dieseltaylor Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 To pay her tuition, she worked various jobs, including cleaning fish at her uncle's resort in Alaska.[4Must be something in the air. Lots of children, anti-abortion ..... And yea I do know it is Minnesota. Her opponent was cleared on the lobbying charge but is there anything else? But scumbaf Mahoney does get it : ) Mahoney, 52, lost his seat to scandal. But that's how he gained it in the first place. In 2006, his predecessor, 54-year-old Mark Foley, abruptly resigned after allegations that he sent sexually suggestive messages to young male pages on Capitol Hill. Berating Foley for not reflecting the "values and morals" necessary for office, Mahoney campaigned on a platform of ethics. One of his campaign ads read, over the image of him and his wife, "Restoring America's Values Begins at Home." But those promises—and Mahoney's chance for re-election—vanished less than a month ago. News broke that Mahoney had an affair with a woman on his staff, after which he fired her and allegedly paid $121,000 to avoid a sexual harassment lawsuit. Stories of that tryst were followed with another, this one with a Martin County government employee. She met Mahoney while seeking help to secure more than $3 million in hurricane cleanup funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mahoney admitted to "multiple affairs" but says he hasn't broken any laws. Still, his conduct is under investigation by both the FBI and a House ethics panel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 War heroes seem to fare very poorly when it comes to running for President. What determines who qualifies as a "war hero"? I think the term is often too loosely applied. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Probably losers like Ike and Kennedy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Well, soon the Bush cabal will be gone and there will no one to blame and kick around except the Democrats and Obama. I expect the Republicans and conservatives will get plenty of practice criticizing and undercutting the new administration over the next 4 years. It remains to be seen if this "change we can believe in" can overcome the reluctance of the other side to taking part in any change at all. Why can nobody identify exactly what this "change" will be and how he will do it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted November 6, 2008 Author Share Posted November 6, 2008 Yeah - he's going to have a rational foreign policy not based upon neo-con ideology - he's prepared to "talk to evil" for starters! I for one welcome our new American overlord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 War heroes seem to fare very poorly when it comes to running for President. Eh? Eisenhower and JFK, off the top of my head. Bush Senior too, perhaps, depending on how heroic you consider his service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_military_service Service in the armed forces doesn't seem to have been any barrier to election as president. Only 7 of 43 have no service, and most of the remainder have seen active service. *shrug* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Hey, why do you all dismiss Grant? The only US President to have a tank named after him - who else are there with credentials like that, Stalin? But probably Subvet is referring to how in two consecutive elections the losing (big party) candidate has been a veteran who was wounded in Vietnam. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Yeah - he's going to have a rational foreign policy not based upon neo-con ideology - he's prepared to "talk to evil" for starters! I for one welcome our new American overlord. Really? Besides sitting down for a chat with no pre-conditions, exactly what is his foreign policy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Why can nobody identify exactly what this "change" will be and how he will do it? Socialism, with a smile. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 GOD forbid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted November 6, 2008 Author Share Posted November 6, 2008 Really? Besides sitting down for a chat with no pre-conditions, exactly what is his foreign policy? sitting down for a chat is already more rational than Bush et al. nothing else is needed - but he has a few bits & pieces at his webpage - heck - you might even want to go and read it since you're clearly ignorant of it - it would be good if you at least paid some attention to where your next President is going to take you - then you can be informed and dismissive all at the same time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted November 6, 2008 Author Share Posted November 6, 2008 Hey, why do you all dismiss Grant? The only US President to have a tank named after him - who else are there with credentials like that, Stalin? Stalin was a US President? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Hey, why do you all dismiss Grant? I didn't dismiss him, he just didn't spring to mind After I reviewed the Wiki list I considered adding him, but decided against for that reason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Eh? Eisenhower and JFK, off the top of my head. Bush Senior too, perhaps, depending on how heroic you consider his service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_military_service Service in the armed forces doesn't seem to have been any barrier to election as president. Only 7 of 43 have no service, and most of the remainder have seen active service. *shrug* Being a war hero sure didn't help Kerry against Bush. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Stalin was a US President? No, but will be. See, that's Obama's REAL second name - he changed his name to Barack Hussein Obama to avoid controversy. Anyway, I'm sure that the Vietnamese Communist Party is mightily annoyed now. For nearly 30 years they've waited to get a man with their brain control chip into power so that they could finally reach world domination, and this is the result. All that evil plotting for naught. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Being a war hero sure didn't help Kerry against Bush. Veterans of unpopular wars like Vietnam have no chance. Veterans of Grenada, on the other hand... Btw. don't you all think that the historic US election result puts pressure on countries such as UK? Shouldn't we next be seeing a coloured British king or queen? Or can't they give equal rights to all the peoples they have enslaved in the past? Huh??