|
Post by valpomike on Jan 16, 2008 9:35:04 GMT -7
Mary,
Very well said.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by freetobe on Jan 17, 2008 19:30:46 GMT -7
Mary, Please do the same for me. Way back when, W. Wilson's ill's and his wife's supposed decisions on his behalf have long been rumoured. Many believe this is true. Compare this to Reagan and Nancy. I doubt that the Nancy astrolgical connection influenced the direction of the nation, but who knows, I sure don't.Wonder if the claims about Namcy and Frank Sinatra will ever be substantiated. FDR's relationship with his secretary? I think that was the connection. It was well known at the time by media close to the presidency, but never reported until FDR's death. JFK's and RFK's sexual peccadillos have been reported only after thier death. Insiders knew of this for a long time. LBJ was a notorious womanizer, but who knew during his presidency. Nixon, a paranoid leader, (the checkers speech) and "you won't have me to kick around" was a precursor to his later problems which eventually led to his resignation. My opinion of the Clinton presidency, they did an excellent job on the economy and the budget.The Kosova war? any one remember this? was a non event. BC and his advisors were totally out of it with the Lewinsky and Jones charges. Granted hind sight is 20/20, but the "I did not have sexual intercourse" was an enormous blunder. Mary, I have been a member of my political party for some years. Been through the election process many times. I may seem jaded, but pols and thier close advisors are not working for us, only themselves. Don't ask why I continue with this. It just seems to be a medium for change over time. Joan
|
|
Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Jan 17, 2008 19:55:35 GMT -7
Joan,
Very good points. I highly doubt there were many presidents who were completely "clean". It will be interesting to see how this election goes and if we will see real "change" and for the better.
Like you, I keep hoping!
Mary
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 19, 2008 0:42:25 GMT -7
Many presidential candidates seem to have problems in their private lives. In this aspect, Clinton affair looks less and less significant. Below is something about senator McCain:www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14268.html#more-14268Volunteers making telephone calls for Senator John McCain in South Carolina last weekend noticed something odd: Four people contacted said in remarkably similar language that they opposed Mr. McCain for president because of his 1980 divorce from his first wife, Carol, who raised the couple’s three children while Mr. McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. […] [O]n Saturday night, within hours after Mr. McCain’s advisers learned of the people who objected to Mr. McCain’s divorce, his campaign sent out an e-mail alert to thousands of South Carolina supporters warning them of a potential dirty tricks campaign and advising them to call a McCain Truth Hot Line if they learned anything more. Now, I don’t like ugly smear-jobs against any candidate, regardless of party or ideology, but this one stood out for me — because it’s not really a smear-job at all. The NYT article included this among a litany of attacks, the rest of which were false. But here’s the key point the NYT article didn’t mention: the charge about McCain’s personal life happens to be accurate. Indeed, he’s admitted it publicly. McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof, “aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich.” McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife’s family money. In 2000, McCain managed to deflect media questioning about his first marriage with a deft admission of responsibility for its failure.I hate to break it to the McCain campaign, but pointing out the truth about the senator’s messy private life — he is the first admitted adulterer to ever seek the Republican presidential nomination — is not a “dirty trick.”
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Jan 19, 2008 5:52:14 GMT -7
Jaga,
John McCain is one of the few Republican candidates I liked and I just want to say this, NOBODY IS PERFECT! Secondly, the majority of Americans did not have to endure what he endured in Vietnam during his prisoner of war period there. The guys were treated very badly there. We don't know what was going on inside the McCain household back then, what problems that couple had back then.
Fact is probably that he divorced and married that rich women! But we don't know the conditions behind the cutrain of the private lives of these three people back then. It is for me even more difficult to judge about that man over here thousands of miles away!
But if a republican wins I hope it will be McCain! Although my first favorites are Obama and Clinton. Obama nr.1, Clinton nr.2 and McCain nr.3!
Pieter
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Jan 19, 2008 9:39:13 GMT -7
pieter,
McCain is running on his war record. I feel sorry for what he put up with, but this does not make him a great candidate. His stand on illegals is poor, and he is to close with Ted Kennedy, why? Obama, is running on his color, he has done nothing in congress, and has things in his closet in Chicago, bad dealings with bad people. Clinton, also had done nothing in congress, and is running on the coat tails of Bill. And I don't want, or need another term with Bill in control, and we all know he would be. Check out the others, for what they stand for, there may be a good one, overlooked. The news media is pushing McCain, because, they know he can be beat by Clinton or Obama. Not because he is good.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 19, 2008 10:59:17 GMT -7
Pieter,
I do like McCain also. But now, all these accusations against Clinton seem to be very weak when you compare it to the record of other candidates.
Michael,
interesting analysis. I know that McCain record on immigration is debated among Republicans. Referring to Hillary, I do believe that she is a strong woman and she could be a good president but her election would cause some Clinton-haters to go crazy. The country would be very divided under another Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Jan 19, 2008 17:47:46 GMT -7
Jaga,
This could be another term for Bill, and the world would be very divided and unhappy with this. You did not say anything on Obama, what do you think of him? What do you think of the immigration item? Why do you think Clinton is strong, because she cried, for the camera? I can do that, but that does not make me strong. As far as the Republicans, I guess you like Ron Paul?
