Funny how not one of you actually responded specifically to the charges against Phil Gramm and the GOP Congress thwarting Clinton's anti-terror bills. g-man had a query and I responded to it.
The usual next step would be to respond to that. not to freak out and try to change the subject with the usual stupidity.
Originally Posted By: whomod
um... the problem is that you guys did read the propaganda. And even long after it's been exposed as such, you still live in denial.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Awww How cute. Sammitch is having a tantrum and trying to bury the evidence with greamlins.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: whomod
"You're either with us or against us"
Quote:
Now, it appears Gramm's association with the aging Republican senator's campaign is doing far more harm that previously known. UBS, a bank for which Gramm lobbied, is now under investigation for alleged use of overseas tax havens to hide assets of its wealthy clients from U.S. authorities while in office, Gramm also supported these tax havens after 9/11, which hampered the government's ability to track Osama bin Laden's financial network before 9/11.
Oh yes, the GOP is sooooo tough on terror.
I really don't know what MEM is so worried abut. McCain is neck deep in lobbyists. Some who support terrorists finances. Another campaign manager, Rick Davis has lobbying ties to Iran.
Not only that but McCain decided to ridicule Obama in a speech before APAC yesterday about talking with Iran and then unveils his own plan to enact sanctions.... a plan that Obama co-sponsored in the Senate a year ago. The Obama campaign notes that John McCain failed to support Iran sanctions legislation sponsored by Obama in 2007, a bill currently rumored to be “on hold” by Alabama Republican, Richard Shelby.
So much for consistency. If McCain can't even remember what bills he was against a year ago and thinks that finally coming around a year after Obama did and embracing his plan is considered having better judgement than Obama, I don't think the Democrats have a thing to be worried about.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
The "quote" you gave us is an anonymous blogger posting at Newsweek, not an actual Newsweek article.
You want corroboration? You know I enjoy it, G-Man....
U.S. investigators believe some of these clients may have used offshore accounts at UBS to illegally hide as much as $20 billion from the Internal Revenue Service. Doing so may have enabled these people to dodge $300 million or more in U.S. taxes, according to a government official connected with the investigation....
Using offshore accounts is not illegal for U.S. taxpayers, but hiding income in so-called "undeclared" accounts is. At issue is whether the UBS clients disclosed securities and assets held offshore to the IRS, as required by law. Switzerland does not consider tax evasion a crime, and using undeclared accounts is perfectly legal there.
The case could turn into an embarrassment for Marcel Rohner, the chief executive at UBS and the former head of its private bank,as well as for Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas who is now the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the Swiss bank's investment-banking arm. It also comes at a difficult time for UBS, which is reeling from $37 billion in soured investments, many of them linked to risky U.S. subprime mortgages.....
The U.S. was all set to join a global crackdown on criminal and terrorist money havens earlier this year. Thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers like Liechtenstein and Antigua, whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicates--and groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Then the Bush Administration took office.....
Long before the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government tried to declare war on tax havens and dirty money. After the 1998 attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa--attacks blamed on bin Laden's network--the Clinton Administration began drafting legislation designed to "strategically change the environment that allowed the money of criminals and terrorists to flow freely," says William Wechsler, a special adviser to Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. And the Administration began sounding out the banking industry......
Just days prior to Summers' announcement that he was cracking down on the OECD's tax havens, Dennis Nixon, chairman of the International Bank of Commerce in Laredo, gave $20,000 to the Republican National Committee. Already a Bush Pioneer, who had raised at least $100,000 for the primaries, Nixon gave the R.N.C. another $100,000 as the post-election contest for Florida ballots began. Summers' bill passed the House Banking Committee 31 to 1 in July 2000, but it got no further. Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, refused to let it come up for a vote in his committee.......
It took the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history to turn the Bush Administration around.
