Why are you for or against John McCain? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 02-10-2008, 07:36 PM

<h3>Below the two newspaper page images, I have posted a transcript of what I read on the two pages, concerning the background's of John McCain's father-in-law, James w. Hensley, and his brother Eugene.</h3>

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/hensley2.png" length=2025 width=1350><br>
The article begins above this sentence, at the right bottom of the page above.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/hensley3.png" length=2025 width=1350><br><p>

Quote:

Riudoso Race Track Owners Tied to Arizona Gambling

By Robert V. Beier

Former associated of Phoenix wheeler dealers and gambling interests once controlled Riudoso

Downs race track and whiile in New Mexico they apparently kept their business operations to

themselves.

Eugene V. Hensley and his brother James W. Hensley who purchased controlling stock of Riudoso

Racing Assn in December 1952, once worked for and with Kemper Marley, Phoenix millionaire

rancher and wholesale liquor dealer.

<h3>And When the Hensley brothers purchased control of the Lincoln County track, Phoenix gambler

Clarence E. "Teak" Baldwin simultaneously bought one third of the race track stock-- something

the Hensleys denied in a State Racing Commission hearing in May, 1953.</h3>

Marley, 70 was named recently in a police affadavit as the man who requested the contract

killings of Arizona Republic reporter Don Bolles, slain in a bomb attack last June and Arizona

Atty Gen Bruce Babbitt.

No attempt was made on Babbitt's (continued on A-16)

(Continued from A-1)

Ex-Owners Knew Arizona Gamblers

life. Marley has not been criminally charged.

An Investigative Reporters and Editors "IRE" report in it's Phoenix Project revealed Marley also

ran an organized crime ???? wire service for bookies that was managed at one time by Baldwin who

was convicted of income tax evasion in 1956.

The IRE investigation showed the Hensleys were associates of Marley and Baldwin in the 1930s,

1940s and early 1950s in Phoenix.

A search of commission records in Albuquerque by the Journal showed the racing body in the early

1950s was aware of the associations and leary of Mr. Baldwin connected with the Hensleys in

their purchase and operation of the track.

At a May 1953 commission hearing in Albuquerque records show the Hensley brothers readily told

of their connections with the Arizona wholesale liquor business and Marley in the 1930s and

1940s and the federal convictions in 1948 for making false entires on government records

regarding ???? liquor sales.

However, the Henleys denied at the same hearing that Baldwin their old croney in Phoenix, had

any stock interest in Ruidoso Downs.

But two years later, at another hearing records reflect Baldwin did have stock interest in the

track.

And the records show a federal lawsuit against Eugene Hensley in Albuquerque filed by trustees

for Baldwin to recover 362 shares of Ruidoso Racing Assn stock was settled for $40,000 and the stock was released to the Hensleys. This was in November, 1955.

Efforts by the Journal to contact the Hensley brothers were unsuccessful. Eugene, who now lives in El Paso, and James, a resident of Phoenix, were reported in Mazatlan, Mexico.

At the May, 1953 hearing, records show that the late Tom Closson, as chairman of the commission, told the Hensleys, "The namr of Teak Baldwin keeps creeping up as we go along in what the commission conveyed to you. The commission would not have Baldwin connected in any way, shape or form down there at Riuduso Downs."

The Hensleys, records show told the commissioner Baldwin had no money in the track, known as Hollywood Race Track prior to 1953.

It was brought out in the May 1953 hearing that Baldwin had been charged in Phoenix of doctoring drinks of patrons at his restaurant and then fleecing them in gambling games, according to IRE.

Baldwin later was acquitted of grand theft charges. Eugene Hensley revealed it was Baldwin who steered him to look at Ruidoso Downs which he and his brother purchased from the late OM "Hop" Lee Sr., a member of the commission and some Texas proncipals in December, 1952.

Eugene Hensley told the commission Baldwin was allowed to run the ???? men's kitchen at the track and had spent some of his own money for equipment.

In 1965, Baldwin also sued over a concession contract he allegedly had at the track. The suit in federal court in Albuquerue was dismissed.

As a result of reports concerning an alleged connection between the Hensleys and Baldwin, the commission in 1953 had the New Mexico State Police investigate the trio in Arizona.

The State Police investigation revealed Eugene Hensley had filed a suit against Baldwin in 1951 in an Arizona Court seeking $6,500 he allegedly had loaned to Baldwin. No disposition of the civil suit was mentioned in the records.

After his federal conviction and nine months in a Tucson federal prison camp Eugene Hensley told the commission he owned and operated a number of bars and cafes in Phoenix until ge purchased the Ruidoso Downs track.

James Hensley sold out his interest in the track in April, 1955. He was secretary-treasurer of the Ruidoso Racing Assn at the time and record do not reflect any further connection with the track.

Also testifying at the May 1953 hearing was RS "Stan" Snedigar, who was designated as secretary of racing at the track.

Formerly connected with Phoenix tracks as a racing official, Snedigar told the commission he was acquainted with the Hensleys and Baldwin in Arizona and detailed for the commission his knowledge of their business interests.

Snedigar later became a member of the Ruidoso Racing Assn board of directors and a minor stockholder in the track.

An IRE report lists RS Snedigar as a partner with Baldwin and others in three Phoenix restaurants and bars.

<h3>The 1953 State Police report in connection with it's Arizona investigation of the Hensleys and Baldwin noted Marley "owned a wire service formerly operated in connection with bookmaking of the Al Capone gang."

The same report listed Baldiwn as a "bookmaker for leading tracks" and said that Marley "is reputed to be the financial backer for bookies..."</h3>

The 1953 State Police report to the commission also included a transcript of a phone conversation between an officer in Sante Fe and a detective with the Phoenix Police Dpt. who said, "Our confidential files built upon Baldwin (and others) was loaned to some officials and never returned. We've never been able to locate them."

In November, 1966, Eugene Hensley was convicted of federal income tax evasion and failure to file income tax returns. Later, Eugene Hensley was barred from Ruidoso Downs by the Commission.

After unsuccessful appeals of the federal income tax comnvictions and the serving a sentence at ?? ????, Tex. federal reformatory, Eugene Hensley and his former wife, Martha Hensley, sold their controlling stock in the track in 1969.

I searched for and found the 1977 article after reading the reporting displayed in the middle of my last post, at this link:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2000-...y-spirits/full

The Albuquerque Journal ran their story of the Hensley brothers to coincide with the 23 part "Arizona Project", a 1-1/2 year investigative journalists' effort to find out who killed Arizona Republic newspaper's investigative reporter, Don Bollles, in June, 1976.

If you download the two Albuquerque Journal pages, you can read one installment of the 23 part IRE report that 40 journalists issued after their Arizona investigation, it appears next to the Hensley brothers article on page A1 and A16 and details more about the Hensley's patron, Kemper Marley.

My point is that John McCain used, at the least, flawed judgment in working for James Hensley, accepting his consistant campaign financial backing, and the political backing from Hensley's cronies.

Added to this is the "problem" that McCain's wife would be, if he won the presidential election, a first lady who is chair of a $300 million Arizona corporate conglomerate that was clearly founded and financed via "mob" connections and activities.

At what point in the founding and then in the progression of a business such as Hensely & Company beer distributors, is the company and the proceeds from it, suddenly "clean money"?

I cannot answer thatr question, and I don't think anyone else can. It is a situation which seems to tell us that it would be best to take a pass on John McCain, and his run for the presidency. How low must we sink to find our next president?

Ustwo · 02-10-2008, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

It is a situation which seems to tell us that it would be best to take a pass on John McCain, and his run for the presidency. How low must we sink to find our next president?

host I am shocked, shocked, you would not endorse a republican candidate.

You know JFK's own father was a bootlegger, thats one less removed than the father of the wife of McCain.

So would you have supported JFK?

host · 02-10-2008, 10:09 PM

You own a business. Would you hire John McCain as your office manager, or his wife? Both knowingly worked for (in McCain's case, his last employer in the private sector.....), and accepted extremely valuable assets and large amounts of cash from one of the most prominent mob connected men in Arizona, McCain's father-in-law, James W. Hensley.

Cindy McCain is chairperson of Hensley's business empire, obtained totally via his mob connections and activities.

Was Joe Kennedy ever convicted of a federal felony, or are there records that he was employed by the wealthiest and most corrupt mob boss in his state, from his teenaged years, in the late 1930s, until 1954, as Hensley was by Kemper Marley?

Did Joe Kennedy's brother, or any other member of his family, spend three stretches in federal prison, as a result of felony convictions? Hensley's brother and business partner, Eugene did.

McCain wasn't smart enough to avoid having his patron be, just four years after the "Arizona Project" journalist expose on the man, Hensley, and his own patron, Marley, be a mob connected businessman exposed in newspapers all over the country, in 23 installments, and then, in a book by the same name.

McCain wasn't smart enough to avoid having his wife end up running her mobbed up father's business, after his death.

McCain can keep the money that he married into, but that doesn't mean that the money is clean, or that he is clever or clean enough to serve as our president.

