Hillary Pulls it Out.

[shereads]

SHEREADS

A few years ago I worked with a female prosecutor. D.J. was/is the best. I recall one occasion when she told a defense lawyer and his client "Gentleman, Mr. Johnson and I are gonna give you one chance to surrender and escape in a lifeboat. Otherwise we're gonna fuck you in the ass." .

Thanks, JB. I can always count on you to prove my point. Especially when you don't get it.

 

[neonlyte]

You have more faith in this electorate than I do, by far. I envy you.

My belief in the whole system went down in flames when Bush-Cheney were re-elected.

They were re-elected I thought the Supreme Court had just let him stay a little longer for the practice.

 

[rgraham666]

They were re-elected I thought the Supreme Court had just let him stay a little longer for the practice.

No. It was the first election that the Supreme Court said, "Stop re-counting. The election's over and Bush won."

Anton Scalia said doing that "gave him a great feeling."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The thing about Obama is he has a plan.

"My plan is that if elected I will make a plan. And despite a record of intense partisanship (for example, in my book I said we should allow votes on judicial nominations but in the Senate I refused to join the judicial nomination "detente" caucus), if elected I will magically 'bring us together' in a magical non-partisan kumbaya."

Color me skeptical.

 

[Pure]

hi rox,

you might note that you or someone made up the quote you attribute to Obama-- and then knock him for.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

hi rox,

you might note that you or someone made up the quote you attribute to Obama-- and then knock him for.

Mmmm, I thought it was self-evidently a parody, but then again She thought that about Baby Doc thread, so I suppose one can never assume these things. It's my parody.

 

[Pure]

It's catching!

ARON HELLER | January 11, 2008 09:05 PM EST |


JERUSALEM — A teary-eyed President Bush stopped in front of an aerial photo of Auschwitz on Friday at Israel's Holocaust memorial and said the U.S. should have sent bombers to prevent the extermination of Jews there.Yad Vashem's chairman, Avner Shalev, quoted Bush as saying the U.S. should have "bombed it." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Bush referred to the train tracks leading to Auschwitz, not the camp itself, where between 1.1 million and 1.5 million people were killed by Nazi Germany.

The issue of bombing the Nazi death camps or the rail lines leading to them has been debated for years _ and the lack of action was interpreted by some as a sign of Allied indifference.

The Allies had detailed reports about Auschwitz toward the end of World War II from escaped prisoners. But they chose not to bomb the camp, the rail lines, or any of the other Nazi death camps, preferring instead to focus all resources on the broader military effort.

Some experts note only late in the war did the United States have the capability to bomb the infamous camp in occupied Poland, and also faced a moral dilemma since such an operation could kill thousands of prisoners. Even Jewish leaders at the time struggled with the issue and many concluded that loss of innocent lives under such circumstances was justifiable.

Bush twice had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of the museum, said Shalev, who guided Bush through the exhibits.

 

[Cyberpawz]

There is a difference, the Clintons are notoriously known for faking emotion, Bush although is our president, and I voted for him twice cause it was the lesser of two evils, I don't think he has enough common sense or wit to actually fake cry.

 

[sr71plt]

There is a difference, the Clintons are notoriously known for faking emotion, Bush although is our president, and I voted for him twice cause it was the lesser of two evils, I don't think he has enough common sense or wit to actually fake cry.

I tend to agree. I think Bush might try to fake it, but I don't think he could pull it off. So, if it looked at all authentic, I'd probably believe it was. And I think almost everybody could shed geniune tears on a visit to Auschwitz.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't think this is a threadjack, because it is on the same subject. I have to marvel about the band-wagon nature of political pundits A few months ago, they were saying McCain was dead in the water because we weren't hearing that much about him. All of a sudden, because he wins the prmary in tiny NH, he is the front runner, and almost a shoo-in. Huckleberry was able to pull out a close, expected win in Iowa, and he suddenly became a sure thing.

Clinton lost a close contest in Iowa then won an equally close contest in NH. It was billed as the comeback the year, and a great upset. Now, she is billed as the leader of the pack again.