That would be the part where Richard Clark says "i told you so"
3)
Quote:
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PAPER TRAIL; Roadblocks Cited In Efforts to Trace Bin Laden's Money
By TIM WEINER AND DAVID CAY JOHNSTON Published: September 20, 2001 The New York Times
Congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The bill, introduced by the Clinton administration, would give the Treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the American financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations. It was strongly opposed by the banking industry and Mr. Gramm.
''I was right then and I am right now'' in opposing the bill, Mr. Gramm said yesterday. He called the bill ''totalitarian''
Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
* Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million * Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million * Passenger Profiling: $10 million * Screener Training: $5.3 million * Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million * Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4 million * Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million * Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million * Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million * Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million * Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million * Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million * Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million * Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million * Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million * Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million * Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million * Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million * Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million * Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million * Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million * Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.
According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same.
It's that kind of attitude that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen in the 1st place and then tried to blame it on the people who were actually trying to do something to prevent them.
I give you concrete articles from the past to prove my point and that point pisses you off so you dismiss and ridicule it.
I made my point. The Republicans weakened us before 9/11 and people like you were more focused on Clinton's blow jobs to even know who the fuck Bin laden was.
You ask for concrete evidence while you pull "facts" out of your ass? Maybe if clinton was less worried about chubbies giving him BJ's he would have gone after bin laden when he attacked the U.S.S. cole. Or did you forget about that? Maybe you should add that to your death toll in your signature you fucking retard.
I've already addressed all that time and again, maybe if you'd pay attention and stop listening to the people who most of the country already know as liars, you'd know that as well.
And as you can see from the linked articles if you'd actually stop to read instead of being a smarmy dumbass, you'd see that Clinton was doing plenty to try to thwart terrorism. All to fierce opposition from the Republican Congress who was more interested in the aforementioned blow jobs and land deal investigations.
Plus if you weren't such a dismissive dumbass, you could go to TIME magazine and read "9/11: The Secret History" where it details why exactly Clinton didn't attack after the Cole and why it ultimately was Bush who didn't respond to it.
Since you won't bother, I'll tell you. It was verified that Bin Laden attacked the Cole, in Dec 2000, with only weeks left in Clinton's Presidency. So he deferred it to Bush as to not embroil him in possible war coming into his Presidency without his agreement. And Richard Clark and everyone Clinton assembled to deal with Bin laden were demoted from Cabinet level positions and were derided as being "obsessed with Osama". The real threat you see was from ICBMS and thus the focus needed to be missile defense!
That pretty much gels with everything else I just posted. The Republicans belittled antiterrorism up until 9/11 and ten covered their asses by trying to blame Clinton. And it succeeded with the same dumbasses who thought Sadaam had WMD's and Al Queda ties.
I understand you guys are all right wing and Bush cock suckers, but you're entitled to your own beliefs, you aren't entitled to your own facts.
No. threatening my daughter is serious and I don't care who you are or are or are not capable of.
I don't take any chances with my family's safety and I was told that one shouldn't. Better safe than sorry.
If that makes you all feel like big scary men, so be it.
if that helps you cope, the fact is you got out debated and you decided to make that threat as a cop out. that makes you a loser. but you already knew that!
One more try. All my original points are still there. Whenever you're ready to debate something....
Originally Posted By: whomod
Funny how not one of you actually responded specifically to the charges against Phil Gramm and the GOP Congress thwarting Clinton's anti-terror bills. g-man had a query and I responded to it.
The usual next step would be to respond to that. not to freak out and try to change the subject with the usual stupidity.
Originally Posted By: whomod
um... the problem is that you guys did read the propaganda. And even long after it's been exposed as such, you still live in denial.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Awww How cute. Sammitch is having a tantrum and trying to bury the evidence with greamlins.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: whomod
"You're either with us or against us"
Quote:
Now, it appears Gramm's association with the aging Republican senator's campaign is doing far more harm that previously known. UBS, a bank for which Gramm lobbied, is now under investigation for alleged use of overseas tax havens to hide assets of its wealthy clients from U.S. authorities while in office, Gramm also supported these tax havens after 9/11, which hampered the government's ability to track Osama bin Laden's financial network before 9/11.