JFK was born into a family. He showed no interest in making money, or in running the family business. McCain went to work for a prominent mob soldier, he had to know....after he married the guy's 27 year old daughter, leaving his crippled wife and four kids to do it. Then he consented to allowing the mob soldier to bankroll his political campaigns.....

We're better than having someone like McCain be our president, because we know his judgment and his background. This is just the beginning. If McCain sitll gets the nomination, I won't be the problem.

I am briefing you about what McCain is facing. It is a proven background, and it disqalifies him. The democrats will insist that the press examine and cover all of it.

host · 02-21-2008, 01:34 AM

The McCains' boldness and hypocrisy apparently know no bounds:

Quote:

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/s...8/daily27.html
Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 2:08 PM MST
McCains bash remarks by ObamasThe Business Journal of Phoenix - by Mike Sunnucks Phoenix Business Journal

Arizona Sen. and Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been talking up a business-oriented message of low taxes, limited spending and a skepticism toward government-run health care as he looks toward a possible general election duel with Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

Cindy Hensley McCain, wife of the GOP senator and a Phoenix business executive in the meantime, also took her most high-profile step in the 2008 presidential race Tuesday night.

Cindy McCain is chairwoman of Phoenix-based Hensley & Co., the third-largest Anheuser-Busch wholesaler in the U.S. and one of the largest privately held businesses in Arizona. She took aim at comments made by Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic front-runner and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

"And let me tell you something: for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback," said Michelle Obama on the campaign trail earlier this week. She is an Ivy League-educated attorney.

Cindy McCain responded to that statement Tuesday night after her husband won the Wisconsin Republican primary.

"I'm proud of my country. I don't know about you, if you heard those words earlier -- I'm very proud of my country," Cindy McCain said.

Cindy McCain has been a constant companion on the campaign trail during Sen. McCain's presidential effort, but her comeback to Michelle Obama's statement was her most vocal comments to date.

Sen. McCain on Tuesday stressed his skepticism toward government focused solutions to health insurance. Sen. Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton both back government-mandate universal health insurance.

He also said federal taxes should "simpler, flatter, more pro-growth and pro-jobs" in Tuesday comments after his Wisconsin primary win. Sen. McCain has backed some business and Bush administration backed tax cuts in recent years, but opposed others. The Arizona senator has been making a "no-new taxes" pledge on the campaign trail in recent days and wants to cut corporate income tax rates to spur the economy.

Sen. Obama and Clinton want to rollback some of those tax reductions to help pay for increased social spending.

Sen. McCain also took aim at Sen. Obama and his often general remarks about "hope" and "change."

"I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promise no more than a holiday from history and return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people," Sen. McCain said.

dc_dux · 02-21-2008, 04:35 AM

One can only wonder if McCain will self-destruct with his legendary temper between now and November:

Quote:

Temper, temper. Republican John McCain is known for his. He's been dubbed "Senator Hothead" by more than one publication, but he's also had some success extracting his hatchet from several foreheads.

Even his Republican Senate colleagues are not spared his sharp tongue.

"F--- you," he shouted at Texas Sen. John Cornyn last year.

"Only an a------ would put together a budget like this," he told the former Budget Committee chairman, Sen. Pete Domenici, in 1999.

"I'm calling you a f------ jerk!" he once retorted to Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.

With Cornyn, he smoothed things over quickly. The two argued during a meeting on immigration legislation; Cornyn complained that McCain seemed to parachute in during the final stages of negotiations. "F--- you. I know more about this than anyone else in the room," McCain reportedly shouted.

Cornyn chuckled at the memory of what he called McCain's "aggressive expressions of differences." The Texan has endorsed McCain.

"He almost immediately apologized to me," Cornyn said last week. "I accepted his apology, and as far as I'm concerned, we've moved on down the road."

The political landscape in Arizona, McCain's home state, is littered with those who have incurred his wrath. Former Gov. Jane Hull pretended to hold a telephone receiver away from her ear to demonstrate a typical outburst from McCain in a 1999 interview with The New York Times.

McCain has even blown up at volunteers and, on occasion, the average Joe.

He often pokes fun at his reputation: "Thanks for the question, you little jerk," he said last year to a New Hampshire high school student wondering if McCain, at 71, was too old to be president.

Other times, his ire is all too real. This has prompted questions about whether his temperament is suited to the office of commander-in-chief or whether it might handicap him in a presidential campaign against either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton, who are not known for such outbursts.

"I decided I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger," Domenici told Newsweek in 2000....

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8URGKUO1.html

loquitur · 02-21-2008, 11:50 AM

To answer the poll question, I think McCain is probably the only Republican that has a plausible shot to win in Nov, so I think his nomination is a positive for the GOP. But I still don't think he is going to win. There are lots of reasons. At the top of the list is the sheer talent of the likely Democratic nominee, Obama.

Lebell · 03-01-2008, 03:05 PM

Good to see nothing much as changed around here

McCain vs Obama will be a tough call.

Too bad Billary doesn't appear to have a chance at the nomination now. Even my wife said she would vote for McCain over him and that's saying something.

Personally, I don't think Obama has the balls to fight terrorism anywhere. I doubt he would have done anything beyond hand wringing when the Towers went down and Afghanistan wouldn't hand over bin Landin.

While McCain isn't my ideal candidate, I don't think he is a pussy.

host · 03-02-2008, 06:57 AM

Lots of concern about the backgrounds and activities of John McCain's father- in-law and his brother, back then. Even though now, McCain's sole nongovernment employment, political career, and personal fortune all came from James Hensley, and McCain willingly accepted all of them, there is almost no concern about how this related to McCain's judgment or his ehtical standards.

Why do you suppose McCain's father-in-law James Hensley, was the focus of attention of two governors and so many other state watchdogs? Why do you think the Hensley brothers chose to move from the wholesale liquor distribution business to the horse racing track business, and with a partner who they tried to conceal from the racing commission?

Quote:

Link to photo of newspaper page: http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/hensgov.png

August 5, 1955

Politicians Tee Off Over Bitter Ruidoso Race Track Situation

By the Associated Press

...The Rev. Bluford Finch, who has filed suit against the state seeking to end Sunday racing, called on, Gov. John Simms to "cancel all racing daes for the protection of the public."

Simms 'Apalled'

Simms has earlier declared two brothers connected with the Ruidoso track have court records and that he is "appalled" that former Gov. Edwin L. Mechem and the racing commission relicensed them in 1953.

Mechem, a Republican, at first delcined to comment and then said he would not engage in a debate with the Democratic Simms administration. "I am not going to answer questions asked by Simms through the newspapers," Mechem added. "If the administration wants an answer let them ask me personally."

Simms' reference was to Eugene Hensley, majority stockholder in the track amd his brother James, who once owned stock in the association but is no longer connected with it.

Court records at Phoenix, Ariz, show that Eugene V. Hensley and James W. Hensley were sentenced there May 3, 1948, Eugene to one year and James to six months, for making false entries to the government on distilled liquor sales, both paid $2000 fines.

James Hensley's sentence was suspended, Fugene served a term.

No New Mexixo law would prohibit a person with a prison record from operating a race track....

Link to photo of newspaper page: http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/hensgov2.png
Page Six Albuquerque Journal Our Slant by Ed Minteen Associate Editor August 13, 1955

....Recently Gov. Simms blasted his predecessor, Gov. Meecham, for not doing something while in office about the Ruidoso racetrack situation. The governor termed Mechem's lack of action as "appalling."

Mechem has refused to engage in a pro and con brawl on the matter with Simms. He has said that if Simms wants to confer with him and ask any questions he'll be glad to answer them.

It has developed, however, that Gov.Simm's tirade on Mechem about the Ruidoso track operation, at least, borders on an alibi and "get-out-from-under" maneuver.

The facts that we present here come not to us from Mr. Mechem who refuses to talk. But they come from an authentic and unimpeachable source.

Just before Mechem left office he had a conference with the Governor-elect Simms. Mr. mechem went into the Ruidoso situation at some length and considerable detail with Mr. Simms. Maybe that time Mr. Simms was so excited over his pending ascendancy into the governor's chair that his memory of the conference failed him.

Anyway, at this conference Mechem warned Simms that a bad situation could develop at Ruidoso and advised him to watch it closely. mecehm had send investigators to Phoenix to go into the ownership angle and he also sent investigators to Ruidoso. One person trying to horn in on the ownership was barred as a result of the Mechem investigation.

The current operators, the Hensleys now under fire, were under constant surveillance during Mechem's administration. No action was taken against the Hensleys because the investigation showed that as tracks go, all laws apparently were being observed. But Mechem prodded tghe Racing Commission to be one the alert because he "was worried about it".

That was the state of affairs when Mechem in his pre-inaugural conference with Simms placed the whole picture before the incoming governor. The facts are that Mechem was going out of his way to be helpful to the new governor. Simms came into office and for six months not a peep out of him about the Ruidoso track. Then suddenly the track operation and ownership came to the public attention.

Now all our governor does is to shout about how appalling was Mechem's handling of the situation. But during the more than six months after Mechem has warned him to "watch the situation" apparently he had done no watching.