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 sitting down for a chat is already more rational than Bush et al. nothing else is needed - but he has a few bits & pieces at his webpage - heck - you might even want to go and read it since you're clearly ignorant of it - it would be good if you at least paid some attention to where your next President is going to take you - then you can be informed and dismissive all at the same time Been there and read it: 1. He opposed the war in Iraq but offers no solutions of his own aside from leaving Saddam in power. 2. He'll sit down and talk to everybody so that all the world will love us again. 3. He'll auto-magically secure loose nuclear weapons (says not how) and they have this big goal to rid all of the world of nuclear weapons (energy?) but again says not how. This is my point; nobody knows anything about this guy except for his bumper-sticker slogans but ok, I'll sit back and see what happens, perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised. Perhaps it won't prove that he was elected because he was black, not Bush and didn't have Palin on his ticket and that he really was/is the best person for the job (experience forthcoming). He ran a brilliant campaign and McCain's was brain-dead. Republicans have gotten away from their conservative roots and so this was a well needed bloody nose. I worry about our national security but put my trust in Obama's hands at this point; so we shall see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 This is my point; nobody knows anything about this guy except for his bumper-sticker slogans In watching the campaign, convention and acceptance speeches I have really been intrigued by just how little substance there is in them. Both candidates are guilty, but Obama definitely more so. When you strip away the pretty language and the poetic phrases, they are usually saying nothing at all. Just variations of "We are Americans and Americans rock because we can elect our government." It's just utter fluff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Obama played his cards perfectly; I won't say anything that is news worthy here, but it is clear that he moved to center as the campaign went on (as most candidates do to appeal to both parties) - tax cuts from a liberal? persue war in Afghanistan/Pakistan from a liberal? cuts in spending and government programs from a liberal? It also became clear that when he wasn't reading from his teleprompter, his true colors came out (ala "spread the wealth"). So, we'll see what his true agenda is a few months into his term. Carter tried to move us too far to the left and we saw what happened in his re-election. Times may of changed however, so again, we'll see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Carter tried to move us too far to the left... He did? Somehow I missed that. I was busy noticing such things as the beginnings of deregulation of various industries. I always thought he failed to be re-elected because he projected an image of ineffective, limp leadership. But maybe you saw something I didn't...? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 GJK Been there and read it: 1. He opposed the war in Iraq but offers no solutions of his own aside from leaving Saddam in power. Oh yes Iraq numero uno world threat. How many billions has it cost so far? how many lives? Seems to me his idea was pretty smart compared to the alternative. Some ideas here from Wiki Financial costs with approximately $474 billion spent as of 12/07 the CBO has estimated the total cost of the war in Iraq to U.S. taxpayers will be around $1.9 trillion.[267]The 2006 Lancet survey of casualties of the Iraq War estimated 654,965 Iraqi deaths (range of 392,979-942,636) from March 2003 to the end of June 2006.[27][28] That total number of deaths (all Iraqis) includes all excess deaths due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc, and includes civilians, military deaths and insurgent deaths. 601,027 were violent deaths (31% attributed to Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown.) A copy of a death certificate was available for a high proportion of the reported deaths (92 per cent of surveyed households produced one.)[27][252] The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%.) The survey results have been criticized as "ridiculous" and "extreme and improbable" by various critics such as the Iraqi government and Iraq Body Count project.[253][53][254] However, in a letter to The Age, published Oct. 21, 2006, 27 epidemiologists and health professionals defended the methods of the study, writing that the study's "methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously."An Opinion Research Business (ORB) survey conducted August 12-19, 2007 estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths due to the Iraq War (range of 733,158 to 1,446,063.) Out of a national sample of 1,499 Iraqi adults, 22% had one or more members of their household killed due to the Iraq War (poll accuracy +/-2.4%.)[255] ORB reported that 48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from car bombs, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance. It is the highest estimate given so far of civilian deaths in Iraq and is consistent with the Lancet study.[256][53] On January 28, 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken and as a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.[26]If Saddam had lived he would have been 70 this year - so how many lives are worth expediting regime change? The near $2trillion dollars could have built some pretty fine renewable energy plants and paid for Detroit to learn how to build frugal cars. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 (snip) This is my point; nobody knows anything about this guy except for his bumper-sticker (snip) Er, I beg to differ, but this is a tired old rehash of the initial GOP argument of "who?", as if Obama suddenly transported into this dimension from another one. He was hardly a dark horse candidate (no pun intended.) Obama's written about himself, his life and bio details are well known, his history as a community worker and later involvement in politics are all part of the public record. I'd suggest that if somebody claims that nothing is known about the man, then they haven't bothered looking very deep. Willful ignorance of a factual record is not much of an argument, is it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 1. [Obama] opposed the war in Iraq but offers no solutions of his own aside from leaving Saddam in power. Wow. Maybe someone should tell Obama that Saddam is - you know - dead now. His plan has no chance of working. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Good point gunnergoz 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.