Personally, I think everybody on this forum, even Amicus and Pure, have more sense on this subject than those self-styled experts.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think this is a threadjack, because it is on the same subject. I have to marvel about the band-wagon nature of political pundits A few months ago, they were saying McCain was dead in the water because we weren't hearing that much about him. All of a sudden, because he wins the prmary in tiny NH, he is the front runner, and almost a shoo-in. Huckleberry was able to pull out a close, expected win in Iowa, and he suddenly became a sure thing.

Clinton lost a close contest in Iowa then won an equally close contest in NH. It was billed as the comeback the year, and a great upset. Now, she is billed as the leader of the pack again.

Personally, I think everybody on this forum, even Amicus and Pure, have more sense on this subject than those self-styled experts.

Well, if they buck the tide and are wrong, they get canned.

If they buck the tide and are right, their colleagues isolate them and make sure they get canned.

If they go with the tide, CNN continually calls them part of the best political reporting team on the air.

If they are all wrong, that's OK, because it gives them two more days of stuff to talk about on the air without going out and finding new stories.

And they are all operating from the same hokus pokus polls and their "informed sources" are just each other.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BOXLICKER

The news is entertainment, so the pundits try to make something outta nuthin, to keep folks tuned in.

But the real story isnt getting reported. Hillary thought she owned the black vote, and she doesnt. Obama thought the liberals would ignore his race, they havent. His win in Iowa scared them.

Hillary is now concentrating on hispanics and old white women, and tossed the blacks off the bus completely.

Obama has a bigger problem. If he gets elected President blacks lose their wooden leg and preferential treatment at the public welfare trough. You can bet the poverty pimps are thinking about it, and Bill Clinton is spelling it out for them privately.

 

[Pure]

jbj

i'm not sure the welfare picture for Black people would change much under Obana or HClinton. it might be noted that BClinton caused the scaling back of much 'welfare', including to Blacks. yet that hasn't dimmed his popularity with Black voters.

so although there's a grain of truthe to what you say, you're mainly just trying for provocation.

 

[shereads]

You might wish to check out the edition of GQ magazine that's now on the stands. (That's Gentlemen's Quarterly for those of you who are unfamiliar with gentlemen.) There's a cover story entitled,

THE HILLARY HATERS

and sub-titled,

Yes, Virginia, there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

You need to do more reading about Hillary and Obama.

 

[Pure]

hillary and obama

as i understand it, their voting patterns are very much the same on most issues, except that obama, historically, was absent, on some votes, or, in illinois, voted 'present.'

i classify both as mainstream liberals, but Hillary, like Bill, is nearer the right end of the liberal portion of the spectrum. iow, they're both somewhat middle-ish, but Obama may be slightly to the left of Hillary.
much about him is unknown. like Edwards, he may be talking up the populism, and whether it's really a 'people's' program remains to be seem.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

I'm speaking of their support from black voters and politicians.

 

[Byron In Exile]

The Allies had detailed reports about Auschwitz toward the end of World War II from escaped prisoners. But they chose not to bomb the camp, the rail lines, or any of the other Nazi death camps, preferring instead to focus all resources on the broader military effort.

Like incinerating Dresden.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

as i understand it, their voting patterns are very much the same on most issues, except that obama, historically, was absent, on some votes, or, in illinois, voted 'present.'

i classify both as mainstream liberals, but Hillary, like Bill, is nearer the right end of the liberal portion of the spectrum. iow, they're both somewhat middle-ish, but Obama may be slightly to the left of Hillary.
much about him is unknown. like Edwards, he may be talking up the populism, and whether it's really a 'people's' program remains to be seem.

I generally concur.

Shall I attempt a round-up of the other side?

I read a piece describing Huckleby's Edwards-like populism and his affection for Big Government as a US version of Euro Christian Democrats - God says make big government welfare states.