Oh yes, the GOP is sooooo tough on terror.
I really don't know what MEM is so worried abut. McCain is neck deep in lobbyists. Some who support terrorists finances. Another campaign manager, Rick Davis has lobbying ties to Iran.
Not only that but McCain decided to ridicule Obama in a speech before APAC yesterday about talking with Iran and then unveils his own plan to enact sanctions.... a plan that Obama co-sponsored in the Senate a year ago. The Obama campaign notes that John McCain failed to support Iran sanctions legislation sponsored by Obama in 2007, a bill currently rumored to be “on hold” by Alabama Republican, Richard Shelby.
So much for consistency. If McCain can't even remember what bills he was against a year ago and thinks that finally coming around a year after Obama did and embracing his plan is considered having better judgement than Obama, I don't think the Democrats have a thing to be worried about.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
The "quote" you gave us is an anonymous blogger posting at Newsweek, not an actual Newsweek article.
You want corroboration? You know I enjoy it, G-Man....
U.S. investigators believe some of these clients may have used offshore accounts at UBS to illegally hide as much as $20 billion from the Internal Revenue Service. Doing so may have enabled these people to dodge $300 million or more in U.S. taxes, according to a government official connected with the investigation....
Using offshore accounts is not illegal for U.S. taxpayers, but hiding income in so-called "undeclared" accounts is. At issue is whether the UBS clients disclosed securities and assets held offshore to the IRS, as required by law. Switzerland does not consider tax evasion a crime, and using undeclared accounts is perfectly legal there.
The case could turn into an embarrassment for Marcel Rohner, the chief executive at UBS and the former head of its private bank,as well as for Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas who is now the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the Swiss bank's investment-banking arm. It also comes at a difficult time for UBS, which is reeling from $37 billion in soured investments, many of them linked to risky U.S. subprime mortgages.....
The U.S. was all set to join a global crackdown on criminal and terrorist money havens earlier this year. Thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers like Liechtenstein and Antigua, whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicates--and groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Then the Bush Administration took office.....
Long before the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government tried to declare war on tax havens and dirty money. After the 1998 attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa--attacks blamed on bin Laden's network--the Clinton Administration began drafting legislation designed to "strategically change the environment that allowed the money of criminals and terrorists to flow freely," says William Wechsler, a special adviser to Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. And the Administration began sounding out the banking industry......
Just days prior to Summers' announcement that he was cracking down on the OECD's tax havens, Dennis Nixon, chairman of the International Bank of Commerce in Laredo, gave $20,000 to the Republican National Committee. Already a Bush Pioneer, who had raised at least $100,000 for the primaries, Nixon gave the R.N.C. another $100,000 as the post-election contest for Florida ballots began. Summers' bill passed the House Banking Committee 31 to 1 in July 2000, but it got no further. Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, refused to let it come up for a vote in his committee.......
It took the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history to turn the Bush Administration around.
That would be the part where Richard Clark says "i told you so"
3)
Quote:
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PAPER TRAIL; Roadblocks Cited In Efforts to Trace Bin Laden's Money
By TIM WEINER AND DAVID CAY JOHNSTON Published: September 20, 2001 The New York Times
Congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The bill, introduced by the Clinton administration, would give the Treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the American financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations. It was strongly opposed by the banking industry and Mr. Gramm.
''I was right then and I am right now'' in opposing the bill, Mr. Gramm said yesterday. He called the bill ''totalitarian''
Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
* Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million * Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million * Passenger Profiling: $10 million * Screener Training: $5.3 million * Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million * Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4 million * Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million * Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million * Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million * Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million * Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million * Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million * Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million * Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million * Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million * Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million * Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million * Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million * Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million * Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million * Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million * Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.
According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same.
It's that kind of attitude that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen in the 1st place and then tried to blame it on the people who were actually trying to do something to prevent them.
I give you concrete articles from the past to prove my point and that point pisses you off so you dismiss and ridicule it.
I made my point. The Republicans weakened us before 9/11 and people like you were more focused on Clinton's blow jobs to even know who the fuck Bin laden was.
You ask for concrete evidence while you pull "facts" out of your ass? Maybe if clinton was less worried about chubbies giving him BJ's he would have gone after bin laden when he attacked the U.S.S. cole. Or did you forget about that? Maybe you should add that to your death toll in your signature you fucking retard.
I've already addressed all that time and again, maybe if you'd pay attention and stop listening to the people who most of the country already know as liars, you'd know that as well.
And as you can see from the linked articles if you'd actually stop to read instead of being a smarmy dumbass, you'd see that Clinton was doing plenty to try to thwart terrorism. All to fierce opposition from the Republican Congress who was more interested in the aforementioned blow jobs and land deal investigations.
Plus if you weren't such a dismissive dumbass, you could go to TIME magazine and read "9/11: The Secret History" where it details why exactly Clinton didn't attack after the Cole and why it ultimately was Bush who didn't respond to it.
Since you won't bother, I'll tell you. It was verified that Bin Laden attacked the Cole, in Dec 2000, with only weeks left in Clinton's Presidency. So he deferred it to Bush as to not embroil him in possible war coming into his Presidency without his agreement. And Richard Clark and everyone Clinton assembled to deal with Bin laden were demoted from Cabinet level positions and were derided as being "obsessed with Osama". The real threat you see was from ICBMS and thus the focus needed to be missile defense!
That pretty much gels with everything else I just posted. The Republicans belittled antiterrorism up until 9/11 and ten covered their asses by trying to blame Clinton. And it succeeded with the same dumbasses who thought Sadaam had WMD's and Al Queda ties.
I understand you guys are all right wing and Bush cock suckers, but you're entitled to your own beliefs, you aren't entitled to your own facts.
Oh my fucking god. Whomod called the police without even knowing my real name.
This is me completely owning his ass. This is my fucking winning it all. This is whomod being a total and complete joke. Goodbye whomod, don't even bother showing your face around here anymore. Not even a self hater like you will be able to show your face around here. Farewell fucker.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
whomod's not here right now. He had to go punch his wife a few times to get the stress and frustration out of his system.
Uschi said: I won't rape you, I'll just fuck you 'till it hurts and then not stop and you'll cry.
MisterJLA: RACKS so hard, he called Jim Rome "Chris Everett." In Him, all porn is possible. He is far above mentions in so-called "blogs." RACK him, lest ye be lost!
"I can't even brush my teeth without gagging!" - Tommy Tantillo: Wank & Cry, heckpuppy, and general laughingstock
You know why you will always be wrong? Because you think everyone here is a full on bush supporter. You're so busy beating off to youtube clips to even read what someone else has said. You get the liberal anti-american talking points and repeat them, even though no ones listens. Just because you bought into the hate doesn't mean everyone else did to. Instead of getting to know someone elses point of view, you're too busy calling the cops because someone made an alt id of someone they never met. If you have something you want to debate, say it. Stop bringing in someone elses argument when you're too weak minded to bring your own.
I'll admit that at times in some of my more explanatory posts where I editorialize, I can be somewhat like Whomod.
But I'm not nearly the fanatical gloating partisan true believer that Whomod is.
You said it well that anyone who disagrees with him, he portrays as 100% gung-ho supporting W.Bush all the way. And that's clearly not the case, but he says it anyway.
But I'm not nearly the fanatical gloating partisan true believer that Whomod is.
.... You said it well that anyone who disagrees with him, he portrays as 100% gung-ho supporting W.Bush all the way. And that's clearly not the case, but he says it anyway.
you blame damn near everything on liberals and liberalism. whomod and myself don't blame nearly as much on bush as you do on liberals. and our allegations have basis in fact and logic, not gigantic leaps of the imagination (liberals trying to destroy western civilization).
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
But I'm not nearly the fanatical gloating partisan true believer that Whomod is.