Mr. Simms in trying to pass the buck and squeezing out of the jams of his own making is generally quite proficient in hitting below the belt.

snowy · 03-02-2008, 09:36 AM

I'm tired of having rich, white men in power. Simple as that.

Willravel · 03-02-2008, 09:58 AM

HOLY SHIT IT'S LEBELL!!! Welcome back.

I don't think Obama will FIGHT terrorism, but rather actually stand a chance of STOPPING terrorism. Terrorism is simply desperate guerrilla tactics against a foe with superior military force. If they don't want to fight us anymore, we won't be in any danger. The idea that they're attacking us because they hate freedom or w/e is goofy. They're attacking us for very real reasons. Our military is in their land. Our corporations are buying up their most precious commodity for relatively cheap. Our leaders come on TV and call them evil and liars and say we're going to attack more and more.

robot_parade · 03-02-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

HOLY SHIT IT'S LEBELL!!! Welcome back.

I don't think Obama will FIGHT terrorism, but rather actually stand a chance of STOPPING terrorism. Terrorism is simply desperate guerrilla tactics against a foe with superior military force. If they don't want to fight us anymore, we won't be in any danger. The idea that they're attacking us because they hate freedom or w/e is goofy. They're attacking us for very real reasons. Our military is in their land. Our corporations are buying up their most precious commodity for relatively cheap. Our leaders come on TV and call them evil and liars and say we're going to attack more and more.

I think this is a good point. A lot of our problems in the world are self-created, and stem directly from times when We (America) didn't measure up to our own ideals. Our activities during the cold war, where we buddied up with murderous dictators and thugs because they would help us fight The Great Evil Commies. Our past, current, and future support of similar thugs who promise to ensure our access to cheap oil and other resources. We look the other way in regards to China's human rights abuses, yet claim similar abuses are reason enough to continue to shun Cuba.

It's all about compromising our core beliefs for what seems like a temporary gain. How many children are growing up *right now* hating the US because we took their daddies away, locked them up in Abu Ghraib or gitmo for 5 years and counting, with no trial or due process, and then tortured them?

If we start to play nice right now, we of course won't change the minds of all the people who want to kill us. There will always be crazy Muslims (and Christians!) who want to replace democratically elected governments with 'religious law'. But the way things are right now, we've bolstered there ranks because those same crazies can point to the truly reprehensible things we've done and say "See?! I told you! American thugs!"

But we *must* start now. The best way to undercut the terrorists in the world is to remove their support network - by *not* doing things that give people a legitimate reason to hate us.

Lebell · 03-04-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

HOLY SHIT IT'S LEBELL!!! Welcome back.

I don't think Obama will FIGHT terrorism, but rather actually stand a chance of STOPPING terrorism. Terrorism is simply desperate guerrilla tactics against a foe with superior military force. If they don't want to fight us anymore, we won't be in any danger. The idea that they're attacking us because they hate freedom or w/e is goofy. They're attacking us for very real reasons. Our military is in their land. Our corporations are buying up their most precious commodity for relatively cheap. Our leaders come on TV and call them evil and liars and say we're going to attack more and more.

Hi Will

I think the problem is that there is a certain sub-group of extremists that will ALWAYS want to fight us so long as we have ANY presence in the Middle east. That sub-group freely admits that it is about re-establishing the caliphate.

And as for "relatively cheap", I don't think I agree. They don't seem to be hurting for cash:

http://www.google.com/search?q=dubai...ient=firefox-a

Willravel · 03-04-2008, 09:12 PM

I don't really see a problem with getting out for good, or at least until we're invited. No one asked us to invade Iraq, after all. Not even the resistance.

The cheap thing was referring to how much of the money was getting to the people in Iraq. The UAE has been dealing in oil for over a generation, and they had the foresight to deal with many different customers so that if a certain customer got greedy other customers would have a vested interest in stopping them. In addition to that, the UAE has maintained a very strong tie to the UK, which still holds sway over the lumbering bafoon (the US).

Lebell · 03-04-2008, 09:15 PM

The problem with "getting out" is that not only the US, but most of the world's economy still relies on oil. It is simply pragmatism.

I won't even go into what would probably happen if we abandoned/turned loose Israel.

powerclown · 03-04-2008, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The problem with "getting out" is that not only the US, but most of the world's economy still relies on oil. It is simply pragmatism.

I won't even go into what would probably happen if we abandoned/turned loose Israel.

The day America leaves the Middle East is the day China/Russia/India enter it, with prejudice. Until they harness the magical energy of sugarplum fairy farts anyway.

Lots of Chinese in China these days.

host · 03-04-2008, 09:52 PM

Lebell, welcome back. You were gone a long time and you already posted that nothing has changed around here. Once, we were dealing with Karl Rove's role in the "outing" of Valerie Plame's employment details at the CIA.

Now, there are new "stories". As I always try to do, and you have not agreed, in the past, and may not agree with this statement now, is to post my take about what is going on, and where it should lead to.

I think the information presented in this thread is important, because the attention of it from the media is not commensurate with the details.

For both McCain and Obama, these two sets of circumtances are related to their judgment and their ethics. The "problem" is that focus is overwhelmingly on Obamas shortcomings in this area, whereas McCain's are, IMO, more disturbing.

There are 82,700 search results for the search terms [ McCain Hensley ]
Hensley is McCain's late father-in-law's and McCain's wife's last name.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ey&btnG=Search

There are 645,000 search results for the search terms [ Obama Rezko ]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

IMO, this wide disparity needs to be narrowed to confirm that the public is being informed by the media about both these sets of circumstances:

I agree that Obama's house purchase arrangement smells, it bears much more scrutiny, but it isn't the financial basis for the entire launching of his political career, and it hasn't netted him $50 to $100 million, as overwhelming evidence documents that McCain's ethical lapses have.

Why is it that Sam Giancana's description of his son-in-laws "lot", described on PDF page 128, here:
http://foia.fbi.gov/giancana/giancana1.pdf

....do not apply similarly to James W. Hensley's son-in-law, John McCain?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giancana to a news reporter

..."An ex-convict can't get a job now, he explained. He has to get a gun and go out and hold up people to get something to eat. There's going to be a lot of crime if this keeps up. It will be worse than Capone.

<h3>'Look at that kid,' he added, pointing to his son-in-law. who was helping Antoinette cut a four foot high wedding cake.

'Now everybody is going to hook him up with me'. No one will hire him. I'll have to give him a .45 and put him to work for me.'.....</h3>

Why is the mainstream media not at least asking John McCain why he cast his lot, immediately after resigning from the Navy, with the business and financial support of a former "mob soldier" in an environment where the "king pin" of the same "mob", Kemper Marely, was widely regarded, and widely publicized at that time, as the man who ordered the "mob hit" on Phoenix investigative reporter, Don Bolles?

Did John McCain really take a VP job as PR "liason" from a man as wealthy and connected as James W. Hensley was, without looking into, then or later, Hensley's background and the circumstances that resulted in his being in the beer distribution business, owning the very difficult to obtain, extremely profitable, exlclusive franchise to wholesale America's best selling beer?

Willravel · 03-04-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The problem with "getting out" is that not only the US, but most of the world's economy still relies on oil. It is simply pragmatism.

North America proven oil reserves, in billions, according to:
BP Statistical Review: 60
Oil & Gas Journal: 213.319
World Oil: 46

South America proven oil reserves, in billions, according to:
BP Statistical Review: 103
Oil & Gas Journal: 102
World Oil: 76

Middle East proven oil reserves, in billions, according to:
BP Statistical Review: 742
Oil & Gas Journal: 739
World Oil: 711

Africa proven oil reserves, in billions, according to:
BP Statistical Review: 114
Oil & Gas Journal: 114
World Oil: 109

The US uses about 6.6 billion barrels a year. This means that we could live off just North America for 10 years at least, possibly as much as 35 years. How long could it possibly take for a Democratic president to get alternatives going?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I won't even go into what would probably happen if we abandoned/turned loose Israel.

They'd have to learn to play nice with the Palestinians and Lebanese for one. And the UN would probably be there to stop the Israelis because they' lost our UN support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

The day America leaves the Middle East is the day China/Russia/India enter it, with prejudice. Until they harness the magical energy of sugarplum fairy farts anyway.

Lots of Chinese in China these days.

I'm sure China will have fun with the still strong remnants of the Mujahadin. We don't have to be that stupid anymore.

powerclown · 03-04-2008, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm sure China will have fun with the still strong remnants of the Mujahadin. We don't have to be that stupid anymore.

I wouldn't want to be standing in the way of 1.5 billion hungry chinamen would you? They'll swarm in with about .00000000025% of their population equipped with hardhats, laptops and laser rifles and turn those grunting, bearded cavemen into wontons for their soup.

Willravel · 03-04-2008, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I wouldn't want to be standing in the way of 1.5 billion hungry chinamen would you? They'll swarm in with about .00000000025% of their population equipped with hardhats, laptops and laser rifles and turn those grunting, bearded cavemen into wontons for their soup.