Romney and McCain are slick country-club republicans, Rockerfellerians, willing to make strategic excursions from the fairways to embrace specific postions popular with the liberal establishment media, like a health insurance program built on fiscal quicksand granted a dishonest "universal" label, or pro-incumbent infringements of political speech ("campaign finance reform"), respectively. Thompson a doctrinaire country clubber who's a good actor. None of them are true-belivers in anything except themselves.

Rudy's a little different - socially moderate, has a genuine record of cutting taxes and spending in an unlikely place (Reagan was only 1-for-2 there), plus a national security hawk (probably for opportunistic, tactical reasons); his roots as a prosecutor make him rather unattractive on the civil liberties front and unable to adopt an inspirational Reaganesque appeal to national roots.

Ron Paul is a genuine libertarian - although his voting record on earmarks doesn't bear much scrutiny - who has sold his soul to anti-immigration hysteria, but otherwise talks the libertarian talk with the freedom of knowing that he won't be the next prez (wouldn't it be fun if I'm wrong?)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Like incinerating Dresden.

Touche'. The post you quote might have added, "dedicated to the overall military effort, and scaring the piss out of the Russkies."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Certainly none of them are prepared or eager to deal with the very real problems about to explode into American consciousness.

Medicaid & Medicare were zero percent of the Federal budget in 1965, 25% of the Federal budget in 1975, and now about 45% of the budget. In ten years or so there will be zero discretionary spending by the Federal government when entitlements suck in every dollar. Middle Class America will work to support geezers, cripples, bureaucrats, and welfare moms.

Credit wont be available because too many people are ruined with foreclosures and bankruptcies and defaulted credit-card debt.

Taxes and insurance are destroying local economies.

And government regulations chase more industries offshore.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Certainly none of them are prepared or eager to deal with the very real problems about to explode into American consciousness.

. . . In ten years or so there will be zero discretionary spending by the Federal government when entitlements suck in every dollar. Middle Class America will work to support geezers, cripples, bureaucrats, and welfare moms.

Not gonna happen - the geezers are going to get a benefits-haircut. The politicians won't admit it (as they vote to expand unsustainable bennies) and the middle class doesn't want to think about it, but that's how this will resolve itself. The first cut will be means testing for Medicare and Social Security (turning them into pure welfare programs).

JBJ: "Taxes and insurance are destroying local economies. And government regulations chase more industries offshore."

Destroying is too strong a word - weakening is closer I think - a bad thing either way. The expanding web of regulations at every level of government is very worrisome. They threaten the "euro-sclerosis" of the US economy. Both things will mean slower economic growth in the future, with no corresponding benefits. It's sad, because in plain English that means less increase in human welfare and less reduction in suffering than would otherwise be the case.

 

[Boxlicker101]

i'm not sure the welfare picture for Black people would change much under Obana or HClinton. it might be noted that BClinton caused the scaling back of much 'welfare', including to Blacks. yet that hasn't dimmed his popularity with Black voters.

so although there's a grain of truthe to what you say, you're mainly just trying for provocation.

I believe this scaling back was more the work of the "Contract with America" of the Republican Congress during most of the Clinton presidency. Slick Willie did sign the bills making changes, but they weren't his ideas.

 

[Pure]

jbj

Medicaid & Medicare were zero percent of the Federal budget in 1965, 25% of the Federal budget in 1975, and now about 45% of the budget. In ten years or so there will be zero discretionary spending by the Federal government when entitlements suck in every dollar. Middle Class America will work to support geezers, cripples, bureaucrats, and welfare moms.

i must say i agree with rox, here. it's not likely to go that far.
you can't take a graph with the values, 0, 25, and 45, and make a valid projection *of the same rate of increase*, namely 65.

there are numerous ways of reining in costs, e.g. cutting benefits. this kind of problem has been dealt with. all the social democracies in Europe will deal with it. as far as medicine goes, cutting back to specific lists of necessary procedures is one way to lower costs of the program.
==

any gov in power, democrat or republican is going to face it, and deal with it in similar fashion.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

You may wanna do the math from the Census Bureau data.