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Jan 20, 2008 10:12:39 GMT -7
Jaga,
You never did say what you think of Ron Paul. I think he is nuts, but that is me.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Jan 20, 2008 10:17:15 GMT -7
Jaga, You never did say what you think of Ron Paul. I think he is nuts, but that is me. Michael Dabrowski Mike, I'm not sure he's "nuts", but I find it difficult to take him seriously. I think the front runners are getting clearer and the rest are ready to throw in the towel. Then we can get down to business. Mary
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 20, 2008 10:51:04 GMT -7
Mike,
+++You never did say what you think of Ron Paul. +++
I did talk about many of the issues. I said that I like Ron Paul although I would find it hard to vote for him. He is not an establishment candidate. I like voting for non-establisment candidates.
+++Why do you think Clinton is strong, because she cried, for the camera?+++
this is loaded question. I hate when people think that sen. Clinton is some type of calculated witch without any human feelings. She did not really cried, her voice only changed. Everybody sometimes cries, when men candidate cry - it is seen as very human and emotional. For women - there is a different norm. They should behave like calculated men and if they do - they are called heartless.
I also said that I am not a supporter of H. Clinton because she would divide the nation and FoxNews and radio show hosts would be so happy to have the next 4 years to talk about Clintons over and over again.
But I do not understand your logic. You hate Bill Clinton for his affair (which by the way looks very weak compared to Guliani and McCain). But this was not Hillary fault. You hate Hillary, for what? She has nothing to do with his husband's so called affair? You hate her because she is woman and you believe that she would rely on Bill?
You and other people never mention any economy problems. Why economy is so bad now - after 8 years of Bush and it was so good during your hated Clinton?
|
|
kanga
Freshman Pole
Posts: 39
|
Post by kanga on Jan 20, 2008 17:26:01 GMT -7
pieter, McCain is running on his war record. I feel sorry for what he put up with, but this does not make him a great candidate. His stand on illegals is poor, and he is to close with Ted Kennedy, why? Obama, is running on his color, he has done nothing in congress, and has things in his closet in Chicago, bad dealings with bad people. Clinton, also had done nothing in congress, and is running on the coat tails of Bill. And I don't want, or need another term with Bill in control, and we all know he would be. Check out the others, for what they stand for, there may be a good one, overlooked. The news media is pushing McCain, because, they know he can be beat by Clinton or Obama. Not because he is good. Michael Dabrowski Michael, I like the American people, but I think the US as a world leader is well and truly over, this has been brought about by poor leadership and greed, the candidates for the US Presidentcy have not the skills to change this. Everyday as the US sinks into recession a lot of people are saying the US are getting there just deserts, unfortunately the recession will have dire results in other countries (including Poland) This leads to a question as to who wants to be in partnership with the US...hmmm no one. they are becoming a liability.
|
|
Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Jan 20, 2008 18:11:26 GMT -7
Michael, I like the American people, but I think the US as a world leader is well and truly over, this has been brought about by poor leadership and greed, the candidates for the US Presidentcy have not the skills to change this. Everyday as the US sinks into recession a lot of people are saying the US are getting there just deserts, unfortunately the recession will have dire results in other countries (including Poland) This leads to a question as to who wants to be in partnership with the US...hmmm no one. they are becoming a liability. Hummmm Perhaps we could just cut out all that foreign aid and fix our economy, since no one wants to be friends with us. The 2007 budget for foreign aid was 21.3 billion, yes BILLION. It sure could be better used at home if no one else wants it! (of course I'm being sarcastic..) Read more here; www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/June/20060609155345AKllennoCcM0.3621942.htmlMary
|
|
Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Jan 20, 2008 19:04:56 GMT -7
Speaking of foreign aid: The US is usually the first to come to the aid of others in tragic times, Like the recent Sunami. But who comes to our aid? Without an selfish motive? I'm not stumping for Rudy here, but remember 9/11, when the Saudi Prince offered 10 Million, and strongly suggested we needed to change our policies and that we caused this! Preposterous! At least Rudy stood up for what most of us feel was right. Here's the article from CNN: Giuliani rejects $10 million from Saudi prince NEW YORK (CNN) --Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Thursday the city would not accept a $10 million donation for disaster relief from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal after the prince suggested U.S. policies in the Middle East contributed to the September 11 attacks. "I entirely reject that statement," Giuliani said. "There is no moral equivalent for this [terrorist] act. There is no justification for it. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification for it when they slaughtered 4,000 or 5,000 innocent people." Prince Alwaleed gave the mayor a check after a Thursday morning memorial service at Ground Zero, the site of the World Trade Center towers destroyed in the attacks. The prince offered his condolences to the people of New York, but after the ceremony he released a statement suggesting the United States "must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack." "The check has not been deposited. The Twin Towers Fund has not accepted it," Giuliani said in a statement late Thursday. The prince's statement said the United States "should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause. "While the U.N. passed clear resolutions numbered 242 and 338 calling for the Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip decades ago, our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek," the statement said. Giuliani flatly rejected the prince's position. "To suggest that there's a justification for [the terrorist attacks] only invites this happening in the future," he said. "It is highly irresponsible and very, very dangerous. "And one of the reasons I think this happened is because people were engaged in moral equivalency in not understanding the difference between liberal democracies like the United States, like Israel, and terrorist states and those who condone terrorism. "So I think not only are those statements wrong, they're part of the problem," Giuliani said. Find this article at: archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/11/rec.giuliani.prince/index.html
|
|
kanga
Freshman Pole
Posts: 39
|
Post by kanga on Jan 20, 2008 20:37:38 GMT -7
Speaking of foreign aid: The US is usually the first to come to the aid of others in tragic times, Like the recent Sunami. Per population ratio Australians gave the most to the Sunami appear.. sorry. Why do Americans count the cost in whatever they do, my mother would always tell me you don't get credit points (graces) if you count the cost?
|
|