China's no more capable against IEDs and rebels hiding among the civilians than we are. They're the same as us: a standing military that's expert at waging conventional warfare. Them vs. us? That'd be a battle royale. Them vs. Iraqi "insurgents"? They'd be in the same shit we're in, only they'd be about 3 inches shorter. Heh.

Let me put it this way: if Tibetans weren't primarily Buddhists, China would be in the shit there, too.

powerclown · 03-05-2008, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

China's no more capable against IEDs and rebels hiding among the civilians than we are. They're the same as us: a standing military that's expert at waging conventional warfare....Them vs. Iraqi "insurgents"? They'd be in the same shit we're in, only they'd be about 3 inches shorter. Heh.

You're forgetting one important thing: the Chinese don't much care about human rights. They would bypass such trivialities as ieds or suicide bombers, and they would have no need to report things like "war crimes", "atrocities", torture or other malfeasance....why? Because they can't be bothered with human rights when they've got 1.5 billion mouths to feed...they don't have the luxury of being scrupulous. They will wash over the country like a swarm of ants...if 100 die in an ied explosion, there's 10,000 right behind them in full battle frenzy.

First, they will secure every oil spigot in the country. Second, their engineers would instruct their air force in the quickest, most efficient way to bomb a mountain into a molehill. Third, they'll dig a trench 10 feet wide and 2 miles long and bury every sumbitch in the country with a beard and an ak47 in it. Fourth, they will extend the Great Wall south, arm it with laser turrets every 500 yards, surround the entire country and cut it off from land invasion within a week. Fifth, they will shoot down every American military/reconnaissance satellite in space. Sixth, they will take the oil to feed, house and entertain their 1.5 billion, announce an embargo unless the rest of the world pays 1500% tariffs on oil imports, and game over.

No human rights in China: It's their secret weapon to world domination.

host · 03-05-2008, 12:43 AM

Ya' know, will.... the folks you are debating here, and this is really a topic for another thread, have the same notions invested in their belief systems as McCain with his "stay 50 more years in Iraq", rhetoric.... aren't looking at the way economics play into the "if not the US military in Iraq, then who will it be?"
argument.

LSTC oil is now selling for $100+ per bbl. The residents of the US and it's government cannot afford, for any further lengthy period, to consume the amount of this oil that we do, and incur the economic costs of fielding the ground, air, and naval forces currently deployed between southern Iraq and the Afghan border with the formely Soviet "Stans".

The consequences of shouldering both costs is starting to show....the US dollar is taking it on the chin. Gold is $1000 oz, Silver is $20, the Euro is $1.52, and the Chi-Com Yuan is 7.09 to the dollar.

We cannot afford to "guard the oil", and pay retail for it, too. An ounce of gold buys a greater quantity of oil than it did in 2002, and a US dollar buys a little more than 1/4 of the oil it bought in 2002.

Our society and government is standing in the middle of a tree branch and sawing away at the branch, between it's position and the trunk.

No other industrialized nation has sawn through as much of the branch that it is standing on. I've posted for a long time on these threads that it is too late for the US to do anything but see it's currency's purchasing power collapse....it is doing a slow but increasing bleed, now....or use it's military to attempt to muscle the rest of the world into capitulation.

The current economic downturn is progressing, it is global in nature, and it will force an increasing lessening of global demand for petroleum that may even cut the price of it in half, for a time, because the downturn is going to be deeper and longer lasting than most currently want to admit.

IMO, nothing else but the economics matter. Economics will drive the coming US military aggression. The US society and government have shown no inclination to stop using 25 percent of daily world petroleum output. Many here will argue that the decline of the dollar is a "good thing", temporary in nature, cyclical. The trouble is that there is nothing to enhance the dollar but the point of a gun or the triggering mechanism of a nuclear weapon, and that will not change.

The economic damage to the US caused by the "War on Islamofascism", on "terror" or on whatever you want to call this, is the unaccepted story. We're spending trillions to confront a threat that causes physical damage in the tens of billions, or none at all. We're inflicting all of the economic damage ourselves, just look around you, in traffic, at all of the other one occupant per vehicle, examples of the problem. Look at the increase in military/intelligence/home security spending since 2000.

Since none of the candidates shows any inclination to cut military spending or to cut energy use from the current 22 million bbl per day of petroleum equivalents, it won't matter to the dollar, who wins the next election.

If the US enjoyed the economic fundamentals of say...Canada...energy independent, strong currency, positive trade balance, federal budget surplus... some of the discussion from the "War on terror" supporters might be relevant. The US is not in Canada's position in any of those categories. It must either order it's military to pay for it's expenses via taking control of foreign assets by force, and neutralizing the opposing force attempting to retain the foreign assets, or our military will deteriorate and withdraw from the field. Ironically, the steeper the world economic decline, the slower the dollar will decline, but nothing but an all or nothing attempt to neutralize Russian and Chinese armed force will prevent the catastrophic collapse of the "American way of life'. Just watch the dollar, and US troop and naval movements.

To put the thread back on track. Imagine if you will, if I was "invited" to this "shindig"? Can you see me not asking John McCain where the money came from, circa 1983, to enable him to buy his ranch, what his first impression of his father-in-law was, did he check on the man's background before accepting a job offer from his as VP of PR of his company? What did he think about late 70's press reports of his father-in-law's federal felony convictions, long relationship and employment with Kemper Marley, ownership in a New Mexico racetrack with accusations that he hid his partnership in the deal with a barred, mob connected gambler, how McCain thought the public would react to this background and the vast wealth the relationship brought to McCain....did McCain think that the money was "clean" now, and when did McCain consider his father-in-law's money and business assets to be transformed from proceeds of mob related activity to legitimate funds and assets, etc.....

No, the working press gnawed on ribs and kissed McCain's ethicsless or uncurious, hypcritical ass.... instead of speaking truth to power:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030202373.html
McCain Stands On the Other End Of a Press Grilling

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 3, 2008; A09

PAGE SPRINGS, Ariz., March 2 -- If he loses the presidency, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will have a career as a barbecue chef to fall back on.

At his weekend cabin just outside Sedona on Sunday afternoon, McCain took a break from campaigning and grilled ribs and chicken for three dozen reporters, some staff members and a few Republican friends from the Senate.

Dressed in jeans, an L.L. Bean baseball cap, sunglasses and a sweat shirt featuring a picture of his family, McCain held court the way he does almost daily aboard his "Straight Talk Express" bus.

While the afternoon barbecue for the media was technically on the record, tape recorders were prohibited, as was taking pictures for publication, and McCain aides repeatedly urged reporters to put away the notebooks.

The idea, McCain said, was to allow reporters to get to know him and his staff under less stressful circumstances. (The fact that the media spent the weekend at a resort called Enchantment probably contributed to that feeling.) In addition to the press, Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), McCain's best friend in the Senate, was there, as was former senator Phil Gramm (Tex.), Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and Charlie Black, McCain's top political adviser.

McCain offered a tour of the property, which if he is elected will no doubt become the latest incarnation of the "Western White House," the equivalent of Ronald Reagan's Santa Barbara ranch, President Bush's place in Crawford or the first President Bush's Maine retreat. Bill Clinton didn't have a property like that, but managed to vacation frequently at the Vineyard with friends.

McCain's aides said the three-hour gathering was intended as a "social event," not a glorified news conference. And by and large, reporters agreed to those rules, asking him substantive questions only a few times......

Lebell · 03-06-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Lebell, welcome back. You were gone a long time and you already posted that nothing has changed around here. Once, we were dealing with Karl Rove's role in the "outing" of Valerie Plame's employment details at the CIA.

Now, there are new "stories". As I always try to do, and you have not agreed, in the past, and may not agree with this statement now, is to post my take about what is going on, and where it should lead to.

I think the information presented in this thread is important, because the attention of it from the media is not commensurate with the details.

.
.
.

You're obviously passionate, but geez, get out and smell the roses, man.

I mean, I swear this is the same thread I left you on how many YEARS ago??

I moved on, had a kid, changed jobs twice and well, got a life outside TFP. But you man, it seems like you're stuck here.

As it says in the good book, you will always have poor among you, meaning in this case, you will always have stories like this to occupy your time. But if I had to make a judgement call, you're dangerously close to obsession on this shit.

Anyway, no hard feelings or animosity towards you.

Maybe I'll pop in more often, maybe not. It takes alot of time to post around here and frankly, I have a life filled with flesh and blood people.

Willravel · 03-06-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I moved on, had a kid, changed jobs twice and well, got a life outside TFP.

Congrats. Still a bit worried about some people on TFP procreating, but I suppose we better have enough to create TFP: the Next Generation. Lebellittle? Lebellette?

Lebell · 03-06-2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Congrats. Still a bit worried about some people on TFP procreating, but I suppose we better have enough to create TFP: the Next Generation. Lebellittle? Lebellette?

Lebell-lite

Anyway, to continue our conversation, did you see in your reading how much of the US reserves were easily recoverable? Knowing something of the subject matter, I know that is an important factor.

For example, if the cost of recovering half of that parses out to 6 dollars a gallon of gas and you can still get sweet crude out of Saudi or Venezuela for 5 dollars a gallon, then simple economics will tell you what happens next.

