TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Inevitability of Hillary and Rudy?
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by erdega Very wrong assertion . "democracy" , "human rights" are just means to an end , not the end by itself , that's why they are so hypocritical about "democracy","human rights" and the rest of it. They often compromise on means but never on the ends

If human rights and security are not the goals of American foreign policy, what would you say is? Resources? The Dems have been very clear on their criticism against the centrality of resources in the neo-conservative agenda in the Middle East.

quote:

NYTimes: May 2003 -- In a particularly testy exchange, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the panel's senior Democrat, berated Mr. Wolfowitz for the administration's failure to acknowledge publicly that the postwar efforts would cost billions of dollars, require years of involvement and get the United States bogged down just as it is in the Balkans. ''When is the president going to tell the American people that we're likely to be in the country of Iraq for three, four, five, six, eight, 10 years, with thousands of forces and spending billions of dollars? Because it's not been told to them yet.'' Mr. Biden said. ''I don't know about you, but home constituency doesn't understand that. They think Johnny and Jane are going to come marching home pretty soon.'' Mr. Wolfowitz said the pace of reconstruction was hard to predict. ''It's possible that things will go faster,'' he said. When he tried to discuss Iraq's resources for rebuilding the country -- notably its enormous oil fields -- Mr. Biden cut him off. ''What are the resources?'' Mr. Biden demanded. ''For us just to get to the point where we're talking about increasing to 1 million barrels per day export, there's going to be a need for a $5 billion investment in the oil fields to get to that point.''

quote:

2006: Attempting to reverse this perception and change U.S. policy, lawmakers in the House and Senate have passed legislation stating that the United States should not exert "control over any oil resource of Iraq." But usurping democracy here at home, Republicans stripped this language out of the bill's final version Hoping for better luck the second time around, Senator Joe Biden successfully led the charge to add this language to another bill currently awaiting final passage. In an ideal world, this legislation wouldn't be needed after Bush promised that, "The oil belongs to the Iraqi people." But actions speak louder than words. If democracy is to be upheld in Iraq and the constitution is to be protected, it should be the Iraqi people who decide how oil is managed, not the U.S. administration and Big Oil.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3466

So I don't see how you make the case that the United States (in general) is driven by a desire to seize resources, and not by a desire to provide security and human rights - note that I am NOT claiming democracy here, because that is a concept "championed" largely by the neo-cons as a means to greater control, and not a goal of American foreign policy in general.

quote:

Democratic party is also dominated by zionist/jewish nationalism, so much so they could exchange places with neocons or merge entirely and there would be no difference . Here is a good text about it The Jewish nationalist problem in the Democratic Party http://libertariantoday.blogspot.co...problem-in.html

No. Are there Zionists in the Democratic Party? Yes. Are some of the people you listed among them? Yes. Does that represent the party as a whole or liberalism as a whole? No. Does Zionism make one a neo-conservative? Definitely not. Completely different philosopies - yes there are people who adhere to both, just as there are people who adhere to neither. But there are plenty that adhere to only one or the other.

Zionism =/= Neo-conservativism. Support for Israel =/= Neo-Conservativism.

quote:

You first denied neocon leftist roots , now you deny their clear zionist nationalist policies ? 30 Years Ago, Neocons Were More Candid About Their Israel-Centered Views http://www.philipweiss.org/mondowei...ars_ago_ne.html

Thirty years ago neo-conservativism didn't matter - it was merely an intellectual exercise until Reagan was elected. Intellectual political thought and think-tanks are a far cry from institutionalized policy. Are you familiar with American politics and how it works with foreign policy formulation?

If there were neo-conservatives that were once Trotskyist fine, but how does that mean that liberals are neo-conservative? I really don't understand how you are jumping to that conclusion based on the fact that a few former 1960's socialists became militant fascists later on in life.

quote:

Liberalism and Zionism is like 80% of what a neocon is , the rest being a schill to the big corporations and war industry. I am starting to wonder if its just your ignorance or you are pulling my leg here. Anyway , neocon zionist policies go far beyond Isreali issue and expand into the whole middle east as a struggle for natural resources and then further into the balkans and into russia.

Goodness gracious, do you have any idea what liberalism is??? You're sounding paranoid.

How do the Balkans and Russia fit into your perceived liberal strategy to take over the world's resources??

quote:

Neocons use hitler and nazi analogies purely on their intended targets as a way to dehumanize them. We all know that neocons lie and distort information and reality in order to fit their agenda. As for Reagan , the only thing they worship is the enlargement of the military but most neocons come before Reagan, during 70's there was Henry Jackson who is a cult figure for all the neocons for his militancy which they adopted for their causes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson

Ok, so the philosophy originated before Reagan. I never claimed he invented it. But every single neo-conservative thinker and policy-maker today cites Reagan as the man who catalyzed the intellectual movement into one that actually affected policy. And as for the dehumanization thing, yeah, that's right out of the neo-conservative playbook, which is why you don't see liberals doing that.

quote:

I am very familiar with Joe Biden for one and who can forget him with that shiny combed hair and frequent racist outbursts (I know that he called Serbs "a bunch of illiterates, degenerates, baby killers, butchers and rapists, calling Obama "clean" and Indians that work in corner stores) , but otherwise he is another zionist fanatic and apologist.

