract from cerebral palsy cases. I guess this says a great deal about John Edwards' humanity and his moral priorities.

Edwards' hypocrisy doesn't stop with denying the infant victims of cerebral palsy a secure future. He claimed that would put a stop to tax lawyers making fortunes by using tax loopholes to shelter their clients' incomes. (Perhaps he thinks these lawyers would be better employed suing obstetricians, brain surgeons and fast food outlets).

Another article, John Edwards vs. Babies and Moms by Michael Fumento (http://www.fumento.com/fumento/edwards2007.html), says:


Medical malpractice was his specialty, and he reportedly tried more than 60 such cases, winning more than $1 million in over half of those. Most involved Ob/gyns. Indeed, he was so feared, according to the Center for Public Integrity, "that doctors would settle cases for millions of dollars rather than face him at trial."

Edwards' specialty was cerebral palsy, a set of permanent conditions affecting control of movement and posture that usually appear at toddler stage. There is no cure, although stem cell studies in both humans (umbilical cord cells) and rats (neural cells) have produced promising results. More than 10,000 U.S. children are diagnosed with it yearly. Edwards claimed the disease developed because negligent doctors ignored fetal heart monitors indicating the child might not be getting enough air during birth and thus failed to deliver it immediately through cesarean surgery.

Yet Edwards won his cases not because scientific evidence favored him but because of his smooth-talking "trust-me" demeanor — and heart-wrenching pleas in which he ghoulishly sometimes pretended to be the voice of the unfortunate child crying out for justice.

It's not considered impossible that asphyxiation during birth could cause cerebral palsy; just darned unlikely. United Cerebral Palsy lists about a dozen ways to help prevent (http://www.ucp.org/ucp_generaldoc.cfm/1/9/37/37-37/447#prevented)the condition. Not one mentions the birthing procedure.

A 2003 study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14586368?dopt=Abstract) evaluated almost 1,000 life births to see if cerebral palsy or other problems could by affected by type of birth. Conclusion: "Delivery mode (whether vaginal or cesarean delivery) was not associated with any of the outcomes that were evaluated."

Months earlier, another study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12634632?dopt=Abstract) observed that cerebral palsy rates have shown "no change over 30 years" despite fetal monitoring and a huge increase in the number of C-sections. Further, "The prevalence of cerebral palsy is the same or lower in underdeveloped countries than in developed nations," even though "emergency cesarean delivery based on electronic monitor data is limited or absent."

Now here's the horrible kicker: A Swedish report (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17138786?dopt=AbstractPlus)released in December found that emergency cesarean delivery increased the odds of cerebral palsy by a statistically significant 80 percent. It's bad for the mother, too. Another 2006 study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16946213?dopt=AbstractPlus), in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, found that moms with cesareans had more than three-and-a-half times the chance of dying shortly after childbirth than those who had vaginal delivery.

"Some of the increased risks for the mother include possible infection of the uterus and nearby pelvic organs; increased bleeding; blood clots in the legs, pelvic organs and sometimes the lungs, says the March of Dimes (http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/240_1031.asp). Further, cesarean birth "is more painful, is more expensive, and takes longer to recover from than a vaginal birth," says the group.

But scientific reality is but a minor hurdle to slick plaintiffs lawyers like Edwards. Insurance companies fork over massive payments to plaintiffs and their lawyers, then pass the costs on to doctors in malpractice fees. In one state, annual Ob/gyn malpractice premiums have reached $250,000.

Many doctors are fleeing the practice as fast as they can tie off that last umbilical cord. One in seven of fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have quit obstetrics (http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr07-16-04.cfm)and many rural areas now have no such doctors.


But I will point out that the recent trend for "everybody needs an Ob-Gyn to have a baby" is completely crazy.
Just as crazy as another trend that "homebirth is the only real birth". Some women are very glad to have an Ob-Gyn.

pax
18-01-2008, 02:31 PM
Just as crazy as another trend that "homebirth is the only real birth".
Homebirth is still very much in the minority. An even tinier minority proclaim it with such platitudes.


Some women are very glad to have an Ob-Gyn.
To each their own. I'm of the opinion that it's just completely unnecessary for most healthy normal pregnancies. That's not to say that an Ob should not be available in case something goes wrong, but the involvement of an Ob from start to finish seems like overkill.

Capablanca-Fan
18-01-2008, 03:23 PM
Homebirth is still very much in the minority. An even tinier minority proclaim it with such platitudes.
There also seem to be quite a vocal lot against women having pain relief, but one woman who had it said that her object was a child, not a childbirth.


To each their own.
That's what I think.


I'm of the opinion that it's just completely unnecessary for most healthy normal pregnancies. That's not to say that an Ob should not be available in case something goes wrong, but the involvement of an Ob from start to finish seems like overkill.
That's the point though. Because of shysters like Edwards, some American women can't find an Ob in case something goes wrong.

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2008, 05:19 PM
By the way, in response to Jono's question about whether there is any evidence that supporters of a Republican candidate might use the race card if Obama is preselected, one need only recall the South Carolina (where else?) primary in 2000 for a case of them doing so against one of their own. Dubya and McCain were locked in a tight contest and smears on McCain alleging, among other things, that he had fathered a child with a black woman out of wedlock, began emerging. Of course the Bush campaign denied all links to it, as they would, but it is hard to see why anyone but Bush-supporting Republicans (not necessarily linked to his formal campaign) would have done it.

Capablanca-Fan
18-01-2008, 05:42 PM
By the way, in response to Jono's question about whether there is any evidence that supporters of a Republican candidate might use the race card if Obama is preselected, one need only recall the South Carolina (where else?) primary in 2000 for a case of them doing so against one of their own. Dubya and McCain were locked in a tight contest and smears on McCain alleging, among other things, that he had fathered a child with a black woman out of wedlock, began emerging. Of course the Bush campaign denied all links to it, as they would, but it is hard to see why anyone but Bush-supporting Republicans (not necessarily linked to his formal campaign) would have done it.
So history does matter when it comes to a few isolated incidents that may or may not have been GOP-initiated, but not to the Dems' proven disgraceful history of oppressing blacks? Now their oppression is more subtle, trying to make blacks a victim class who need white leftists to get anywhere. We saw this with Heilary dismissing MLK's significance compared to LBJ, and their ongoing sucking up to racist liars like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

pax
18-01-2008, 05:50 PM
So history does matter when it comes to a few isolated incidents that may or may not have been GOP-initiated, but not to the Dems' proven disgraceful history of oppressing blacks? Now their oppression is more subtle, trying to make blacks a victim class who need white leftists to get anywhere.
Way to change the subject, bub.


We saw this with Heilary dismissing MLK's significance compared to LBJ.
What utter garbage. Clinton did nothing of the sort. It was a complete beat up by a few in the black community and the media.

Capablanca-Fan
18-01-2008, 05:54 PM
Way to change the subject, bub.
Why? There is less evidence of racism in the GOP than in the Dems, which then and now have policies that rate people on the colour of the skin not the content of their characters. The GOP then and now followed MLK's preference for the opposite. Indeed, GWB has appointed more minorities to high positions than any other president.


What utter garbage. Clinton did nothing of the sort. It was a complete beat up by a few in the black community and the media.
Here is what Klinton said (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3173652.ece):


“Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”

Linda Chavez writes in Our Better Angels: Martin Luther King's Legacy (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/LindaChavez/2008/01/18/our_better_angels_martin_luther_kings_legacy):


If we're going to argue about the passage of the Civil Rights Act, it bears noting that without support from the majority of Republican legislators — and specifically the leadership of Sen. Everett Dirksen — there would have been no law at all. From 1933 to 1964, according to the Congressional Research Service, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of votes cast, while a majority of Republicans favored such bills 96 percent of the time. Dirksen and his Republican allies were instrumental in overcoming a filibuster by Southern Democrats (and one Texas Republican), which threatened to kill the Civil Rights Act.