Like it or not, the economy, not warm fuzzy wishes will drive what happens. And we have built our political machine to follow the economy.

What happens to a politician that makes a courageous decision that also results in you paying more at the pump, more at the supermarket, more at the <insert store here> while you lose your job as well? That politician loses his job at the next election to the guy who promises he will improve the daily living conditions of Joe Average.

Anyway, I don't see much hope until oil prices get really outrageous and/or there is a technological miracle break-through, such as cold fusion.

Willravel · 03-06-2008, 10:09 PM

Cold fusion is boring. Zero-point is where the action's at.

Lebell · 03-06-2008, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Cold fusion is boring. Zero-point is where the action's at.

Assuming it doesn't kill us through a run-away reaction

host · 06-04-2008, 02:03 AM

Rest easy.....John McCain as "law abiding" president was just a brief lapse on his part....what a difference, six months make....he's fixin' to be a full bore, criminal, "bill of rights" bustin' winger president, meet the new Bush, same as the old Bush:

Candidate McCain, Last December:

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...teQA/McCainQA/

John McCain Q&A
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | December 20, 2007

1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.

Okay, so is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?

I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law.
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? And specifically, I'm thinking about non-imminent threat situations.

Well he doesn't. But if there is an imminent threat, the president has to act in America's security interest.

But in terms of a strategic bombing, where nothing is going to happen tomorrow or next week, then he's got to go to Congress?

He should, absent an imminent threat. But in the event of an imminent threat, the President has a constitutional obligation to protect the American people.

3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? Is that beyond Congress' authority?

It's beyond Congress's authority to micromanage wars. Congress has the power of the purse and the power to declare wars; the President is responsible for leading the armed forces as Commander in Chief.

4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?

As President, I won’t have signing statements. I will either sign or veto any legislation that comes across my desk..

5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that, under the Congressional authorization of the use of force, the U.S. can hold even American citizens under the law of war if they are enemy combatants. But the Court also said that U.S. citizens must have due process to challenge their detention. And I think that is very important when it comes to American citizens.

6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated directly to the president himself?

Yes, the law recognizes a “deliberative process” type of executive privilege that is broader than direct communications to the President. So while we should not do anything to inhibit the communications between a president and his advisers, as President I will do my utmost to accommodate Congressional requests for information.

7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?

No. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress that power. Unless the president chooses to willfully violate the law and suffer the consequences, he must obey the law.

8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?

I know of no circumstance. Again, it goes back to what the law says – if there is a treaty that the Congress has ratified, we have chosen to make it the law of the land, and it must be obeyed under the terms that it was ratified.

9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?

On that one, the Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in the Boumedienne case and it is expected to rule early next year on that question. So I will be interested in seeing how the Court rules.

10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

McCain declined to answer this question.

11. Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?

McCain declined to answer this question.

12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?

I agree. These are part of the judgment that the American people need.

Even just a week ago, McCain was represented as a candidate who still wanted to follow the law, to hold those who appeared to have broken the law, accountable:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052802967.html
For McCain, A Switch On Telecom Immunity?
Recent Statements Signal Deeper Privacy Concerns

By Jonathan Weisman and Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 29, 2008; A06

A top lawyer for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign said telecommunications companies should be forced to explain their role in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program as a condition for legal immunity for past wiretapping, a statement that stands in marked contrast to positions taken by President Bush, McCain and other Republicans in Congress.

"There would need to be hearings, real hearings, to find out what actually happened, what harms actually occurred, rather than some sort of sweeping of things under the rug," Chuck Fish, a former vice president and chief patent counsel at Time Warner, said last week at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in New Haven, Conn., according to an audiotape available on the conference Web site. "That would be absolutely verboten in a McCain administration."

The comments -- first noted last week on the blog of the technology magazine Wired -- contradict McCain's voting record, and they are almost certain to disrupt negotiations between Democratic leaders in Congress and Bush administration officials, who are seeking blanket immunity for the telecoms' cooperation with the surveillance program.

At issue is the administration's program to intercept phone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists without a warrant from the secret federal court that has overseen domestic spying since the 1970s. The biggest telecom carriers in the nation participated in the program before it came to light and have since been deluged by nearly 40 lawsuits from customers claiming their privacy rights were violated.

Bush and congressional Republicans are trying to resurrect warrantless surveillance legislation, which lapsed in March, albeit under somewhat stricter supervision. But the administration argues that phone companies will participate only if they receive blanket immunity not only for future surveillance but for cooperation that started after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Supporters of immunity say the companies acted in good faith that their assistance was lawful.

In February, when the issue reached the Senate, McCain voted repeatedly against failed Democratic efforts to strip out the legislation's retroactive immunity provisions or limit the surveillance program's reach. He then voted for the bill's passage.

Fish's comments and the campaign's responses indicate that McCain appears to be taking a new stance that undermines the GOP's negotiating position, as well as the party's efforts to label Democrats as weak on terrorism.

Doug Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior policy adviser, said Fish was sent to the conference to represent McCain's position, which he did. "Senator McCain supported and voted for immunity for the past actions of the telecommunications companies, but going forward, he does not want them put into this position again," he said.

"Most important in all of this, there must be clear guidelines for their participation and sufficient vetting," a point Fish was trying to make, Holtz-Eakin said.

But Democrats and privacy advocates see a stark change of position. McCain was one of 41 senators to vote against an amendment to make the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act the exclusive means for electronic surveillance in this country, an amendment offered to provide the clarity McCain says he wants, Democratic aides say. The amendment failed to get the 60 votes needed for passage.

"If that's his view today, he had a chance to back it up in recent votes on the Senate floor, and he did not," said David Carle, spokesman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).

"Everything that Senator McCain's aide has said is fully consistent with what we've said," said Caroline Fredrickson, Washington office director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The Republican position on the Hill has been the absolute opposite."

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said he hopes McCain will pressure Bush "to back down from his untenable position so we can negotiate a bill as quickly as possible."

In his comments, Fish said that "there would probably be three things that would matter in a McCain administration."

"The first thing is, it would need to be explicit that we're not talking about something like granting indulgences," which he dismissed as "forgiveness without repentance."

Congress would need to hold hearings, Fish said, adding that "Congress would need to provide clear rules so that we would be certain that private records would be protected in the future."

The McCain campaign last week issued a statement, largely to the telecommunications firms themselves, seeking to clarify Fish's remarks. But the clarification merely added new complications for Republican negotiators because it still implied misdeeds by the telecoms.

"The granting of retroactive immunity supports the continuing efforts of participating companies yet should be done with explicit statements that this is not a blessing for future activities," the statement says.

By the other day, the old, "I will obey the law as president", was gone:

Quote:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...RkZGM=%3E#more

June 2, 2008 1:35 PM

Lead, Senator
The McCain campaign reassures on surveillance reform, but …

By Andrew C. McCarthy

There is much about which to be encouraged in the posted response by McCain spokesman Doug Holtz-Eakin to questions about surveillance reform that I raised last week. I’m grateful that he took the time to pen such a thoughtful answer.

By his account, it certainly appears that the McCain campaign was done an injustice by the Washington Post’s suggestion that the senator was flip-flopping on legal immunity for the telecoms. (The campaign did not help itself by entrusting a surrogate who did not grasp the senator’s position.) The House Democrats’ refusal to agree to immunity — i.e., their elevation of the financial interests of their trial-lawyer patrons over the public interest of Americans in aggressive intelligence collection against those at war with us — is the pivotal dispute delaying reauthorization of foreign-surveillance authority that passed the Senate with overwhelmingly bipartisan support (but is opposed by Senators Obama and Clinton).

The McCain campaign is unequivocally telling “Corner” readers that the senator supports the Senate bill, that he believes the telecoms acted appropriately in acquiescing in government requests for cooperation after the 9/11 attacks, and that no further hearings are necessary to get to the bottom of what happened given the searching congressional investigations that have already occurred.

The most interesting and, I’d submit, the most significant part of the McCain campaign’s response involves presidential power under Article II of the Constitution.

I pointedly asked whether Sen. McCain has changed his position about the lawfulness of President Bush’s warrantless surveillance initiative, ordered in the emergency wartime conditions that followed atrocities in which nearly 3000 Americans were killed and the seat of our military was targeted (as, probably, was the White House or the Capitol). McCain’s original comments when the New York Times exposed the top-secret program indicated a belief that the program was illegal because it did not comply with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires a federal judge, rather than the commander-in-chief, to authorize monitoring.

The campaign declined to answer my question directly. Nevertheless, its response implicitly shows Sen. McCain’s thinking has changed as time has gone on and he has educated himself on this issue. The campaign now says (all italics below are mine):

[N]either the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Further, the McCain spokesman elaborates:

We do not know what lies ahead in our nation’s fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.

This is exactly right. It doesn’t mean Sen. McCain has lost his regard for FISA or thinks it’s any less important that we enact legislation that improves it. (And I say that as someone who thinks FISA is a bad law and that the Senate bill, though necessary, is itself a deeply flawed piece of legislation.) It means, as the McCain campaign is saying, that we don’t know what the future will bring. The Framers understood that too — which is why, notwithstanding their deep suspicions of executive power, they created a powerful presidency that could react with dispatch when hostile foreign forces threatened the United States.