His hair aside (relevant?), Biden is guilty as charged of saying some things that he shouldn't have said - but I challenge you to find one person in this whole world who hasn't said stupid stuff that can be deemed offensive. The fact is that over a 35 year career in public office, during which he spends more time speaking on the record than any other Senator in office, there are three prominent examples of that. So I have a hard time judging the man for it. A 'he who is without sin cast the first stone' kind of thing.

I take it that you're a Serb, since I have noticed a lot of Balkan-centered posts. That's cool. I am too (well, 1/2). But I have enough sense to realize that the Serbs (as well as the Croats and the Muslims) did some pretty stupid shit in the 90's and without context to that quote, I am not going to say it was racist. Was he talking about a specific group? Milosevic and his cronies?

quote:

As for his "plan in Iraq", it's just a fantasy because there is no one to negotiate with and there is no military solution, it sounds good just like democrats "we will end the war" but it escalates it .

I don't think you've read it. Here it is:

http://planforiraq.com/download

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov If human rights and security are not the goals of American foreign policy, what would you say is? Resources? The Dems have been very clear on their criticism against the centrality of resources in the neo-conservative agenda in the Middle East.

Imperialism, Zionist nationalism(Washington is dominated by nationalistic jews and others supported by Israeli lobby who treat US military as a private militia), conqering energy resources, crony capitalism and growing war industry. These are consistent goals and are never compromised . People in conquered lands are divided and never given full rights let alone given a chance to live their lives. America has completelly compromised concepts of "democracy" abroad and it may happen at home especially as most politicians and media don't bother with people at all. Note that less than 15% of people in US wanted the "surge" but it happened, 60% of people want to listen about Iraq but American networks have less 4% of their time to Iraq and there are many other instances of anti democratic practices .

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3466 So I don't see how you make the case that the United States (in general) is driven by a desire to seize resources, and not by a desire to provide security and human rights - note that I am NOT claiming democracy here, because that is a concept "championed" largely by the neo-cons as a means to greater control, and not a goal of American foreign policy in general.

We are talking about global power here which has killed millions of people and built wars based on nothing but lies , done it with total impunity and wants more . I am obviously not going to convince you since you seem to be skirting my words but a global power that barely cares about its own people certainly isn't bothered for someone across the globe. Of course it's about resources and its more about preventing someone else taking it over than for themselves

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov No. Are there Zionists in the Democratic Party? Yes. Are some of the people you listed among them? Yes. Does that represent the party as a whole or liberalism as a whole? No. Does Zionism make one a neo-conservative? Definitely not. Completely different philosopies - yes there are people who adhere to both, just as there are people who adhere to neither. But there are plenty that adhere to only one or the other.

All people listed are hard core zionists and many more. Just read and challenge something substantial with what they have done, especially with funding wars.

All Neocons are zionists. There is a problem of zionist nationalism in both parties and that is the problem of 2 party system. Zionists in Israel are israeli nationalists, zionists in posiitions of power in America and elsewhere are more brazen and have global visions of making US an imperial power with them at the helm and Israel a regional super power but more importantly destruction of any rival, real or perceived.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Zionism =/= Neo-conservativism. Support for Israel =/= Neo-Conservatism

if they say it and if they attack all of Israel's neighbors for phoney reasons it can only mean they do it for Israeli nationalism to destroy all of it's neighbors

http://us.altermedia.info/zionism/t...st-aei_449.html

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Thirty years ago neo-conservativism didn't matter - it was merely an intellectual exercise until Reagan was elected. Intellectual political thought and think-tanks are a far cry from institutionalized policy. Are you familiar with American politics and how it works with foreign policy formulation?

Well you have to go early in times and when they were nobodies and had unguarded moments to see what they are all about. So they say they were organizing for Israel, that's no secret. These think tanks are a way for them to avoid scrutiny so all the recent american operations were crafted not in public or in congress but in these think tanks. Recent escalation in Iraq was crafted there as was the war itself . The aggression on Iraq was crafted by Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) which is who is who of the neocons and zionists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish...ecurity_Affairs
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/artic.../documentid/454

The same "Institute" was responsible for drafting aggression plans on Serbia

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/artic...y/3,653,116,201

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov If there were neo-conservatives that were once Trotskyist fine, but how does that mean that liberals are neo-conservative? I really don't understand how you are jumping to that conclusion based on the fact that a few former 1960's socialists became militant fascists later on in life.