But there would have been no debate at all had it not been for the change taking place in the hearts and minds of the American people — and Rev. King was the one man chiefly responsible for that change.

pax
18-01-2008, 06:04 PM
Here is what Klinton said (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3173652.ece):


“Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”

Yes, I know what she said. How exactly was this diminishing the importance of MLK?

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2008, 06:40 PM
So history does matter when it comes to a few isolated incidents that may or may not have been GOP-initiated, but not to the Dems' proven disgraceful history of oppressing blacks?

The Democrats would hardly play the race card against their opponent in the presidential election if their candidate is black.

The Democrats' past record, whatever it is, is not relevant to the question of whether it may be employed by allies of the Republican nominee this time.

Capablanca-Fan
18-01-2008, 07:22 PM
The Democrats would hardly play the race card against their opponent in the presidential election if their candidate is black.
But they are the only party with disgusting race baiter like Jesse Jackson (who as a young waiter would spit into the food of white customers (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={A9925B2C-6C9C-4E58-95D2-54DC64BEB685})) and Al Sharpton (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_2000_March_20/ai_59705344), he of the Tawana Bradley rape hoax (http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/13/brawley.verdict.02/).


The Democrats' past record, whatever it is, is not relevant to the question of whether it may be employed by allies of the Republican nominee this time.
It's notable that the long-term and current Dem Senator Robert C. Byrd was a member of the KKK, high enough to be a Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops (local leader), and vowed never to fight, "with a Negro by my side. (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/02/standards.html) Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

There are no GOP politicians who are ex-KKK members. There is no proof that any of them would resort to race-baiting that's even 1% as vile as Byrd's. The double standards are glaring. We saw this also with the Leftmedia making much of ancient drinking problems of GWB (which made him become a teetotaller) but not that corpulent inheritance-welfare leftist Teddy Kennedy who was drunk enough to drive into a river then leave the girl he was with to drown, then have his crime covered up.

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2008, 07:47 PM
There are no GOP politicians who are ex-KKK members.

I'm not aware of any at the present time, but I remember David Duke (ex-KKK Grand Wizard) well enough.

And yes, Byrd is still there, but has renounced his former views.

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2008, 01:17 PM
I'm not aware of any at the present time, but I remember David Duke (ex-KKK Grand Wizard) well enough.
David Duke has run both as a Dem and a GOP.


And yes, Byrd is still there, but has renounced his former views.
Do you really think that an ex-KKK GOP candidate who likewise renounced his former views wouldn't be hounded by the Leftmedia? Just think of Trent Lott hounded out as Senate Majority leader just for an off-the-cuff comment praising Strom Thurmond, although that praise was certainly crass given the segregationist policies and the latest in a long line of crass comments.

But with the Dems, their tolerance for white racism has been replaced by tolerance for black racism, which is equally vile.

sacback
19-01-2008, 02:49 PM
You know I think that the world is in a great need of change. And I don't want to get too much off into this because I am really here to talk about chess. But I think that this years presidental campaign is very important to the healing of our country. I personally want to see Barack make his way into office because he is the definition of change for us. Of course having a woman in office is change too but having a Black man is office is way past what we are used to.

Basil
19-01-2008, 02:54 PM
I personally want to see Barack make his way into office because he is the definition of change for us. Of course having a woman in office is change too but having a Black man is office is way past what we are used to.
These may be good things, but surely not ends in their own right? Why not have Bin Laden as president and really support minorities?

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2008, 03:26 PM
You know I think that the world is in a great need of change. And I don't want to get too much off into this because I am really here to talk about chess. But I think that this years presidental campaign is very important to the healing of our country. I personally want to see Barack make his way into office because he is the definition of change for us.
But what sort of change? He wants more of the same failed big government agenda, higher taxes, affirmative action, a pro-abort stance more extreme even than NARAL's, and basically 1960s-style leftism.

Also, how will an imposed "unity" that B. Hussein keeps spruiking on about "heal" the country, when it would really mean ignoring those with different views.

I think there should be "change" as well, largely in realizing that government is not the solution but is usually the problem!


Of course having a woman in office is change too but having a Black man is office is way past what we are used to.
Race of the candidate shouldn't even be an issue.