I’ve only got one other question for the McCain campaign — more of a plea than a query: Why isn’t Sen. McCain leading on this crucial national-security issue?

This is a home-run waiting to happen. The Democrats, deeply in the thrall of the trial lawyers and Leftists who would prefer to see America vulnerable, are opposing commonsense legislation. Even the awful post-Watergate Congress, in its hostility to executive power, understood that foreign intelligence collection should not be managed by federal judges. Yet, the House Democrats’ position holds that if terrorists in Baghdad kidnap a U.S. Marine, we need to get a federal judge’s permission to authorize eavesdropping as those terrorists contact their confederates in Sadr City … or Tehran.

That’s lunacy. But it’s the Obama position. And it is classically symbolic of how the Democrats’ likely standard-bearer views our national security. McCain should be hammering him on this daily.

Meanwhile, as the stalemate goes on in Congress — and it has now been over three months since the Pelosi Democrats let our foreign surveillance authority lapse — we are hamstrung in our ability to collect intelligence against newly emerging terror cells, under circumstances where (as a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate explained) new cells are emerging all the time.

The Democrat leadership is content to leave us vulnerable. Sensible Democrats know this is a potential disaster — which is why so many of them voted for the Senate bill, and why so many of them are squirming in the House. Nightly, they are no doubt thanking the Almighty (or Mother Earth, or whatever it is that the Left thanks) that the Republican candidate is not riveting the public’s attention to their craven refusal to allow a vote on the Senate bill that everyone knows would pass by a comfortable margin.

President Bush has done what he can do, and has admirably held the line against further compromise on our security. But the brute politics are that he cannot lead on surveillance reform anymore.

Only Senator McCain can do that.
Please.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...Q0MWRiMjM0Y2I=

Monday, June 02, 2008

McCain & FISA: Significant Developments and Opportunities [Andy McCarthy]

I'm grateful to McCain spokesman Doug Holtz-Eakin for his thoughtful answer to the questions on surveillance reform I posted last week.

I've responded in an article on the homepage today. In my humble opinion, the McCain camp's response is extremely significant in that it not only full-throatedly supports the surveillance reform being blocked by House Democrats; it marks a welcome evolution on the Senator's thinking about executive power — bringing him more into line with prior administrations and influential federal court decisions which concede presidential power under Article II of the Constitution to order warrantless surveillance when the United States is threatened.

As I argue (again) today, Sen. McCain's likely opponent and House Democrats — who are elevating the interests of trial lawyers over public safety — are extremely vulnerable on this issue. He should be going after them on it, relentlessly. It's not only good politics — it's the path to needed reform.

06/02 04:03 PM

Last month's ad campaign, financed by online contributions raised by bloggers, targeted worst offending six of 21 blue dog democratic congressmen who have voted with the white house on telecomm immunity, this is the full page newspaper ad that appeared in Rep. Chris Carney's district:

Quote:

http://stopthepainwhenithink.blogspo...e-factory.html
Telecom immunity and the sausage factory...

This is disgusting. America in the land of hypocrisy and bullshit...

Is it all about the money? Is that all that the much heralded 'American democrasy' has been reduced to? Money and bullshit?

God had better bless America and with not so many idiots and assholes either, and quick!

How telecoms are attempting to buy amnesty from Congress

One of the benefits from the protracted battle over telecom amnesty is that it is a perfect microcosm for how our government institutions work. And a casual review of the available evidence regarding how telecom amnesty is being pursued demonstrates what absurd, irrelevant distractions are the pro-amnesty justifications offered by the pundit class and the Bush administration.

Just in the first three months of 2008, recent lobbyist disclosure statements reveal that AT&T spent $5.2 million in lobbyist fees (putting it well ahead of its 2007 pace, when it spent almost $20 million). In the first quarter of 2008, Verizon spent $4.8 million on lobbyist fees, while Comcast spent $2.6 million. So in the first three months of this year, those three telecoms -- which would be among the biggest beneficiaries of telecom amnesty (right after the White House) -- spent a combined total of almost $13 million on lobbyists. They're on pace to spend more than $50 million on lobbying this year -- just those three companies.

Let's pause for a brief minute to reflect on how ludicrous and deceptive -- laughably so -- are some of the main FISA/telecom claims that are being advanced. We continuously hear, for instance, that these poor, beleaguered telecoms need protection from the big, money-hungry plaintiffs' lawyers driving these "costly" surveillance lawsuits. One of the two organizations leading the litigation against the telecoms (along with the ACLU) is the non-profit group Electronic Frontiers Foundation. Here is what EFF's Kurt Opsahl wrote this week:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05...t-quarter-2008
To put this into perspective, AT&T's spending for three months on lobbying alone is significantly more than the entire EFF budget for a whole year, from attorneys to sys admins, pencils to bandwidth.

And then there's the claim -- advanced by the likes of The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt, among others -- that it's a grave injustice to force these telecoms to incur attorneys fees in order to defend themselves against allegations that they broke the law because the litigation is so "costly." Yet here these telecoms are spending $1 million per month or more in order to send former government officials to pressure member of Congress to write the laws the way they want them to be written.
Then there are the specific lobbying arrangements these telecoms have on FISA. AT&T, for instance, paid $120,000 in the first three months of 2008 to the lobbying firm of BSKH & Associates -- the firm of which Charlie Black, top campaign adviser to John McCain, is a founding partner. According to BSKH's lobbyist disclosure form, Charlie Black himself, at the same time he was advising McCain, was one of the individuals paid by AT&T to lobby Congress on FISA. From that disclosure form:

Last year, AT&T paid $400,000 to Black's firm. Black was taking money from AT&T to lobby on FISA and simultaneously advising McCain. McCain, needless to say, voted in favor of granting amnesty to AT&T and the other telecoms at exactly the time that his close adviser, Black, was taking money from AT&T to influence Congress on its behalf. And, of course, AT&T and Verizon are among McCain's top donors.

While we're subjected to all sorts of prattle from our pundit class and political leaders about how telecom amnesty is so urgent if we want to be Safe from the Terrorists, this is the sleaze that fuels how the process works. And the sleaze is spread around in a nice bipartisan way.

In addition to Charlie Black's firm, AT&T -- from January to March -- paid $150,000 to the new lobbying firm (.pdf) formed by former Democratic Sen. John Breaux and GOP Sen. Trent Lott, to lobby on only two issues: FISA and net neutrality. Those fees were for only three individuals -- Breaux, Lott and Lott's former Chief of Staff, Bret Boyles. Newsweek reported last September that the telecoms had hired numerous top officials from both the Bush 41 and Clinton administration to lobby for amnesty. And, as previously reported, contributions from telecom executives to Jay Rockefeller skyrocketed right before he became the key Senator leading the charge for telecom amnesty......

I invite anyone who would defend McCain's flip flop and the republican talking points in the two National Review quote boxes above.....about the telecomm immunity issue having to do with democrat support for "rich trial lawyers", to do so.....post what you've got.....

host · 06-06-2008, 08:37 PM

Friends....since my last post on this thread, nearly 3 days ago, there have been 124 posts combined, on the topics of "Who will be Obama's VP?", and "Is Killing in War, Murder?"..... but no responses to my last post, here.....

Consider that the matter of the VP selection has been considered so trivial in the past, that Bush's father "served us up", the inconsequential lightweight, Dan Quayle as his VP pick, and....unless the president dies in office, the VP pick is largely irrelevant. Consider that man will debate whether killing in war, or in most wartimes, is or isn't murder....for the rest of time.

Consider that the concerns highlighted in my last post are very real....have real consequences in our lives, in our country's future path......the difference between whether one of the two major party presidential candidates is committed to obeying and upholding the law....the provisions of the US Constitution....the one he will take an oath, as a condition of assuming office, "to protect and preserve"....... or not.

Yet not one response from any of you....to my last post. Judge for yourselves what motivates me to participate here, but consider that I represent that I try to prioritize where I put my time and effort by what I expect will be the political issues with "legs"....ones with serious, far reaching, implications....War crimes, the Plame Outing, NIST's failure to produce it's promised WTC 7 collapse report, the long delay in the Senate Intel committee's pre-war intelligence report release, the Abramoff scandal. the Duke Cunningham/Wilkes/Foggo scandal, McCain's decision to quit the Navy and take a job with his mobbed up father-in-law..... the media's complicity in pushing the conservative agenda, the Council for National Policy and other evangelical christian influence of conservative politics, the effect of conservative foundations on the construction of an alternate universe of "knowledge" known as the ubiquitous, "think tank", from Cato to AEI.....

,,,,,anyway, most of what I post about is in the details, it isn't the stuff of light banter, and thus is discouraging for readers to focus on and get up to speed on.....but, not one post...??? vs. 124 posts on those other two threads?

I put the time into doing my last post here because I thought it was about a new and important story....a major reversal by McCain about what kind of president he is telling us he will try to be....about his values related to his upholding his oath of office, the law, the line between his authority, and ours !