There is very little to nothing conservative about neocons for one. It's a misnomer with an intent to deceive and portray them as something different than liberals which they really are and to destroy genuine conservatives.
It's no stretch to think that "liberals" with the greater imperialist and zionist agenda should be classified as neocons. I listed some of those but there are dozens more so it's much easier to think of those that aren't and not many come to mind. As explained in an article:

Yet when the opportunity presented itself last May to attach troop-withdrawal deadlines that could have been made to stick by repeatedly inserting them into the Iraq war-spending package, Congressional Democrats and their GOP allies instead overwhelmingly voted President Bush $100 billion more in US taxpayer funds to escalate the war with no strings attached.

Democrats claimed it was because the president vetoed the first bill they sent containing withdrawal requirements. Yet when it mattered most and all they had to do was stick to their guns and keep sending the president bills with drawdown deadlines until he signed one in order to secure funding for the troops, they instead quickly caved in and granted Bush yet billions more in unregulated war money after one meager veto. Talk about �opposition� theatre.
Is that the behavior of a body that really wants to end the Iraq war?


Time and again a majority of Americans have told Washington that the Iraq war was a mistake and to start bringing the troops home; time and again numerous politicians from the two-party system (especially its Democrat wing) have nodded gravely and said to the voters: �You have been heard.� And time and again the voters have been betrayed by their �representatives.�

What is not widely known is that a large percentage national Democratic Party politicians are also Jewish nationalist Zionists, and many of them are in party leadership positions.

For example, Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the Democratic caucus and the fourth highest ranking Democrat in the House, was a patriotic volunteer during the first Gulf War in 1991 -- for Israel. As chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the 2006 elections, Emanuel hand-picked pro-Iraq war candidates in toss-up races, thus ensuring that the �change� being sold to voters by the Democrats wouldn�t dramatically affect the war status quo.

He was, however, able to help secure a record number of Jewish members (43) into Congress, an accomplishment that excited Doug Bloomfield, the former legislative director for AIPAC.

These new Jewish members have joined established Democrat Congressional leaders with staunch Jewish nationalist credentials such as Chuck Schumer, Tom Lantos, Gary Ackerman, Joe Lieberman, the notorious war profiteer Diane Feinstein, and many others.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Goodness gracious, do you have any idea what liberalism is??? You're sounding paranoid. How do the Balkans and Russia fit into your perceived liberal strategy to take over the world's resources??

Well you sound positivelly apologetic and you seem to think you know more than me. Liberalism is a method and it has a plundering and enslaving nature for the ruling elites and its inherently hypocritical so liberals usually compromise on principles for their gain.
We are talking here about imperialism, zionism and liberalism which is used by America and its allies . Balkans is their imperial playground , so is Iraq and its vast oil, Russia is the ultimate target and a reason for so much hostility by liberal zionists is again its vast resources and a feeling that Russia may not develop to ensure Zionist hegemony.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And as for the dehumanization thing, yeah, that's right out of the neo-conservative playbook, which is why you don't see liberals doing that.

Are you kidding?
Ever read new york times and ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Friedman

So liberals good but neocons bad?
Well I am sorry but these 2 are just playing good cop , bad cop, they are in essence same with same policies, financed by the same people and they can pass of as one.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov His hair aside (relevant?), Biden is guilty as charged of saying some things that he shouldn't have said - but I challenge you to find one person in this whole world who hasn't said stupid stuff that can be deemed offensive. The fact is that over a 35 year career in public office, during which he spends more time speaking on the record than any other Senator in office, there are three prominent examples of that. So I have a hard time judging the man for it. A 'he who is without sin cast the first stone' kind of thing.

Well there is a pattern to this guy than that and I am not sure why you defend him so much
The guy is a plagiarizer http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&r...m+biden&spell=1
a racist http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&r...en+racist&meta=
a terrorist suporter http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/...ater-biden.html
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/de...cfm?id=234433&&
and a zionist puppet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAZmO80dLfE
His hair is by far his best attribute so I was just complimenting him

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I take it that you're a Serb, since I have noticed a lot of Balkan-centered posts. That's cool. I am too (well, 1/2). But I have enough sense to realize that the Serbs (as well as the Croats and the Muslims) did some pretty stupid shit in the 90's and without context to that quote, I am not going to say it was racist. Was he talking about a specific group? Milosevic and his cronies? I don't think you've read it. Here it is: [/QUOhttp://planforiraq.com/download

Well let me say it, yes I am a canadian serb but I am not sure you are , 1/2,1/10 or whatever I am not sure what makes you one and why you seem to defend people like Biden.You sure do seem like an average american citizen unwilling to admit anything and under full grasp of mainstream media.
If you know so much you should know that Americans did that and more and got away with it which is why they ended up in Iraq like that but enough about you.