.... You said it well that anyone who disagrees with him, he portrays as 100% gung-ho supporting W.Bush all the way. And that's clearly not the case, but he says it anyway.
you blame damn near everything on liberals and liberalism. whomod and myself don't blame nearly as much on bush as you do on liberals. and our allegations have basis in fact and logic, not gigantic leaps of the imagination (liberals trying to destroy western civilization).
Man, the irony!
I criticize a dominant marxist strain within the liberal/Democrat mindset, and its detrimental and anti-american effect.
But I also cite many individuals within the Democrat party that I think are patriots, who have a real understanding, concern and patriotism for the United States. Including Joseph Lieberman, Sam Nunn, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, Bob Graham, Byron Dorgan, and many others I've mentioned favorably across many topics.
So it's once again you trying to sweepingly paint something falsely, that just isn't true.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
But I'm not nearly the fanatical gloating partisan true believer that Whomod is.
.... You said it well that anyone who disagrees with him, he portrays as 100% gung-ho supporting W.Bush all the way. And that's clearly not the case, but he says it anyway.
you blame damn near everything on liberals and liberalism. whomod and myself don't blame nearly as much on bush as you do on liberals. and our allegations have basis in fact and logic, not gigantic leaps of the imagination (liberals trying to destroy western civilization).
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
But I'm not nearly the fanatical gloating partisan true believer that Whomod is.
.... You said it well that anyone who disagrees with him, he portrays as 100% gung-ho supporting W.Bush all the way. And that's clearly not the case, but he says it anyway.
you blame damn near everything on liberals and liberalism. whomod and myself
For four months John McCain had a clear field while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were at each other's throats. Given the opportunity, the Arizona Senator failed to define the debate in favorable terms, spending much of the valuable primary months defending himself on charges that his campaign staff was top heavy with lobbyists.
Conversely, McCain has so far eluded the anti-Republican tidal wave that threatens to sweep away the party's candidates at every level, from county councils to the U.S. Senate. Amid the early wreckage -- GOP partisan identification in the tank, three defeats in rock-solid GOP House districts, and the National Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees scratching for cash -- McCain stands competitive with Obama in national polls, running just 2.5 points behind.
The McCain campaign to date lends itself to contradictory assessments. The odds makers are leaning decisively in Obama's favor but McCain is not out of the running.
Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, has posted a PowerPoint study asserting that McCain currently hold slight leads in Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri and Nevada, and that Ohio is "a dead heat" and that Pennsylvania could go Republican. "This is a very good position for our campaign to be in," Davis contends
In fact, the survey data is not as favorable as Davis claims - Obama leads in all five of the most recent Pennsylvania polls by an average of 5.8 points, and he leads in Wisconsin by 2 points. Polling in the 19 states identified by RealClearPolitics as battlegrounds shows Obama in a better position than McCain, ahead in such Bush '04 states as Colorado and Iowa, and running very close in Virginia, New Mexico and Nevada.
In addition, the data on RealClearPolitics dispute another of Davis' claims --- that McCain has stronger favorable/unfavorable ratings than Obama. Instead, the recent average for McCain is 47.3 favorable to 40.8 unfavorable, or a +6.5; for Obama, it's 50.3 to 38.5, or +11.8 .
In not-for-attribution interviews, a number of Republicans were neither optimistic about his chances nor positive in their assessment of his campaign so far.
"I think we've got a world of problems," said one Republican strategist with extensive experience in presidential campaigns. He said this came home to him with a thud when he watched Obama and McCain give speeches last Tuesday, with the Democrat speaking before "20,000 screaming fans, while John McCain looked every bit of his 72 years" in a speech televised from New Orleans. This Republican cited the liberal blogger Atrios' description of McCain's speech with a green backdrop that made McCain "look like the cottage cheese in a lime Jell-O salad."
For McCain to stand a chance of winning, the operative contended, the campaign, the Republican National Committee, or an independent group will have to finance sustained negative ads developing a broad assault on Obama's credibility as a national leader at a time of terrorist threat. McCain, however, has gone out of his way to aggressively discourage such activity, the operative pointed out, which, he argued, may kill McCain's chances.