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2008, 03:29 PM
These may be good things, but surely not ends in their own right? Why not have Bin Laden as president and really support minorities?
Rather more likely if a Dem wins, pulls the troops out of Iraq, leave the pro-Dem Iraqis to al Qaida's tender mercies, and just reinforce Osama's belief that Americans are cowards who retreat when the going gets tough. It was Klinton's pullout of Somalia that really emboldened Osama the first time.

Kevin Bonham
19-01-2008, 05:47 PM
David Duke has run both as a Dem and a GOP.

He has, but it was as a Republican that he was elected and as a Republican that he continued campaigning in the following notoriety.

I'm not trying to make partisan comments or defend the Democrats with my suggestions that the race card may be played if Obama is selected, or the gender card if Hillary is. Both American parties are extremely broad churches and they don't seem to have the kind of discipline to throw out unacceptable members that you get in Australia. The USA being the kind of place it is, both parties have contained racist elements over a long period.

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2008, 07:42 PM
I'm not trying to make partisan comments or defend the Democrats with my suggestions that the race card may be played if Obama is selected, or the gender card if Hillary is. Both American parties are extremely broad churches and they don't seem to have the kind of discipline to throw out unacceptable members that you get in Australia. The USA being the kind of place it is, both parties have contained racist elements over a long period.
Yeah, unfortunately. It would be far better to focus on what the candidates stand for than the colour of their skin or whether they are XY or XX.

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2008, 08:28 PM
More seriously, I wonder what you think of his [Romney
s] proposal to spend $20 billion propping up Michigan's failing automotive industry...

Fred on the Bus (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24517):

The Fred Thompson in South Carolina this week is the one America saw knock into Mike Huckabee as a pro-life liberal with “blame America first” beliefs whose economic policies would destroy the economy. And the crowds love it.

...

Since Mitt Romney’s call for a government plan to save the automotive industry, Senator Thompson has been on a tear blasting him as the candidate who tailors his message to whichever group he is talking to. Taking on Mike Huckabee, Senator Thompson points out that he likes Mike Huckabee, but his policies and agenda are full of empty rhetoric and policies anathema to the entrepreneurial spirit in the United States. He points out that he and John McCain are friends, but he has “strong disagreements” with John McCain on issues such as immigration and taxes.

Polling in South Carolina shows Fred Thompson gaining momentum in the state. The campaign staff has noticed the crowds growing since Fred Thompson took on Mike Huckabee in the Fox News Debate. The message is clear — Thompson is the real conservative in the race.

There is an opening for Thompson. Mitt Romney has written off South Carolina, ceding the field to John McCain. Mike Huckabee is losing ground as voters learn more about his liberal record. Conservative rallying has begun to impact John McCain. There is a palpable sense in the crowds and among South Carolina reporters that the momentum is with Fred Thompson. And so the campaign soldiers on.

...

An attendee asked Thompson what he would do about Israel and the Palestinians. While complementary of the President, Thompson said, “Every President has thought he could solve the problem on the force of his personality, but he can’t.” He continued, “There are a lot of things that are possible in that situation, but one non-negotiable — the right of Israel to exist.” More applause. Another attendee asked about immigration. “A nation that cannot control its borders ceases to be a sovereign nation,” Thompson responded. The crowd drowned him out with applause. Then Thompson does what so many of the other candidates fail to do. He talks specifics and policies, mixed with humor and the recognition that what he is doing is rather unique.

It is a unique campaign. Like John McCain, who was written off for dead last June, Fred Thompson has begun a comeback. He has come back as the candidate everyone wanted to get in the race. In the process, he is owning the crowd.

pax
19-01-2008, 08:59 PM
Polling in South Carolina shows Fred Thompson gaining momentum in the state. The campaign staff has noticed the crowds growing since Fred Thompson took on Mike Huckabee in the Fox News Debate. The message is clear — Thompson is the real conservative in the race.

There is an opening for Thompson. Mitt Romney has written off South Carolina, ceding the field to John McCain. Mike Huckabee is losing ground as voters learn more about his liberal record. Conservative rallying has begun to impact John McCain. There is a palpable sense in the crowds and among South Carolina reporters that the momentum is with Fred Thompson. And so the campaign soldiers on.