As for Biden's "plan", I heard about it before and I read it and immediatelly realized where it comes from. First sentence is delusional and fanatical"President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq". He seems to be plagirizing here directly from bosnia Dayton agreement. For those in the know, it talks about "federalism" and "regionalism" and all that but even though Americans have been trying to make Iraq like Bosnia by pulling various sides against each other, arming them and bombing them but several important differences happen in Iraq. First of all, it sees
amerian occupation and imperialism continue which is obviously not goint to get accepted by people there after all this time. It gives americans and their allies all the freedom while iraqis get to live in virtual cages. Thirdly, iraqis hate america and zionists more than they hate each other and there is this

An old Zionist dream: the partition of Iraq
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382195.html
US lawmakers voted Wednesday to split Iraq into a loose federation of sectarian-based regions and urged President George W Bush to press Iraqi leaders to agree. [dpa]
The proposal came from Senator Joseph Biden, the smart-ass who heads the chamber's foreign relations committee and is running for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination.
A few months ago, Sen. Biden, interviewed by Shalom TV, an American mainstream Jewish cable television network, called Israel "the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East". "I am a Zionist," stated Senator Biden. "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist."

The fact is there is no victory for America and he voted for that war in Iraq, they can't win militarily which should be clear after almost 5 years, they don't have anyone to negotiate with, they don't have any credibility at all in the region and so the only thing that remains is either withdrawal in defeat or escalating of war in the region which is what they are trying with Iran or make unrealistic proposals to pass time

quote:

Originally posted by erdega

This is a long post and I'm headed to bed, so I'll just jot some quick thoughts down.

I think we are agreeing more than you think... but the problem is our definition of "liberal" seems to be different. I wouldn't characterize Rahm Emanuel or Diane Feinstein as liberal at all really. Their track record in Congress has been spineless when it comes to standing up to the conservatives either on The Hill or in the White House. So in criticism of them over the war in Iraq, I definitely agree. I'm more of a Rep. Obey/Sen. Webb kind of guy myself.

I will admit to you that I don't know the ins and outs of the Kosovo conflict as well as I should - I am more familiar with Bosnia, since I study it as a conflict resolution major. But even as a patrilineal Serbian, I hesitate to call the NATO involvement completely unjustified. Overboard? Perhaps. But not totally unwarranted.

Some of the things you have said ring of some truth but strike me as a bit hyperbolic - I still don't agree that there is a broad conspiracy within the government to support Israel and build an empire with Israel as the crown jewel. There are far too many people that I have met in DC that wouldn't stand for it. However, I do think that the policy of the US government is that Israel is and will remain a key ally in the region. And when you compare Israel to other allies, such as Saudi Arabia, the home of many 9/11 attackers, I suppose it is somewhat understandable why someone like Biden would say that Israel is our best ally there. Again, I'm saying I understand why he said it but not that I agree with him.

I would be much more open to an argument that elements of the democratic party were apologists for the neo-conservative agenda, rather than complicit in it. I don't think they actively lobbied for the neo-conservative movement or anything like that, but I do believe they failed to stand up to it. The reason I focused on Biden was it is the first time I've really seen him lumped into the bunch with the other blue dog Dems... he's been much more vocal against this administration and it's policies than any of the other folks you mentioned. But I will admit that you have made me ask some questions about him. So I guess we'll leave it at that for now. You haven't convinced me, but you've definitely raised some good points. I think the truth, as usual, probably lies somewhere in the middle.

And as for me - well, despite your disbelief I am indeed part Serbian... the family originally came to the US around World War I, so I'm third-generation. Take that as you will.

Anyway, have a good night.

To be honest with you guys I havent read a single reply in this thread.

But let me add this fact: If Hillary gets nominated at as the front runner for the far left, the far left will lose the presidential elections. Hell, if she gets nominated and I were to run for the GOP Ill even beat her.

So if the far left wants to get to the white house they better nominate a candidate that can match up the GOP machine.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover To be honest with you guys I havent read a single reply in this thread.

*GASP!*

How shocking.

At least you're being honest in your ignorance, I'll give you that.

quote:

But let me add this fact: If Hillary gets nominated at as the front runner for the far left, the far left will lose the presidential elections. Hell, if she gets nominated and I were to run for the GOP Ill even beat her. So if the far left wants to get to the white house they better nominate a candidate that can match up the GOP machine.

The problem with your GOP "machine" is you can't even find a true candidate that you want to pull behind.

Thompson was supposed to be your savior, but Grandpa Fred has taken one too many naps on the campaign trail.

McCain continues his downward slide.

Romney blows a buttload of $ in Iowa and is still struggling to keep the lead there. Plus his Mormonism rubs many of your fundie Christians the wrong way. Not to mention his propensity to flip-flop worse than Kerry back in '04.

Giuliani can't say anything substantive other than ra ra 9/11, plus his pro-choice/anti-gay stances rub a slew of your fundies raw as hell, not to mention the bulk of firefighters and first-responders in New York absolutely despise the little prick. Not to mention carrying that "moral values" flag by fucking around on all his wives, let alone his interesting ties to Kerik which will likely be an albatross for him:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/b...14regan.html?hp

That leaves you with Huckabee, which Lebezniatnikov had posted some interesting unanswered questions in regards to his past behaviors, not to mention the poor sap denies the evolutionary process altogether.

Hillary's not my choice of candidates, and the mudslinging will most assuredly fly hard from you Right Wingers, but from the looks of things I think you've got plenty of issues in your own camp to worry about.

And I didn't even touch your serious issues in the coming Congressional elections - your Congressmen are dropping like flies, like this big fish did today:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecr...signation_.html

That's six of your Senators in this election cycle alone. What's worse for you, you've got a ton more seats up for grabs versus Democrats IN ADDITION to all your retirements.

So despite Congressional poll numbers being in the dirt, it looks like some very easy pickups in an even BIGGER Democratic majority in Congress. And to top things off, your party's having a major identity crisis on your presidential leader, not to mention a splintering of a major chunk in your party - the evangelicals:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/m...icals-t.html?hp

And you want us to worry about the Democrats? You bet, champ. You bet.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover But let me add this fact: If Hillary gets nominated at as the front runner for the far left, the far left will lose the presidential elections. Hell, if she gets nominated and I were to run for the GOP Ill even beat her. So if the far left wants to get to the white house they better nominate a candidate that can match up the GOP machine.

your understanding of politics and the political spectrum is akin to a 5 year old's. yeah, hillary is "far left"

fact is kid, after the disgrace that has been the previous 2 presidential terms, god could run on the GOP ticket and you'd still lose.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 That leaves you with Huckabee, which Lebezniatnikov had posted some interesting unanswered questions in regards to his past behaviors, not to mention the poor sap denies the evolutionary process altogether.

Don't worry, Huckabee is bringing the power of Chuck Norris to tomorrow's debate!

quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) � Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee appears to be milking cult hero Chuck Norris' endorsement for all it's worth. The former Arkansas governor told reporters on a conference call Monday morning that the �Walker Texas Ranger� star will be joining him at the CNN/YouTube debate this Wednesday night.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...youtube-debate/

Also, The Politico today is catching Huckabee fever:

quote:

Huckabee running race like a marathoner By: Roger Simon November 25, 2007 09:39 AM EST The surging former Arkansas governor is drawing more than attention: he's drawing fire from rivals. Photo: AP SAVE Digg del.icio.us Technorati reddit SHARE COMMENT PRINT EMAIL RECOMMEND It is not easy to say just who the Republican front-runner is right now. The candidate leading in the early states, Mitt Romney, is not doing well in national polls. And the candidate doing well in national polls, Rudy Giuliani, is not doing well in the early states. One candidate is surging, however, both in the national polls and in Iowa, where the first votes in the nation will be cast on Jan. 3. That candidate is Mike Huckabee, and because he is doing so well he has left that pleasant zone called �attention� and has entered that less pleasant one called �scrutiny.� It began in August, when Huckabee did surprisingly well in a straw poll at Ames, Iowa. Straw polls are a test of organization, i.e., how much you can spend to bribe people to show up, and Huckabee, who spent only about $150,000, came in second to Mitt Romney, who had spent more than $2 million in the state. �I can�t buy you,� Huckabee told the audience in Ames. �I don�t have the money. I can�t even rent you.� What Huckabee has instead of money, his critics feel, is the goodwill of the media who like his humor � intentional humor is rare among presidential candidates � and his persona of being �the conservative who is not mad at anybody.� Just as Fred Thompson has the adjective �laconic� hung around his neck in press accounts, Huckabee often has the word �affable� attached to his name. And because of good press or in spite of it, Huckabee has been on a real roll. Last week, a Reuters/Zogby poll showed that Huckabee had nearly tripled his support in just one month to move past Mitt Romney into third place nationally behind Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. Perhaps even better for Huckabee, last week�s Washington Post-ABC News poll showed him tripling his support in Iowa to move into second place just 4 percentage points behind Romney. �The surge for Huckabee is remarkable in size and intensity alike,� said Gary Langer, director of polling for ABC. �He�s attracted not just support, but enthusiastic support from core Republican groups including conservatives, evangelicals and strong abortion opponents.� There are also people who don�t like Huckabee, including wealthy Republicans who fear he won�t make them wealthier. Huckabee opposes what he calls the �sheer, unadulterated greed� of some wealthy business executives and says, �I won�t be the featured speaker for the folks on Wall Street when I win. I am the candidate of Main Street.� Back when Huckabee was considered a joke or, at best, a possible vice presidential candidate (which can be the same thing as a joke), he could easily be ignored by his opponents. But a surging Huckabee is a threat. So his critics are now attacking him for an alleged lack of fiscal responsibility � they say he was a big taxer and a big spender while governor of Arkansas � and for not being tough enough on immigration. Huckabee, while retaining his �affable� credentials, does hit back every now and then. A Baptist minister, he says he doesn�t speak �to� but comes �from� the evangelical community and sneers at those candidates who became �pro-life when they start running for president.� �I�m not just saying something that a focus group gave me or a room full of consultants handed me in the form of a script and said, �Hey, if you want to be president, go out and say this stuff,� � he told me. In the end, Huckabee says, voters will be able to discern which candidates are real and which are creations. �I will resonate with people who are looking for authenticity,� he says. Whoever the front-runner is right now, it is not Mike Huckabee, but he says not being ahead of the pack is a good place to be. He knows all about timing. A marathon runner, he once told me about those who break from the pack too early and hit the wall before reaching the finish line. �You can go out too quick, too early,� he said. �Those are the ones I pass.�

And lol at Latin not reading a single post.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, hillary is "far left"

No kidding - she is easily the most moderate Democrat in the field.

Interesting to watch what's happening in Iowa as that race remains close though:

quote:

Obama Camp: Hillary Campaign's Attacking Us Because She's No Longer Frontrunner By Greg Sargent - November 26, 2007, 2:53PM Earlier today the Hillary campaign opened up another front in the battle with Barack Obama, accusing him of breaking FEC law over a report in The Washington Post that said that Obama's PAC had been spreading donations around to supporters in the early primary states. Now Obama spokesman Bill Burton has responded with this: quote: Whatever happened to the confident frontrunner who said she wouldn�t attack other Democrats just two weeks ago? The latest personal attack from Hillary Clinton is a completely false attempt to misrepresent Barack Obama�s full disclosure of his campaign finances. Senator Obama's commitment to disclosure is one that Hillary Clinton does not share, and until Senator Clinton is willing to make this commitment -- by disclosing her White House records, the list of donors to her husband�s presidential library, how much her bundlers raise, and releasing her personal tax returns to the public -- she�s not really in a position to point fingers at others. The "whatever happened to" opening line is a play on the Hillary camp's frequent line about Obama: "Whatever happened to the politics of hope?" Also note the Obama campaign's suggestion that Hillary's no longer the frontrunner -- though she's still leading in national polls, at least one Iowa poll shows Obama with a slight edge in Iowa -- and the implication that Camp Hillary is in a panic about it.

Sorry, couldn't help myself...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r

She may not state her position, but she doesn't flip nearly so often as Romney or Giuliani.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov She may not state her position, but she doesn't flip nearly so often as Romney or Giuliani.

So, you've been counting?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r So, you've been counting?

I was actually referring to Hillary (we are in a Hillary thread no? Did I miss something?)

Here yea go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT1EWKFjkPI
(They didn't allow embedding on this one)



Honestly, is there a larger flip flopper than Clinton?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov This is a long post and I'm headed to bed, so I'll just jot some quick thoughts down. I think we are agreeing more than you think... but the problem is our definition of "liberal" seems to be different. I wouldn't characterize Rahm Emanuel or Diane Feinstein as liberal at all really. Their track record in Congress has been spineless when it comes to standing up to the conservatives either on The Hill or in the White House. So in criticism of them over the war in Iraq, I definitely agree. I'm more of a Rep. Obey/Sen. Webb kind of guy myself. I will admit to you that I don't know the ins and outs of the Kosovo conflict as well as I should - I am more familiar with Bosnia, since I study it as a conflict resolution major. But even as a patrilineal Serbian, I hesitate to call the NATO involvement completely unjustified. Overboard? Perhaps. But not totally unwarranted.

Yeah right, if they thought it was good , they would fight on the ground but all they did is bomb from afar.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Some of the things you have said ring of some truth but strike me as a bit hyperbolic - I still don't agree that there is a broad conspiracy within the government to support Israel and build an empire with Israel as the crown jewel. There are far too many people that I have met in DC that wouldn't stand for it. However, I do think that the policy of the US government is that Israel is and will remain a key ally in the region. And when you compare Israel to other allies, such as Saudi Arabia, the home of many 9/11 attackers, I suppose it is somewhat understandable why someone like Biden would say that Israel is our best ally there. Again, I'm saying I understand why he said it but not that I agree with him.

Well since you now assured me that Israel and their people in Washington are all good and benign just like Joe Biden is all good and benign , I guess I can relax and let them have it ,right

I mean I did expose Biden for you and you didn't even say thanks

Israel is the only country that is openly subsidized economically and militarilly by American taxpayers no matter the government in place only because of the enormous zionist presence in Washington. All the other regimes are weak and kept alive by american arms so they could sit there and play like ducks.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I would be much more open to an argument that elements of the democratic party were apologists for the neo-conservative agenda, rather than complicit in it. I don't think they actively lobbied for the neo-conservative movement or anything like that, but I do believe they failed to stand up to it. The reason I focused on Biden was it is the first time I've really seen him lumped into the bunch with the other blue dog Dems... he's been much more vocal against this administration and it's policies than any of the other folks you mentioned. But I will admit that you have made me ask some questions about him. So I guess we'll leave it at that for now. You haven't convinced me, but you've definitely raised some good points. I think the truth, as usual, probably lies somewhere in the middle.

I'd like to hear your counter points on Biden, imperialism and everything else instead and try to prove my points wrong instead of just generalizing them

America is democracy so the only way to make wars based on huge lies is if there is a huge collusion between the parties and the media. This is interesting
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_27/cover.html

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And as for me - well, despite your disbelief I am indeed part Serbian... the family originally came to the US around World War I, so I'm third-generation. Take that as you will. Anyway, have a good night.

well you should say that before as you seemed to be speaking from some serbian point which is obviously not the case . Are you working in DC ?

quote:

Originally posted by erdega Israel is the only country that is openly subsidized economically and militarilly by American taxpayers no matter the government in place only because of the enormous zionist presence in Washington. All the other regimes are weak and kept alive by american arms so they could sit there and play like ducks.

orly? just how much of Israel's $170 billion economy do you believe we Americans "subsidize"?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo orly? just how much of Israel's $170 billion economy do you believe we Americans "subsidize"?

Enough so that Israelis choose American subsidies over serious peace negotiations or maybe they don't have any choice since American zionists force it on them one way or the other .
But since you are into numbers, here is some numbers for you

US Military Aid to Israel Tops $30 Billion in 10 years
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff08182007.html

Israel is the only state whose economy and military and military industry is actively subsidized by American taxpayers no matter the regime in place

quote:

Originally posted by erdega Israel is the only state whose economy and military and military industry is actively subsidized by American taxpayers no matter the regime in place

quote:

Aid is central to Washington's relationship with Cairo. The US has provided Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815 million a year in economic assistance. All told, Egypt has received over $50 billion in US largesse since 1975.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html


But that's off-topic.

From the democratic campaign trail:

quote:

Biden: "OK" With Losing By Lynda Waddington Posted November 28, 2007 | 01:40 PM (EST) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following piece is published on Iowa Independent. The crowd of 100 people gathered at the Waverly Civic Center Tuesday night was hushed and thoughtful as Delaware Sen. Joe Biden answered an audience member's question regarding the difference between this run for the White House and his previous bid. Biden, a long-time member of the United States Senate, made a previous bid for the White House in the late 1980s, only to drop when he neglected to provide attribution for a portion of a speech by Neil Kinnock, then leader of the British Labour Party, during an Iowa campaign stop. Although Biden, who was considered the 1988 frontrunner, had previously used text from the speech with attribution on many occasions, the one where he did not was caught on video by aides to rival Michael Dukakis, and the incident brought about the end to Biden's campaign. Dukakis would later fire John Sasso, campaign manager and long-time chief of staff, over the incident. "You mentioned on Tim Russert a couple of weeks ago that maybe the last time you ran -- and I am paraphrasing -- that you were maybe a little to arrogant, maybe a little too confident," said the man who also confessed that he had voted Republican since the mid-1970s. "How has that changed now?" The man also suggested that Biden consider Arizona Sen. John McCain as his running mate, but Biden quickly dismissed that notion by saying that although McCain is one of his closest friends, and has been for 35 years, the two possess a fundamental divide when it comes to foreign policy. "What's different between now and then?" Biden asked as he summarized the question for those who couldn't hear. "Look, I want to make it clear to you. I don't think that I'm the guy Diogenes found -- the only honest man. That's not the case I'm making. I'm not making the case that, you know, I'll never tell a lie. What I'm saying is that I promise you I'll tell you what I think. I promise you. I promise you I will tell you what I think is needed -- and I'll make the case for it. This is because some things are worth losing an election over." Biden went on to discuss the May vote to fund the troops in Iraq. Despite campaign advisers cautioning him that his vote would be construed as being in favor of the war, Biden was the only Democratic presidential contender to give approval to the measure and has stated, on many occasions, that he made the right choice. "This is the key difference between 22 years ago and today," he said. "Today, I know exactly why I want to be president. I'm not saying I know I'm right about everything, but I know why I want to be president. I know what I will try to do. The difference between then and now is an easy call. That vote was worth losing an election over. "I respect the fact that you thought that vote was in support of the war and that I shouldn't have done it. But as long as there is one single, solitary soldier in harms way that I know I can protect -- that I know I can materially increase their chance of surviving -- I will do it." The difference this time around for him, Biden said, "is that it's okay to lose." "I really mean that," he added. "I want to be your president. But if the Lord Almighty came down and said, 'I guarantee you, Joe, that Barack or Hillary or John or Chris will do a better job than you as president' -- I give you my word that I'd say "thank you, God, I can go home.'" Biden said he is running because -- "honest to God" -- he feels he is the most qualified. Linda Engel, a former Republican who switched her party affiliation three months ago to caucus for a Democrat, said she agrees. "I used to listen to [Biden] during the [Robert] Bork confirmation hearings," said Engel. "I like what he says. A lot of it just makes sense and I do think he is the most qualified. The Republican side of me hates to admit it, but I do think he is the most qualified. He has the experience." Engel, a resident of Waverly, says she has been to campaign events for many candidates on both sides of the political aisle. "I like a lot of the things the Republicans have to say individually, but the lump of any one candidate doesn't appeal to me," she said. "I decided that I hated the idea of Hillary Clinton being the nominee enough -- I believe 'ABC,' Anybody But Clinton -- that I had to go over to the Democratic side just so I could try and stop that. "And the reason I don't like Hillary's candidacy is that she professes to be this liberated woman and this epitome of women's liberation and, really, she got where she is by following the 50's motto of picking a guy who had potential, grooming him and making him into what she wanted to be -- so that she could end up in the White House. That's not women's liberation... I have no respect for her as a liberator of women." During the event, Engel asked Biden for his views on immigration. In particular, she wanted to know if he was in favor of building a wall between the United States and Mexico. Biden told her and the audience that he did not favor or wall -- or a moat -- since neither would solve the problem. He proposed talks with the Mexican government to persuade them to take better care of their own citizenry. "I think we really need to look at the immigration policy with Mexico," Engel said. "I really am opposed to the wall. And I really think the people we need to create a policy about are not the educated, engineering-type people, but the people who do the stuff that we don't want to do. I mean, I can't think of anyone who wants to go out and pick tomatoes or strawberries. We need those people who are willing to come and do that. So, there needs to be some sort of mechanism to make it work. I'm not pretending to say how that needs to be. By that same token, I'm not saying that they need to be entitled to our health care and our education unless they become citizens."

Romney, Giuliani, and Paul all looked fairly awful in last night's debate.

Huckabee and McCain were clear winners in my opinion. Romney got beat down by Huckabee on religion and by McCain on torture, Ron Paul didn't really make any sense (he's an ob/gyn and he's NEVER seen a case of a woman needing an abortion to save her life? I suppose those evil womenz just make that crap up? And anyway, where does a libertarian get off advocating the appeal of a federal right protected under a Supreme Court ruling?), and then got called a Nazi sympathizer by McCain, and Giuliani took a beating by Anderson Cooper and Romney on immigration. Wow is the GOP field lackluster.

Huckabee, the creationist, seems the most qualified to be President these days... scary world we live in.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html

You again?

Egypt's aid is only proportional that Israel receives a much larger "aid" , 20 times modre per inhabitant infact. This aid only arms Egypt and a static regime there once again exposing american support for dictators and only so much that they can't threaten Israel. Egyptian economy doesn't have much if anything from this unlike Israelis who profit mightily and enjoy special status.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Romney, Giuliani, and Paul all looked fairly awful in last night's debate. Huckabee and McCain were clear winners in my opinion. Romney got beat down by Huckabee on religion and by McCain on torture, Ron Paul didn't really make any sense (he's an ob/gyn and he's NEVER seen a case of a woman needing an abortion to save her life? I suppose those evil womenz just make that crap up? And anyway, where does a libertarian get off advocating the appeal of a federal right protected under a Supreme Court ruling?), and then got called a Nazi sympathizer by McCain, and Giuliani took a beating by Anderson Cooper and Romney on immigration. Wow is the GOP field lackluster. Huckabee, the creationist, seems the most qualified to be President these days... scary world we live in.

I'm Groundhog Boy and I approve and endorse this message.



God, did they suck last night. I loved how they asked Romney about the Confederate flag first. He or Rudy were definitely the best to lead that one off.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I'm Groundhog Boy and I approve and endorse this message. God, did they suck last night. I loved how they asked Romney about the Confederate flag first. He or Rudy were definitely the best to lead that one off.

Yeah, and watching Anderson Cooper press Romney on the Bible was almost painful to watch. The things that matter in the GOP.

Anyone count how many times the economy was mentioned that night by the GOP candidates?

Anyone wanna take a guess as we're teasing the lines between inflation and recession with a major slump on the housing and credit markets?

C'mon, take a wild guess.......

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Anyone count how many times the economy was mentioned that night by the GOP candidates? Anyone wanna take a guess as we're teasing the lines between inflation and recession with a major slump on the housing and credit markets? C'mon, take a wild guess.......

It was interesting to see how many blonde college co-eds in this country seem to care about balancing the budget.

Also, out of 34 questions asked, only ONE was about Iraq. And none about the environment.

Biden doubled his support to 8% in Iowa and he's attributing it to his performance in this interview on Newshour. I have to admit, I already liked the guy, but this is great stuff:

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Dont forget that I also teach history You really should come down to Miami and take one of my courses. So for the first time you can learn something Youll be very lucky if you get me as your professor

Name of school and fellow staff members please, or shut the fuck up.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.