I'm posting tonight to tell you that I feel vindicated, in spite of my post being ignored, in spite of my reaction to what you have chosen to "post away", about.....because, my last post here "scooped" by two whole days, the NY Times story displayed on it's June 6th front page....reporting by it's new hire, a reporter who won a Pulitzer for breaking this other big story....

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18138967/
updated 5:24 p.m. ET, Mon., April. 16, 2007

....Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe won for national reporting for his revelations that President Bush often used “signing statements” to assert his controversial right to bypass provisions of new laws.

“This is a great honor, and I view it as a great moment not just for myself but for the Globe as an institution,” Savage told The Associated Press. “The Globe for a while was throwing it out on the front page when a lot of people were ignoring it, and that took a lot of courage.”....

So, temporarily....I don't sink or swim based on your reactions, but please consider that I am known for posting "out in front" of past big stories. Even if you read a post like my last one, and don't think you have much to add, an "atta boy", host....post from you, once in a while, will go a long way.... I doubt that I'll scoop the Times, by two days, again this month......

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/us...gewanted=print
June 6, 2008
Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.

Mr. McCain believes that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin wrote.

And if Mr. McCain is elected president, Mr. Holtz-Eakin added, he would do everything he could to prevent terrorist attacks, “including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.”

Although a spokesman for Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, denied that the senator’s views on surveillance and executive power had shifted, legal specialists said the letter contrasted with statements Mr. McCain previously made about the limits of presidential power.

In an interview about his views on the limits of executive power with The Boston Globe six months ago, Mr. McCain strongly suggested that if he became the next commander in chief, he would consider himself obligated to obey a statute restricting what he did in national security matters.

Mr. McCain was asked whether he believed that the president had constitutional power to conduct surveillance on American soil for national security purposes without a warrant, regardless of federal statutes.

He replied: “There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.”

Following up, the interviewer asked whether Mr. McCain was saying a statute trumped a president’s powers as commander in chief when it came to a surveillance law. “I don’t think the president has the right to disobey any law,” Mr. McCain replied.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that while the language used by Mr. McCain in his answers six months ago was imprecise, the recent statement by Mr. Holtz-Eakin “seems to contradict precisely what he said earlier.”

Mr. McCain’s position, as outlined by Mr. Holtz-Eakin, was criticized by the campaign of his presumptive Democratic opponent in the presidential election, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Greg Craig, an Obama campaign adviser, said Wednesday that anyone reading Mr. McCain’s answers to The Globe and the more recent statement would be “totally confused” about “what Senator McCain thinks about what the Constitution means and what President Bush did.”

“American voters deserve to know which side of this flip-flop he’s on today, and what he would do as president,” Mr. Craig said in a phone interview.

Tucker Bounds, a McCain campaign spokesman, said Mr. McCain’s position on surveillance laws and executive power “has not changed.”

“John McCain has been an unequivocal advocate of pursuing the radicals and extremists who seek to attack Americans,” Mr. Bounds wrote in an e-mail message, adding that Mr. McCain’s “votes and positions have been completely consistent and any suggestion otherwise is a distortion of his clear record.”

Asked whether the views Mr. Holtz-Eakin imputed to Mr. McCain were inaccurate, Mr. Bounds did not repudiate the statement. But late Thursday Mr. Bounds called and said, “to the extent that the comments of members of our staff are misinterpreted, they shouldn’t be read into as anything otherwise.”

Neither Mr. McCain nor Mr. Holtz-Eakin, a former head of the Congressional Budget Office who primarily advises the campaign on economic issues, was available for comment, Mr. Bounds said.

Mr. McCain has long distanced himself from the Bush administration on legal issues involving detention and interrogation in the fight against terrorism, an approach that has sometimes aroused suspicion among conservative supporters of the Bush administration.

But more recently, as Mr. McCain has worked to consolidate his party’s base, he has taken several positions that have won him praise from his former critics while drawing fire from Democrats.

In February, for example, Mr. McCain voted against limiting the Central Intelligence Agency to the techniques approved in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which complies with the Geneva Conventions. Mr. McCain said the C.I.A. needed the flexibility to use other techniques so long as it did not abuse detainees.

He also voted for legislation that would free telecommunications companies from lawsuits alleging that they illegally allowed the N.S.A. to eavesdrop on their customers’ phone calls and e-mail without a warrant. The legislation would also essentially legalize a form of surveillance without warrants going forward.

But Mr. McCain had previously stopped short of endorsing the view that Mr. Bush’s program of surveillance without warrants was lawful all along because a president’s wartime powers can trump statutory limits.

Andrew C. McCarthy, a National Review columnist who has defended the administration’s legal theories, wrote that Mr. Holtz-Eakin’s statement “implicitly shows Senator McCain’s thinking has changed as time has gone on and he has educated himself on this issue.”

And Glenn Greenwald, a Salon columnist and critic of the Bush administration’s legal claims, wrote that the statement was a “complete reversal” by Mr. McCain, accusing the candidate of seeking “to shore up the support of right-wing extremists.”

The reaction to Mr. Holtz-Eakin’s statement is the latest link in a chain of disputes over Mr. McCain’s positions on surveillance over the past two weeks.

On May 23, the McCain campaign sent a volunteer lawyer, Chuck Fish, to be the candidate’s surrogate at a conference on computer policy. Mr. Fish spoke at a panel discussion on whether phone and Internet companies should be granted immunity from lawsuits for having helped Mr. Bush’s surveillance program.

Mr. Fish suggested that Mr. McCain wanted to impose conditions — like Congressional hearings — that would ensure that such “forgiveness” would not signal that the telecoms should feel free to disregard communications privacy laws in the future if a president tells them to.

After Wired magazine wrote about Mr. Fish’s remarks on its blog, raising the question of whether Mr. McCain’s position had become more skeptical about immunity, the McCain campaign put out a statement saying that Mr. Fish was mistaken. Mr. McCain supported ending the lawsuits without conditions and his position had not changed, the campaign said.

On May 29, The Washington Post quoted Mr. Holtz-Eakin as saying that Mr. McCain did not want the telecoms “put into this position again” and that “there must be clear guidelines for their participation and sufficient vetting” in any future situation.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin’s comments in turn drew fire from Mr. McCarthy. In a blog posting on the National Review Web site, he demanded to know whether Mr. McCain believes the Constitution authorizes a president to lawfully go “arguably beyond what is prescribed in a statute” during a national security crisis.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin laid out Mr. McCain’s position on the president’s claimed constitutional powers to bypass surveillance laws in a letter to Mr. McCarthy, who this week called the statement “extremely significant” and said it “marks a welcome evolution on the senator’s thinking about executive power.”

inBOIL · 06-06-2008, 10:18 PM

I was considering voting for McCain, but his recent support of Bush's wiretapping has put an end to that idea. Not that his pandering to the far right didn't give me pause.

Halx · 06-07-2008, 07:36 AM

McCain is no different than Bush. A win for McCain would mean another 4 years of shit. I've read some pretty bad shit about him. Even though he is in favor of the war, he has a terrible policy regarding veterans and POW's. Which is SO confusing because he is one himself.

Terrell · 06-07-2008, 09:06 PM

I'm against him, but it's because I disagree with him on both domestic and foreign policy.

boink · 06-10-2008, 12:24 AM

to the main thread question...I shure hope not, however, the voting process as been so f'd over the past 8 years honestly I think it's a joke. some kind of teasing sham of a process. just a process to make all the sheeple think they made a choice.
any kind of debate between these guys easily reveals Mcain as much less intelegent than Obama and an old raging warmonger to boot.. I don't see anything positive about him.

if Obama winns I agree it'll be a hidious mess figuring out Iraq let alone getting out. I don't see that part of the world ever being anything but a raging hell hole. I can't see how anyone could get us out in 4 years. Iraq will still be a horror of chaos easy.

what I can hope for is Obama trashing the republican party with war crime trials and god knows what all else. if that stuff starts kicking in and takes hold hopefully it'll go for 2 terms...more than shure theres enough dirt on the gop to last.

dc_dux · 06-11-2008, 06:57 AM

On the Today Show this morning, McCain made this statement:

Quote:

Q: A lot of people now say the surge is working.

McCAIN: Anyone who knows the facts on the ground say that.

Q: If it’s working, senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?

McCAIN: No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine.

Q: Will your support be there for however many U.S. troops are required?

McCAIN: Yes, and the fact is we are winning in Iraq.

Not too important when the troops can come home or how many might be required to stay there indefinitely?

Most Americans disagree....Nearly 2 out of 3 want the troops to come home within the next year to 18 months....or sooner.

I wonder how long before McCain issues a clarification or claims his response was taken out of context?

dirtyrascal7 · 06-11-2008, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I wonder how long before McCain issues a clarification or claims his response was taken out of context?