This sounds like wishful thinking. I'll be extremely surprised if he finishes better than fourth.

Kevin Bonham
19-01-2008, 09:09 PM
This sounds like wishful thinking. I'll be extremely surprised if he finishes better than fourth.

I won't be that surprised if he runs third; in one poll taken Jan 16 he was level with Romney and in two others close to him (only in one was he a distant fourth). And in polls leading up to that he was within five points of Romney in more than half.

A four-poll average of the polls taken Jan 16 looks something like McCain 28 Huckabee 24.5 Romney 17.5 Thompson 15.

pax
19-01-2008, 09:15 PM
I won't be that surprised if he runs third; in one poll taken Jan 16 he was level with Romney and in two others close to him (only in one was he a distant fourth). And in polls leading up to that he was within five points of Romney in more than half.

My impression of Romney is that he is probably gaining ground. The last couple of weeks have put the economy at the top of the agenda, and whatever else you think about Romney he is a very very successful businessman and has probably the best economic credentials of anyone in the field.

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2008, 11:10 PM
My impression of Romney is that he is probably gaining ground. The last couple of weeks have put the economy at the top of the agenda, and whatever else you think about Romney he is a very very successful businessman and has probably the best economic credentials of anyone in the field.
But you noted yourself, with what seemed like disapproval, that he wanted to bail out Michigan's auto industry. That probably won him that state.

Indeed he does know how to run a business, so he might be one to stop the runaway spending that has infested both parties.

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2008, 11:12 PM
The final results of the survey ranked the Top Ten Conservative Issues as follows (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20700) (14 May 2007):


1. Illegal immigration — 86%
2. War on terrorism — 80%
3. Federal spending — 65%
4. Supreme Court and other judicial appointments — 64%
5. Flat tax/tax cuts — 61%
6. Size of government — 61%
7. Iraq — 55%
8. Social Security — 45%
9. Entitlement programs — 38%
10. Abortion — 36%

pax
19-01-2008, 11:27 PM
But you noted yourself, with what seemed like disapproval, that he wanted to bail out Michigan's auto industry. That probably won him that state.
Yes, I'm not saying that was a good idea. Just that Romney has been pushing his economic credentials recently, and it seems to be working.

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2008, 11:57 AM
In Nevada, Clinton has beaten Obama 50.7% to 45.2% with 98% reporting (figures based on numbers of county delegates won) but this is complicated by Obama having a 13:12 lead in national convention delegates won based on current preferences. Romney has won Nevada with 50% of straw poll votes to not more than 14% for anyone else and ... Ron Paul has run second ahead of McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, Giuliani, Hunter.

In SC with 61% reporting so far we have McCain leading on 33.53, Huckabee 29.74, Thompson currently third (!) 16.02, Romney 14.75, Paul 3.7, Giuliani 1.96, Hunter 0.24.

pax
20-01-2008, 01:02 PM
Ok, I was wrong. Thompson finished third. I guess this will keep him in until Florida.

Ron Paul's second in Nevada was interesting, even though nobody else campaigned. Giuliani looks as dismal as ever, but will stay in until Florida as he has put all his eggs in that basket.

John McCain now rather remarkably looks like a warm frontrunner for the GOP nomination. If he wins Florida, it's all over.

John Edwards' dismal 4% in Nevada will surely end his campaign. Obama is leading the polls in South Carolina, so I suspect this race will go at least to Super Tuesday and perhaps beyond.

Capablanca-Fan
20-01-2008, 01:25 PM
Ok, I was wrong. Thompson finished third. I guess this will keep him in until Florida.

Ron Paul's second in Nevada was interesting, even though nobody else campaigned. Giuliani looks as dismal as ever, but will stay in until Florida as he has put all his eggs in that basket.

John McCain now rather remarkably looks like a warm frontrunner for the GOP nomination. If he wins Florida, it's all over.

John Edwards' dismal 4% in Nevada will surely end his campaign. Obama is leading the polls in South Carolina, so I suspect this race will go at least to Super Tuesday and perhaps beyond.
Looks like a McCain–Romney two-horse race for the GOP unless Thompson or Giuliani can do something on Super Tuesday. I had thought that their asinine plurality voting system would be in Giuliani's favour by splitting the conservative vote. Fortunately not. Edwards staying on is likely to help Klinton in the Dem nomination, again because he splits the anti-Heilary vote.

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2008, 03:39 PM
Yeah, Edwards should do the credibility of the result a favour at this point by quitting and endorsing nobody. By staying in he is just distorting the contest between Obama and Clinton and he has no realistic hope.

pax
20-01-2008, 03:54 PM
Is Edwards hanging out for a VP ticket promise? An Edwards endorsement would be a big boost for either side right now.

I think Jono is right about the GOP nomination. Huckabee really needed SC, because it looks like he can't win the really big states (FL, CA, NY etc).

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2008, 03:57 PM
Is Edwards hanging out for a VP ticket promise?

May well be it. If he hangs in long enough and it's desperately close there may come a time when one side or other offers him the VP slot in return for him endorsing them and desisting.

Capablanca-Fan
21-01-2008, 01:30 AM
May well be it. If he hangs in long enough and it's desperately close there may come a time when one side or other offers him the VP slot in return for him endorsing them and desisting.
Any chance of a Hillary–Obama ticket?

pax
21-01-2008, 01:36 AM
Any chance of a Hillary–Obama ticket?
None. Too much sniping under the bridge for that, I think. And conventional wisdom says you have to have a southerner on the ticket to carry key states. Rumour has Wes Clark as the likely VP on the ticket.

Capablanca-Fan
21-01-2008, 01:41 AM
None. Too much sniping under the bridge for that, I think.
Even though the twin "firsts" of a woman and a black might be too much for some to resist?


And conventional wisdom says you have to have a southerner on the ticket to carry key states. Rumour has Wes Clark as the likely VP on the ticket.
Probably a better bet, after Mrs Edwards sniped at their neighbour basically for not being filthy rich. Yeah, Edwards will really appeal to the people.

For the GOP, I think either Giuliani or McCain would be far better for VP than for P.

pax
23-01-2008, 11:34 AM
Thompson has quit.

pax
23-01-2008, 11:36 AM
I wonder what are the chances of a McCain/Thompson ticket? Thompson supported McCain in 2000, and I can't recall them coming to blows in this campaign.

Capablanca-Fan
23-01-2008, 12:20 PM
I wonder what are the chances of a McCain/Thompson ticket? Thompson supported McCain in 2000, and I can't recall them coming to blows in this campaign.
Yeah, they are friends, apparently. Thompson might also win over those that McCain repels. Thompson would be broadly acceptably to all three main types of GOP supporter: those who emphasize a strong military action against terrorist threats, those for whom economic libertarian and fiscal conservativism are most important, and those who emphasize moral conservativism.

pax
23-01-2008, 12:37 PM
Yeah, they are friends, apparently. Thompson might also win over those that McCain repels. Thompson would be broadly acceptably to all three main types of GOP supporter: those who emphasize a strong military action against terrorist threats, those for whom economic libertarian and fiscal conservativism are most important, and those who emphasize moral conservativism.

Yes. I think McCain/Thompson might be a potentially very strong ticket.

Are there any VP candidates outside of those who ran for Pres? Condi perhaps, although she is probably too closely associated with the dreadfully unpopular Bush presidency. Colin Powell perhaps, but not with McCain (both too foreign policy aligned)?

Kevin Bonham
23-01-2008, 09:56 PM
I wonder what are the chances of a McCain/Thompson ticket?

The argument against that is that if you're running against a dynamic Democrat candidate then running one old fogey for President is bad enough without running another one for VP as well.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ is running the line that Thompson dropping out is a good result for the conservative Republicans (his removal from the campaign reducing the splitting of the vote and hence increasing their chances of beating McCain) and also a good result for the Democrats (for exactly the same reason since they would much rather face Romney or Huckabee than McCain).