Another strategist with similar presidential experience said "McCain has not claimed the maverick ground that should be his. He has not seized the mantle of 'change' and reform that he could own by going to Washington and saying, 'you know me. You know I've been a reformer all my life. Now, here's how I am going to change Washington if you elect me president.' And he has not taken economic turf. He has not explained how he is going to grow, not Washington, as the Democrats plan, but this economy to meet the challenges of global competition."
Earlier this year, Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, wrote:
Quote:
McCain is an America nationalist and progressive reformer in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, but the real consistent line throughout his career is a belief in his own righteousness. This can lead him to great prescience, as on the surge; foolhardy lack of proportion, as on his crusade for campaign-finance reform; and party-splitting, self-destructive stubbornness, as on immigration reform. If Republicans pick him, he won't be the safe, known quantity they usually look for in a next-in-line nominee, but a go-it-alone politician, unpredictable except for the courage and irascibility he'll bring to whatever he does.
Asked what he thinks of the McCain campaign so far, Lowry replied:
Quote:
I'd say middling. But he's always going to have an enthusiasm, money, and charisma gap. The question is whether he can make up what might well be a solid Obama lead throughout the summer in the fall when people really focus on Obama... Probably the most important development in this period was McCain's embrace of the theme of reform, which I hope won't be jettisoned amid the critical reviews of the delivery and presentation of his New Orleans speech.
Tom Mann of the Brookings Institution argues that "McCain continues to embrace Bush policies on the most important issues, relying on a reputation for independence and moderation that could be lost in the heat of battle with Obama and the Democrats.... At the end of this long interlude, the only rationale for his election that has emerged is that Obama cannot be trusted to lead the country at a time of great danger because he is too inexperienced, naïve, liberal, elitist, and out of touch with American values. 'Elect me because the other guy is worse.' Not much of an argument in the face of gale-force winds blowing against the Republican Party."
Along similar lines, Norman Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, questioned whether McCain and his aides have "spent enough time and effort developing themes for why he should be president, not just why Obama should not-- especially themes that address the deep-seated anxiety voters feel that goes beyond current economic conditions."
Arch-conservative Bay Buchanan suggested that it may not matter what McCain does. Writing in Human Events on June 4, she declared:
Quote:
In reality there is only one candidate. Barack Obama. In November he will win or he will lose. John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama. The Senator from Arizona is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps.
Obama's wheeze to the finish line for the nomination kind of points out that McCain isn't the only one with concerns.
Besides, while many Obama supporters are still busy getting their last couple of final diggs at Hillary he's been smart enough to welcome some new potential supporters. How much that will hurt Obama in the general probably hasn't registered yet.
Besides, while many Obama supporters are still busy getting their last couple of final diggs at Hillary he's been smart enough to welcome some new potential supporters. How much that will hurt Obama in the general probably hasn't registered yet.
"smart"?
Not very.....
MEM, In an interview with Newsweek, John McCain tries to back away from his recent criticism of the media on behalf of Hilary Clinton:
Quote:
Q: Want to back up a little bit and talk about press coverage. One of the things that you mentioned in your speech in New Orleans was that you felt that the media hadn't recognized or had overlooked some of the attributes that Hillary Clinton had brought to the race. And I wondered—
MCCAIN: I did not [say that]—that was in prepared remarks, and I did not [say it]—I'm not in the business of commenting on the press and their coverage or not coverage...I can't change any of the coverage that I know of except to just campaign as hard as I can and try to seek the approval of the majority of my fellow citizens.
It is something that the American people will judge, and I won't complain about it and I won't praise it. I will just run my campaign and hope that the American people will make a judgment.
The problem is, he did say it:
Quote:
Senator Clinton has earned great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes receives.
Oh, he'll complain about it. Then he'll just lie about it. The question is, will MEM notice? The initial comment was of course designed to try to siphon Hillary supporters like MEM who are bitter and believe the old Hillary talking points about the biased media and the misogyny. Then McCain sort of did an about face and lied he ever said such a thing.
Ah the dread YouTube. Scourge of bald faced lies.
Here's the video:
Y'know, MEM, if you're so hurt and angry about Hilary not getting her way that you now want to rally around McCain, oh well. I'm sure the gOP will be a great place for you and gay rights, health care, the economy, Iraq etc. etc.
It is so what Hillary's platform was all about and
Children do this kind of stuff. Adults go on with their lives and get over it. Had it been the other way around, I would have enthusiastically supported Clinton, despite her many flaws and character issues. Because it beats 4 more years. And i've consistently said as much.
I've been a fan of McCain for quite some time Whomod. He's not from my party but he's got the experience & record that I like. Obama just doesn't have enough to get my vote. The Obama supporters who have been acting like children the last couple of months just make it a little easier to break a habit of automatically voting democrat.
Y'know, MEM, if you're so hurt and angry about Hilary not getting her way that you now want to rally around McCain, oh well. I'm sure the gOP will be a great place for you and gay rights, health care, the economy, Iraq etc. etc.
It is so what Hillary's platform was all about and
Children do this kind of stuff. Adults go on with their lives and get over it. Had it been the other way around, I would have enthusiastically supported Clinton, despite her many flaws and character issues. Because it beats 4 more years. And i've consistently said as much.
So... "adult" Democrats behave like automatons and mindlessly vote for whoever the Democrat candidate is?
More socialist rationalization from one of liberalism's most irrational spokespersons. Way to go, Whomod.
If you had your way, we'd be re-made in the Soviet image, and anyone who disagreed with you would be slandered, humiliated, jailed or executed.
Soviets.. traitors, militants... commies.... appeasers...Islamists....reds....anti-Amercans...etc. etc.
Ah so many idiotic insults, so little time...
No. Adult Democrats vote for the candidate that best reflects their views, not run to the candidate that isn't the guy that beat the one they wanted to win. They don't run to the guy having a platform that is 360 degrees the opposite of the candidate they were enthusiastically supporting supposedly because of her views.
Nubnuts.
But never let it be said that Wonder Boy passed up an opportunity to use the dumb language that old extremist John Birchers use against everyone not like them to explain way why everyone is against them.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Originally Posted By: whomod
Y'know, MEM, if you're so hurt and angry about Hilary not getting her way that you now want to rally around McCain, oh well. I'm sure the gOP will be a great place for you and gay rights, health care, the economy, Iraq etc. etc.
It is so what Hllary's platform was all about and
Children do this kind of stuff. Adults go on with their lives and get over it. Had it been the other way around, I would have enthusiastically supported Clinton, despite her many flaws and character issues. Because it beats 4 more years. And i've consistently said as much.
So... "adult" Democrats behave like automatons and mindlessly vote for whoever the Democrat candidate is?
More socialist rationalization from one of liberalism's most irrational spokespersons. Way to go, Whomod.
If you had your way, we'd be re-made in the Soviet image, and anyone who disagreed with you would be slandered, humiliated, jailed or executed.
Y'know, MEM, if you're so hurt and angry about Hilary not getting her way that you now want to rally around McCain, oh well. I'm sure the gOP will be a great place for you and gay rights, health care, the economy, Iraq etc. etc.
It is so what Hillary's platform was all about and
Children do this kind of stuff. Adults go on with their lives and get over it. Had it been the other way around, I would have enthusiastically supported Clinton, despite her many flaws and character issues. Because it beats 4 more years. And i've consistently said as much.
So... "adult" Democrats behave like automatons and mindlessly vote for whoever the Democrat candidate is?
More socialist rationalization from one of liberalism's most irrational spokespersons. Way to go, Whomod.
If you had your way, we'd be re-made in the Soviet image, and anyone who disagreed with you would be slandered, humiliated, jailed or executed.
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]
![[Linked Image from i6.photobucket.com]](http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/JoeMama13/RedSoxBanner05.png)
whomod