Almost no time at all.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoi...s_took_not.php

Quote:

The Obama campaign is embarking on a false attack on John McCain to hide their own candidate's willingness to disregard facts on the ground in pursuit of withdrawal no matter what the costs. John McCain was asked if he had a 'better estimate' for a timeline for withdrawal. As John McCain has always said, that is not as important as conditions on the ground and the recommendations of commanders in the field. Any reasonable person who reads the full transcript would see this and reject the Obama campaign's attempt to manipulate, twist and distort the truth.

LOL. I guess what they're implying is that no one should judge McCain by his own words until his advisers have released a follow-up statement clarifying what they meant for McCain to say, because he's surely proven that he can't think for himself anymore.

Willravel · 06-11-2008, 06:45 PM

I almost feel badly for McCain advisors.

McCain: *grumble* "Meh, the troops'll stay there until the day I die.." *grumble

Advisor: What he meant to say was that we all hope that our troops are safe and... um... I quit.

boink · 06-11-2008, 10:20 PM

^^ lol

pan6467 · 06-11-2008, 11:31 PM

Anyone but Barak Hussein Obama.

ratbastid · 06-12-2008, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Anyone but Barak Hussein Obama.

Wow. I wouldn't have thought YOU would be somebody to cut of your nose to spite your face like that. I know some Hillary crazies will flip over for McCain, but YOU?

The_Jazz · 06-12-2008, 05:51 AM

I'm for McCain because host is against him.

Just kidding.

I'm against McCain because I have a hard time reconciling the idea that a guy who has railed against authority all of his adult life will be the actual embodiment of power in the world. There's also the fact that I agree with host that his wife's family has many, many skeletons that potentially reach into organized crime. If that proves true (and I'm not yet convinced, host), it's not exactly a smoking gun, since I'm a believer in the sins of the father don't always reflect on the son (or son-in-law in this case), but it certainly needs to be scrutinized.

All that and the fact that I've been an Obama guy since the late 90's.

roachboy · 06-12-2008, 05:58 AM

aside: i've heard on the ideology-machine and read here and there references to these clinton supporters who "will vote for mccain" because of procedural issues with the primaries, but i've not seen anything, anywhere from any of these people. i wonder if they exist.

View Poll Results: Do you think McCain as frontrunner is positive for a republican presidential win?
No	49	73.13%
Yes	18	26.87%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

03-01-2008, 03:05 PM	#47 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Good to see nothing much as changed around here McCain vs Obama will be a tough call. Too bad Billary doesn't appear to have a chance at the nomination now. Even my wife said she would vote for McCain over him and that's saying something. Personally, I don't think Obama has the balls to fight terrorism anywhere. I doubt he would have done anything beyond hand wringing when the Towers went down and Afghanistan wouldn't hand over bin Landin. While McCain isn't my ideal candidate, I don't think he is a pussy. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

03-02-2008, 09:36 AM	#49 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	I'm tired of having rich, white men in power. Simple as that. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

03-04-2008, 09:15 PM	#54 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	The problem with "getting out" is that not only the US, but most of the world's economy still relies on oil. It is simply pragmatism. I won't even go into what would probably happen if we abandoned/turned loose Israel. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-06-2008, 10:18 PM	#69 (permalink)
inBOIL I have eaten the slaw	I was considering voting for McCain, but his recent support of Bush's wiretapping has put an end to that idea. Not that his pandering to the far right didn't give me pause. __________________ And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

02-10-2008, 10:09 PM	#43 (permalink)
host Banned	You own a business. Would you hire John McCain as your office manager, or his wife? Both knowingly worked for (in McCain's case, his last employer in the private sector.....), and accepted extremely valuable assets and large amounts of cash from one of the most prominent mob connected men in Arizona, McCain's father-in-law, James W. Hensley. Cindy McCain is chairperson of Hensley's business empire, obtained totally via his mob connections and activities. Was Joe Kennedy ever convicted of a federal felony, or are there records that he was employed by the wealthiest and most corrupt mob boss in his state, from his teenaged years, in the late 1930s, until 1954, as Hensley was by Kemper Marley? Did Joe Kennedy's brother, or any other member of his family, spend three stretches in federal prison, as a result of felony convictions? Hensley's brother and business partner, Eugene did. McCain wasn't smart enough to avoid having his patron be, just four years after the "Arizona Project" journalist expose on the man, Hensley, and his own patron, Marley, be a mob connected businessman exposed in newspapers all over the country, in 23 installments, and then, in a book by the same name. McCain wasn't smart enough to avoid having his wife end up running her mobbed up father's business, after his death. McCain can keep the money that he married into, but that doesn't mean that the money is clean, or that he is clever or clean enough to serve as our president. JFK was born into a family. He showed no interest in making money, or in running the family business. McCain went to work for a prominent mob soldier, he had to know....after he married the guy's 27 year old daughter, leaving his crippled wife and four kids to do it. Then he consented to allowing the mob soldier to bankroll his political campaigns..... We're better than having someone like McCain be our president, because we know his judgment and his background. This is just the beginning. If McCain sitll gets the nomination, I won't be the problem. I am briefing you about what McCain is facing. It is a proven background, and it disqalifies him. The democrats will insist that the press examine and cover all of it.

02-21-2008, 11:50 AM	#46 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	To answer the poll question, I think McCain is probably the only Republican that has a plausible shot to win in Nov, so I think his nomination is a positive for the GOP. But I still don't think he is going to win. There are lots of reasons. At the top of the list is the sheer talent of the likely Democratic nominee, Obama.

03-02-2008, 09:58 AM	#50 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	HOLY SHIT IT'S LEBELL!!! Welcome back. I don't think Obama will FIGHT terrorism, but rather actually stand a chance of STOPPING terrorism. Terrorism is simply desperate guerrilla tactics against a foe with superior military force. If they don't want to fight us anymore, we won't be in any danger. The idea that they're attacking us because they hate freedom or w/e is goofy. They're attacking us for very real reasons. Our military is in their land. Our corporations are buying up their most precious commodity for relatively cheap. Our leaders come on TV and call them evil and liars and say we're going to attack more and more.

03-04-2008, 09:12 PM	#53 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I don't really see a problem with getting out for good, or at least until we're invited. No one asked us to invade Iraq, after all. Not even the resistance. The cheap thing was referring to how much of the money was getting to the people in Iraq. The UAE has been dealing in oil for over a generation, and they had the foresight to deal with many different customers so that if a certain customer got greedy other customers would have a vested interest in stopping them. In addition to that, the UAE has maintained a very strong tie to the UK, which still holds sway over the lumbering bafoon (the US).

03-06-2008, 10:09 PM	#65 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Cold fusion is boring. Zero-point is where the action's at.

06-07-2008, 07:36 AM	#70 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	McCain is no different than Bush. A win for McCain would mean another 4 years of shit. I've read some pretty bad shit about him. Even though he is in favor of the war, he has a terrible policy regarding veterans and POW's. Which is SO confusing because he is one himself. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

06-07-2008, 09:06 PM	#71 (permalink)
Terrell Insane Location: Orlando, Florida	I'm against him, but it's because I disagree with him on both domestic and foreign policy.

06-10-2008, 12:24 AM	#72 (permalink)
boink Addict Location: Seattle	to the main thread question...I shure hope not, however, the voting process as been so f'd over the past 8 years honestly I think it's a joke. some kind of teasing sham of a process. just a process to make all the sheeple think they made a choice. any kind of debate between these guys easily reveals Mcain as much less intelegent than Obama and an old raging warmonger to boot.. I don't see anything positive about him. if Obama winns I agree it'll be a hidious mess figuring out Iraq let alone getting out. I don't see that part of the world ever being anything but a raging hell hole. I can't see how anyone could get us out in 4 years. Iraq will still be a horror of chaos easy. what I can hope for is Obama trashing the republican party with war crime trials and god knows what all else. if that stuff starts kicking in and takes hold hopefully it'll go for 2 terms...more than shure theres enough dirt on the gop to last. __________________ when you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way.

06-11-2008, 06:45 PM	#75 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I almost feel badly for McCain advisors. McCain: grumble "Meh, the troops'll stay there until the day I die.." *grumble Advisor: What he meant to say was that we all hope that our troops are safe and... um... I quit.

06-11-2008, 10:20 PM	#76 (permalink)
boink Addict Location: Seattle	^^ lol __________________ when you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way.

06-11-2008, 11:31 PM	#77 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Anyone but Barak Hussein Obama. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-12-2008, 05:51 AM	#79 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I'm for McCain because host is against him. Just kidding. I'm against McCain because I have a hard time reconciling the idea that a guy who has railed against authority all of his adult life will be the actual embodiment of power in the world. There's also the fact that I agree with host that his wife's family has many, many skeletons that potentially reach into organized crime. If that proves true (and I'm not yet convinced, host), it's not exactly a smoking gun, since I'm a believer in the sins of the father don't always reflect on the son (or son-in-law in this case), but it certainly needs to be scrutinized. All that and the fact that I've been an Obama guy since the late 90's. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-12-2008, 05:58 AM	#80 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	aside: i've heard on the ideology-machine and read here and there references to these clinton supporters who "will vote for mccain" because of procedural issues with the primaries, but i've not seen anything, anywhere from any of these people. i wonder if they exist. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite