For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: George H.W. Bush will Help Hillary if she's Elected President!
Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America's reputation by the current president — Bush's son, George W. Bush.
Is this another Clintonian fantasy, or something that could really happen?














Comments Policy
Are you kidding me?
December 18, 2007 - 11:25 ET by OldSailor88A snowball has a better chance in the Slick Willy Throne room in Hell.
George the Elder will never go out to "repair the damage" done by his son. Blood is much thicker than even Mrs. Bill Clinton's skull.
Did Mr. former President
December 18, 2007 - 12:57 ET by motherbeltDid Mr. former President Clinton hear himself?? (emphasis added):
the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President
Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that
America is open for business...
With the Clintons' reputation in the White House not too distant in memory, he might want to reconsider the phrase "open for business"....
Needless to say,
December 18, 2007 - 19:47 ET by dervishBill was just talking out of his a@@ again.
Now he says maybe he'll take some former Secretaries of State with him on his coronation tour.
No.. just no..
December 18, 2007 - 11:29 ET by rimskyNo.. just no..
Dang, Sarc.....
December 18, 2007 - 11:30 ET by OldSailor88Tell your boy to get back on the Ritalin!!
Ron Paul: 'When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross'...
Er..None-needed.
December 18, 2007 - 11:37 ET by sarcasmoThat was Sinclair Lewis, who wrote Elmer Gantry, a novel that already came forcefully to mind WRT Huckabee if you've seen my recent posts. The quote & the novel to fit the present situation quite well, if you ask me.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
What damage?
December 18, 2007 - 11:30 ET by Free ThinkerWhat damage?
I was around in the 70's
December 18, 2007 - 15:01 ET by TruthMongerI was around in the 70's and 80's during the cold war - nobody hated us back then, in the 90's the cold war was over and then nobody really, really hated us, and then GWB invaded Iraq, and ruined all of it...
Now everybody hates us...
And two ex-presidents can fly around the globe and get everyone to like us again...
They will probably not respect us - but they will LIKE us...
Isn't it best to be LIKED?
I liked it when my teachers challenged me and punished me...
I liked it when I went to the dentist for fillings and crowns...
I really liked all my dinner vegetables growing up...
I liked it when I had to go to bed...
I liked getting my vaccination shots - really LIKED it...
I like getting speeding tickets and parking tickets...
It is much better to be liked...
The left really knows what they are doing when it comes to being liked...
I believe it. You cannot
December 18, 2007 - 11:31 ET by Jack BauerI believe it.
You cannot believe the numbers of passes President Bush has given the Clintons. It was only a month ago that he was talking up the Hilderbeast in the primaries.
Just typical Clinton
December 18, 2007 - 11:35 ET by mattmJust typical Clinton B.S.
This guy makes me sick. He sails into a good situation, takes credit for it while trashing the people who set things up so well for him. Wrecks the economy. Embarasses the nation. Makes us vulnerable to terrorism. And now he has the audacity to say the one who cleaned up his mess needs a mess cleaned up for him, and he's the one to do it????
There's a special place in Hell for people with this much falsity.
Check the post above....
December 18, 2007 - 11:44 ET by OldSailor88It's the Slick Willy Throne Room!
Please, may we have another "wreck"
December 18, 2007 - 12:13 ET by JerPlease, may we have another "wreck" like the one Clinton caused to destroy our economy...the "wreck" that resulted in ...
--the longest period of sustained growth in nearly 40 years,
--the creation of 20 million new jobs,
--the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years,
--the lowest core inflation rate in over 30 years,
--in 1999, the largest budget surplus in history [after inheriting the largest budget deficit on record],
--the longest and strongest equipment and software investment on record
Just curious, what exactly is your definition of "wrecking the economy"?
Jer
Congress controlled by whom?
December 18, 2007 - 12:18 ET by PawpawNDuring the period 1994 till then, who controlled Congress?
PawpawW
December 18, 2007 - 12:33 ET by shawn228The original statement was Clinton wrecked the economy. Jer is stating Clintons accomplishments and you are answering questions with more questions. I will take the bait though. The Dems had control of congress before 94. The Repubicans took the house and senate afterwards. Clinton did something Bush has not done since November. Compromise and work together with Congress whether it be Democrat or Republican.
Clinton had no
December 18, 2007 - 12:56 ET by mattmClinton had no accomplishments - he merely took credit for the accomplishments of others. The 2000 crash, the Enron mess, the 401K debacle, the Accounting scandals .... GDP growth in free-fall, heading for the 2001 recession (I know that was after Clinton left office, but that's how economies go, current events affect future results)...
If that's not wrecking the economy, what the hell is???????
On the other hand, Bush inherited this mess, and has turned it around. It's not perfect yet, but it certainly won't be solved by the tax raising, oil-banning, carbon-offsetting, socialist policies of the Democrats.
You Libs need to start facing reality.
BTW Bush has been willing to compromise, too much! What planet are YOU on???
It's the Dems who have refused to compromise, or in any way show the least bit of respect for the president.
Wake up, will ya?
mattm
December 18, 2007 - 13:00 ET by shawn228You Libs need to start facing reality.
Reality huh? Your actually blaming Clinton for the Enron 401 k mess? What did Clinton have to do with that? Kenneth Lay was responsible for that.
Bush inherited this mess, and has turned it around.
He took a huge surpluss and turned it into a huge deficit, He raised the national debt by 3.8 trillion dollars. I will 100% agree with you that is not perfect yet.
What did Clinton have to do
December 18, 2007 - 13:14 ET by mattmWhat did Clinton have to do with Enron?
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/28/12723.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26550
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/20/74133.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26028
Deficits and surpluses have little to do with economic growth and much to do with spending.
The reason the deficit came down in the 1990's was because of the spending caps Bush I insisted on in the 1990 budget compromise. Since W took office the deficit has come down as a percentage of overall revenues.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/FYI92.cfm
Bye now.
mattm
December 18, 2007 - 15:27 ET by shawn228Interesting sources you got your references from. Hmmm I did not know donating to a politcal party is the reason Enron went kaflooey. I'm sure Ken Lay did not donate anything to the Republican party.
Deficits and surpluses have little to do with economic growth and much to do with spending.
Hmmm, if we owe money, we do have to pay it back eventually right? About 16 cents of each tax dollar goes to paying the interest on top of the interest for paying off the debt.
I thought some libs looked at Clinton with rose colored glasses, but you apparently don't even take them off for this adminstration.
Shawn. No, to your deficit and surplus view.
December 18, 2007 - 18:28 ET by Gary HallShawn, you stated: Deficits and surpluses have little to do with economic growth and much to do with spending.
In the short term (say 2-3 years), deficits and surpluses are almost entirely controlled by economic growth or recession. Take the shift from the silly projected surpluses' to deficit. By 2003 (I use that year, because by then, the media had America convinced that Bush had personally trashed the projected surplus with his tax cuts), the actual budget deficit (2001 + 2002 + 2003). The projected combined surplus (3 years) for those years was $953 billion. The actual net deficit (sum of 3 years) recorded was $408 billion.
That departure (delta) from projected surplus to actual deficit was $1.361 Trillion. For those three years combined, the sum of all the legislative tax cuts (including the Democrats 2001 tax rebate) was $325 billion. Total Iraq war costs thru year end 2003 were $54 billion.
The net change then was, $982 billion (almost a trillion) - of which was not tax cuts or Iraq war costs.
Now there was also some additional spending (education, Medicaid, Veterans, Afghanistan etc.) -- but of course the Democrats all wanted to spend much, much more - in fact Gore had run on a promise of increasing defense spending more than Bush had proposed.
The bottom line here is that by far, most of the cause for the disappearance of the surplus and the return to large deficits was economic revisions to the economy - caused by the collapse of the late 90's bubble in early 2000, and added to by the effect of 9/11.
gary hall
December 18, 2007 - 20:04 ET by shawn228Thx for your input Gary I appreciate it. btw you probably inadvertently helped prove my point. I did not say Deficits and surplusses have little to do with growth and spending, that was mattm. I just did a copy and post of his statement.
Perhaps you can do a better job of convincing him than me, he blames Enron and World.com on the Clintons. I heard the Clintons might have came out with the AIDS virus as well.
shawn, less than you wished for.
December 18, 2007 - 20:26 ET by Gary HallShawn, I'm going to give you a bit less than you wish for, here. (;~>
I did note, "in the short term (2-3 years)" - somehow, I belive Mattm will agree with me in the larger analysis.
Enron - World Com. Well, my take is a bit more balanced - and perhaps political than the usual bumber sticker statements that get made on the quick. Enron and Worldcom were a product of the 90's era of greed and excess. Bill Clinton along the constant vote of confidence given to him by the media during his 8 years in office, in fact then, did have quite a bit to do with the Enron's of the world, and hence, with all of the corporate fraud, accounting fraud, and lost trust of corporate America and the capital markets earned by the collapse of his period in power.
The Clinton administration was instrumental in Enron's developing empire in the international markets they expanded into, as well as here at home. They forged, some via heavy handed political pressure [blackmail], agreements around the globe that allowed Enron to expand. Enron, I believe aslo traveled on 12 world trade missions with the Clinton Commerce Department (Ron Brown). The Clinton administration's support for Enron continued thru Guaranteed US government loans worth over a $billion. The Bush admin. refused to renew the loans when former Clinton treasury Sec. Robert Rubin, then on the board of Citigroup (holder of most of Enron's commercial paper) came begging for help. Enron, by the way was also quite tight with CA Gov. Gray Davis' (D) administration - which greatly helped create the CA energy crisis of 2000.
Had Bush been president during the 1992-2000 stretch, well, it would be interesting to wonder how Enron might had done, but by time Bush became president, all of the corruption and fraud of the late 90's was coming to light, and Enron, like WorldCom and dozens of the fantasy companies that made up the Clinton boom were soon to meet their maker. Unfortunatly, millions of Americans would loose their jobs and their health insurance and their life savings in the fallout that would follow, and the country would be forced back into large deficits.
For a view of Clinton and Aids, I suggest you read leftist David Corn's (Washington editor of "The Nation") piece, Too little, too late - How many times is Bill Clinton going to apologize to Africa? , while contemplating while so few folks know of the historic efforts by the Bush administration to tackle Aids and Malaria in Africa and Indonesia.
Shawn
December 18, 2007 - 20:29 ET by Free StinkerFYI
It's Worldcom, not World dot Com (world.com)
;-)
It was WCOM to me. (;~>
December 18, 2007 - 20:40 ET by Gary HallIt was WCOM to me. (;~> gary
fs
December 18, 2007 - 21:41 ET by shawn228Bible, WMD, Global Warming, Stock symbals. sigh.....you are a wealth of information. Do you give out medical advice as well? I was in Thailand last month and this morning I noticed this red......oh never mind :-)
shawn... leave it alone
December 18, 2007 - 23:30 ET by Gary HallShawn, I'd stay away from the Western medicine here. They'll prescribe all of these expensive tests, and try every antibiotic on the shelf, no matter what the cost, and in the end the amputation will cost you a fortune. Any good Eastern doctor could tell you that that particular condition which you picked up at that low life place is rather incurable, and in time will resolve on it’s own.
Leave it alone, and it will eventually shrivel up and just fall off. That will save you a bundle.
(;~/
gary
December 18, 2007 - 23:34 ET by shawn228lol I am switching to a PPO next year and I have to pay full price, you might just be right:-)
shawn
December 18, 2007 - 23:39 ET by Gary Hallsorry. I'm laughing so hard - I almost forgot that I was a bit worried about rocking the boat here. In the original joke, it was puple and yellow spots -- how could I pass up the moment?
But then again, had you been stashing it away in a HSA, you'd been ahead of the game..
Time to run. Gary -- (;~>
gary
December 18, 2007 - 23:48 ET by shawn228You did not let me finish my sentence, I was in the middle of telling free that I noticed a red bruise where my knee was when I knelt down to pray at the Buddist temple in Thailand. tsk tsk ....what is your dirty mind thinking? lol. Good night Gary:-)
Just curious, what exactly
December 18, 2007 - 12:47 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsJust curious, what exactly is your definition of "wrecking the economy"?
Ummm, Internet Bubble, Enron, WorldComm, 2000 market 'correction'. . .
I, personally, lost half my 401K thanks to Bill's wonderful economy.
Doubled under Bush (while engaged in a World War).
But thats just me.
D
I could go on.Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
DontFeed... How much had
December 18, 2007 - 22:52 ET by JerDontFeed...
How much had the value of your 401(k) appreciated during the 90's before taking the hit in 2000?
By the way, speaking of 2000, exhibiting my superb instinct for timing, I finally decided to jump aboard the tech stock bandwagon and invested at the absolute peak of the run-up. Neelless to say, it was an uncomfortable ride to the bottom.
I didn't blame Clinton or Bush.
But that's just me.
Jer
Jer, you're so sadly
December 18, 2007 - 12:47 ET by mattmJer, you're so sadly mistaken it's not even funny. You bought the lies and drank the koolaid.
The fact is Clinton inherited a strong and growing economy, and a strong nation and a peaceful world (thanks to the Reagan-Thatcher-J.Paul II trio which won the Cold War)...then he proceeded to squander it it all...the 2000 crash, the 9/11 attacks, the expansion of the Chi-Com empire, and much much more...were directly the result of Clinton's incompetence, or his ill-advised policy.
And that doesn't even touch on the fact (I know you hate that word) that his was the single most corrupt and scandalous administration in history.
Clinton was only good at two things: Taking credit for the accomplishments of others, and getting others to take the punishment for his misdeeds.
Other than that, Clinton was a failure. Learn it, live it, love it...or at least accept it...
mattm...you're right...I've
December 18, 2007 - 14:47 ET by Jermattm...you're right...I've bought the lies, drank the Kool-Aid, and hate facts. I guess that's why I have stated in previous posts that I consider Reagan the best President in my lifetime [going back to Truman], expressed my admiration for Bush, have been critical of Bill Clinton, and indicated the liklihood of my voting Republican if Hillary is the nominee. Yep, I've really bought into the lies.
And yet your ideological bias is so fossilized you are incapable of conceding what professional economists across the political spectrum uniformly recognize--that the Clinton administration deserves high marks for its handling of the U.S. economy during his two terms in office.
Jer
I disagree with your view of
December 18, 2007 - 17:34 ET by BruzillaI disagree with your view of Clinton in regards to the economy. Clinton was blessed by a confluence of events, most notable the technology markets, the internet bubble, and the false economy.
To the first, widespread IT spending began just as Clinton entered office in 1992. Corporations spent billions and billions of dollars each year, upgrading their IT capabilities as technology progressed. This spending had a huge influence on the economy. But technical progress started exceeding human ability about 1996, and this part of the economy quickly eroded as corporations quit paying $3,000+ to upgrade systems that had pretty mcuh already exceeded the abilty of their employees to make use of the new technology, companies quit buying whole systems and started by only the pieces that needed upgrading, etc.
To the second, much of the "sustained economic growth" of the 1990s was made out of thin air. Someone had a great idea for an internet business, they rented an office, they bought some computers, desks, and chairs, and offered an IPO of their stock. In reality the company had no value other than the value of their equipment, but the expectation of huge profits raised their stock values to the millions. But at the end of the day, there was really nothing there, and most of these businesses collapsed, thus ending the "greatest peiood if sustained economic growth".
To the last, it wasn't Clinton who allowed ENRON to happen, it was Senators Dodd and Lieberman, both Democrats from CT, who caused it. They were the ones who, at the request of lobbyists from CT, slipped the laws into the books that allowed auditors to have a financial stake in the companies they audited, which resulted in phoney-balogney profit reports that made it look like money was being made when it was actually being lost.
So, most of the economic progress of the the Clinton era had nothing to do with his brilliance with economics, but rather recurring costs for upgrading IT infrastructures, companies that were worth millions on paper, but had no assets to back up the value, and profits based on lies. Take away those three areas of the economy of the 1990s, and we're in a recession most of the time. Once companies quit upgrading, the internet companies folded, and the profit frauds were revealed, it became obvious that the Clinton's economic progress was nothing but a house of cards, and the result was the recession that GWB got us out of using tax cuts.
"...when she reaches the
December 18, 2007 - 11:41 ET by Senior Chief"...when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor..."
Why Billy is so sure that Hillary is going to win and convince Bush 41 to oblige. That's petty arrogant statement.
Still doesn't have a clue...Billy is ruining Hillary's campaign. Everytime he opens up his hole, the wife tries to explain what he meant. I do believe now on the theory that Billy really doesn't want his wife to be president.
If the Hildabeast is
December 18, 2007 - 11:42 ET by ricklailIf the Hildabeast is elected who do you think is going to run the country anyway? She don't have the smarts or the experience to do it. Bill, being the BS artist that he is, will take charge.
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.” General George S. Patton.
Real election odds
December 18, 2007 - 11:42 ET by sarcasmoNote possible lucrative arbitrage-opportunities on various candidates between Sportsbook.com & Ladbroke House!! "Can't lose" arbitrage is my kind of "bet." Those of you & those in the media who profess such certitude and expertise regarding future primary results & polls, despite articles like this & this, should climb aboard the cash-wagon now -- your luxury European vacations await!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
If they were taking bets on
December 18, 2007 - 11:57 ET by ckc1227If they were taking bets on who wouldn't win future primaries, and who wouldn't get the nomination, I'd be all over it.
Interesting how Condoleezza Rice is 66/1 at ladbrokes when she isn't even running.
Paul was 1-200 to one in Jan./Feb.
December 18, 2007 - 12:16 ET by sarcasmoSo I'm really the one who missed his chance!! :)
And these odds are perpetually more-interesting than the questionable polls everyone in the media wants to cite, IMO. Why do the media trust paying-for annoying phone calls to a few individuals (self-selected for those who'll talk to their telephone-tormentor) MORE than the free free marketplace in overseas Presidential odds anyone can find? I've never gotten an adequate answer to that question. I've been asking it for decades...
Just curious, did you click on either or both of those polling methodology links? I think that's another story the MSM, due to massive antilibertarian bias combined with inherent laziness, does not want to cover honestly. Do you agree?? Why isn't polling methodology given more scrutiny, considering the importance placed on polls? It's beyond me...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Bet on Dr. Ron Paul:
December 18, 2007 - 12:31 ET by TinianNew Internet Poll Shows Ron Paul Leading With 120%
Charleston, SC - A recent online poll conducted recently showed
Presidential candidate Ron Paul leading the other candidates with 120%
of responses in his favor. Criticisms have arose regarding the
authenticity of such online polls, which seem to defy, until recently,
every other poll, but now also, math itself.
With
120%, Paul led the field with the nearest candidate being Rudy Giuliani
with 1%, and Mitt Romney close behind with -6%. The other candidates,
which most Americans seem content to ignore, garnered up the remaining
negative 15%.
Meet the real friends of Dr. Ron Paul.
And look at this one...
December 18, 2007 - 12:36 ET by sarcasmoIronic this one spot in the media (aside from Rockwell's blog) has a clue about polling methodology, and it's a satire-site.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Tiger can't lose his stripes
December 18, 2007 - 11:57 ET by dboBubba's just looking for an excuse to meet new women with a foreign accent.
It's going to be interesting
December 18, 2007 - 11:59 ET by BruzillaIt's going to be interesting to hear the other shoe drop on this one. I can't imagine Clinton making such an outrageous claim without having first had some conversation with Bush Sr. about hitting the road again. I am really looking forward to seeing how Bush Sr. responds to this.
Just listened to Fred
December 18, 2007 - 12:02 ET by Jack BauerJust listened to Fred Thompson on the Laura Ingraham show.
The guy came across as impressive, conservative, inclusive, funny, humble and fast on his feet. Maybe it's too late, but
Putting my money where my mouth is... I just put $20 on him getting the nom.
14/1 at the UK online betting site William Hill...
Dang, Jack!!
December 18, 2007 - 12:38 ET by sarcasmoLadbroke's has Fred at 22 to one! But it's good to see another "real" link, and good luck!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
sarc -- 22/1 is to win the
December 18, 2007 - 12:43 ET by Jack Bauersarc -- it's 22/1 for Fred to win the Presidency at Ladbrokes!
They're only offering 10/1 for the nom -- hence me going with William Hill.
Aha!
December 18, 2007 - 12:46 ET by sarcasmoThanks. Hey, besides those 2 are there any other UK Presidential-gambling websites I should be checking?? I think Fred's numbers may, like some others, be artificially-low in the polls. Again, good luck!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
sarc -- okay you got Paddy
December 18, 2007 - 12:53 ET by Jack Bauersarc -- okay you got Paddy Power and Coral... that's probably the top 4 with Hills and Ladbrokes.
Hey -- I'm not a betting man though.
Slick Willie and his wingman
December 18, 2007 - 12:05 ET by RackieSlick Willie and his wingman on the hunt.
Yeah, that'll work.
So far SOROS quiet/what's going on!!!
December 18, 2007 - 12:16 ET by PawpawNWhere is GEORGIE? SOROS that is? You know the man who has Off shore accounts, hedge funds, etc. Convicted of insider trading in France. He is currently trying to do to the US Dollar what he did to the English Pound/Sterling in the early 90's. Heavily invested in China, he wants dollar devalued. The 14-year old George sometimes accompanied his supposed godfather, helping to identify and expropriate the property of wealthy fellow Jews. So far from being a "Holocaust Survivor," George Soros was instead a Nazi collaborator. In 1969 he set up his own investment fund, Quantum Fund NV, with capitalisation of $4 million. A private mutual fund, Quantum is registered in the tax haven of Curacao, in the Lesser Antilles in the Caribbean. This is to avoid paying taxes, as well as to hide the true nature of his investors and what he does with his money. In March 1993 Soros proclaimed, with great publicity, that the price of gold was about to rise sharply: that he had just obtained "inside information" that China was about to buy huge sums of gold for its booming economy. The next month, again with great publicity, he purchased a 20% stake in Newman Mining, a Denver-based gold company, from controllers Sir James Goldsmith and Lord Jacob Rothschild. The fourth major partner in Newmont was reportedly Li Ka Shing, at the time Hong Kong’s leading narco-billionaire. The drug connection is relevant, as much of the money flowing into the international derivatives markets – and into the sort of currency weapon in which Soros specialises – is laundered drug money. He also told BBC-TV viewers that "Next to my fantasies about being God, I also have very strong fantasies of being mad. In fact, my grandfather was actually paranoid. I have a lot of madness in my family. So far I have escaped it." Where has this HEAD of the BUSH SYNDROME been lately? We all need to watch out!!
Ethanol, the "gift" that never stops TAKING
December 18, 2007 - 12:34 ET by RJCorn "leaks" more fertilizer and has a more shallow root structure than other crops. Now, with corn replacing other crops and being planted in new areas, massive amounts of fertlizer and topsoil are flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.
This depletes oxygen and has created a growing dead zone where sea life cannot live.
Meanwhile, in a direct correlation, wheat prices have just topped $10 a bushel for the first time....a 52% price increase in the past year.
Now, world food supplies may be dwindling.
"reserves of cereals are severely depleted...world wheat stores declined 11% this year to the lowest level since 1980....there are only 8 weeks of corn left."
"Prices of wheat and oilseads are at record highs...and there's been a shift in production away from farming for human consumption."
Yet, the Warmists and politicans have demanded that ethanol be MANDATED AND SUBSIDIZED.
Ironically, they're willing to harm the poor and risk people starving for the "good of the planet"....
I loved the World Food
December 18, 2007 - 13:13 ET by BruzillaI loved the World Food Supplies May be Dwindling article you referenced! What a classic piece of work! It perfectly manages to place the blame for reduced grain production on global warming and upwardly-mobiel meat eaters, and steers it away from the real cause - farmers make more money by growing and selling corn for biofuels than by producing food, and like any other business, they're going to always follow the money.
Yeah, I laughed at that, too, Bruzilla
December 18, 2007 - 13:25 ET by RJThey don't like to admit that ethanol is a disaster in every way: financially, socially, and environmentally.
NJ - embarrasses itself (again)
December 18, 2007 - 12:40 ET by SouthJersey1953Just when I think my state can't get any "dumber"....
New Jersey authorities sent a "disgraceful and obscene" notice to two grieving families - a lawsuit against them and their four loved ones killed in a terrible crash for damage the victims allegedly caused to the Turnpike. [FULL STORY]
It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong
I had a tough time getting
December 18, 2007 - 13:04 ET by BruzillaI had a tough time getting past the responses from both families being made by lawyers, and mentioning that both lawyers are busy trying to sue some poor truckdriver and his company for making a mistake that could have happened to anyone.
Sorry, but I rate the families right in with the state on this one.
Huh? I am not a fan of lawsuits but...
December 18, 2007 - 13:12 ET by SouthJersey1953The innocent people are sitting in tied up traffic and a truck plows into them, killing members of their families. The truck driver was at fault...not paying attention. They want some compensation for thier loss. This happens at just about every traffic accident in the country. Not sure why you felt the victims families going after the person CAUSING the accident was the same as the NJ Turnpike going after the VICTIMS to recoop damage to their precious road...
It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong
Because I doubt the driver
December 18, 2007 - 14:15 ET by BruzillaBecause I doubt the driver was driving along thinking "wow... I should smash into this traffic slow down up here." How many times have you been moving along at highway speed, everything's going great, then some pinhead you never get to see slows down for some reason and causes all the traffic behind them to start to accordian as drivers try to avoid slamming into one another. One moment all is well, and the next moment you're shooting through the grass to keep from hitting the guy in front of you? Or how about you're driving along, come around a bend, and wham - traffic is just stopped. You get no warning of this, and it's not like you've known for miles that traffic wasn't moving, it's just in one place traffic is going 65 and in another it's going zero. Now, what happens when you approach this situation? How many people do you see quickly changing lanes to try to get into a better spot at the last second? Now imagine you're in a heavy truck, that needs plenty of room to stop, and you've got these pinheads zipping around in front of you. Not an easy situation to deal with.
Ive been driving since 1976, and I've seen far more situations of this than I could ever count, as have most drivers. It royally sucks when it happens, and sucks worse when you can't stop in time and an accident occurs, but it's an accident, not someone trying to intentionally inflict pain and suffering on someone. I learned to drive when an accident was just an accident, and not an opportunity to line a personal injury lawyer's pockets.
Defensive Driving works
December 18, 2007 - 17:22 ET by Dan The Man 2Defensive Driving works wonders. They are called collisions and the driver moving is usually at fault. Traffic does not go from 65 to 0 its usually slows down gradually. Th driver is resposible period for all that happens to his vehicle. Even in a stopped vehicle you can position yourself to prevent collisions. I have no sympathy for the truck diver.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
And there's the key word
December 18, 2007 - 17:49 ET by BruzillaAnd there's the key word "usually". Yes, traffic does usually slow down gradually, but time and again it doesn't. And it's during these times that most rear-end collisions on the highway occur. I can't speak for the driver of the truck, but I know there have been many, many, times that I've been driving along doing a little over the speed limit, and found myself standing on the brakes, along with every other driver near me, as for one reason or another traffic just slowed to a standstill.
I used to feel the way you do, until I went for a ride with a guy driving an 18-wheeler. I don't know how they deal with us half the time. He would see a slowdown up aheaed and start slowing down, and whish - two or three cars would just cut in in front of him trying to get to a more advantageous lane, seemingly oblivious to the fact that this guy can't slow down like they can, or that they're taking up a good chunk of the distance he needed to slow down safely... so he had to slow down much faster and mush less safely... and all so a couple of soccer moms can be two car lengths ahead of where they would be in their original lane.
Did the drivers of the cars that got hit do that? Did someone else cut the truck off and force him into another lane? As usual, we're only hearing about the aftermath of the crash and not about what everyone was doing just prior to it. Like I said, I doubt the truck driver intended to smash into the cars, which makes it an accident.
Lastly, I get a bit tired of hearing people talk about personal responsibility, but then the minute they can get their hands into someone else's pockets they jump at the chance. Yes, it's horrible when you lose a family member and a vehicle in an accident, and there are a lot of costs (medical, burial, vehicle) etc., that survivors need help with, but that's what auto and life insurance are for. Driving on the road has risks associated with it, and if you drive and don't protect yourself and your family from those risks, then that's bad on you. I think if the family wants to sue the driver to get some closure, fine. But if they're suing the trucking company, and they are, they're looking for money and I have no sympathy for that.
GHWB WON' BE HANGING WITH
December 18, 2007 - 13:01 ET by TOEGHWB WON' BE HANGING WITH NO PIMP,
ESPECIALLY THE "FIRST PIMP"
Aruba - - Poor Greta
December 18, 2007 - 13:21 ET by CaringwhiteguyShe's lost her excuse to bask in the sun over this cold, bleak winter. Instead she'll have to hang out across the street from Drew Peterson's house in suburban Chicago.
http://www.cnn.com/2...
Deja Vu All Over Again
December 18, 2007 - 13:53 ET by stratmanhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_new_jersey
The MSM is at it again, washing the party affiliations of the Democrats from their news stories. This time it is DEMOCRAT Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey in an AP story of how he has signed into law a bill that abolishes the death penalty and commutes the death sentences of several killers to life in prison without parole, including the murderer of Megan Kanka in 1994 from which came Megan's Law.
The story never mentions Corzine's political affiliation, so we can all probably guess what it is anyways. Even more interesting is that neither the Office Of The Governor nor the Corzine For Governor, a website for re-election in 2009?, state his Democrat party affiliation.
Of particular note, the story does state the Democrat party affiliation of the only other politician, Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo, mentioned/quoted who predictably states it was the "right thing".
Exactly how is this the "right thing"?
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Less than one half hour
December 18, 2007 - 14:12 ET by stratmanLess than one half hour since I initially clicked on this story on Yahoo, AP has released a revised story using the same web link.
Gone is the quote from the Democrat Assemblyman. Gone also is the initial focus on the victims and their families.
Strangely, though maybe not for New Jersey politics, is a complete change in the public defenders office views - from questioning Corzine's move to one of complete acceptance - all in the span of minutes! Was someone threatened to get whacked?
Of course, no correction in failure to identify the Governor's Democrat party affiliations was made.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Original Posting
December 18, 2007 - 14:15 ET by stratmanSome decry N.J. death penalty abolition
By TOM HESTER Jr., Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
TRENTON, N.J. - Marilyn Flax has never been involved in political campaigns.
That changed Monday, when New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine signed a law making New Jersey the first state to abolish the death penalty in more than 40 years.
Flax, whose husband was abducted and murdered in 1989, vowed to work against Corzine and state lawmakers who voted last week to abolish the death penalty.
"I will make sure my voice is used and they are not re-elected," she said.
John Martini Sr., the man who killed Flax's husband, was among the eight men on New Jersey's death row until Corzine commuted their sentences to life in prison without parole — an attempt to ensure they cannot win an appeal and gain release with the elimination of the death penalty.
Among the eight spared is Jesse Timmendequas, a sex offender who murdered 7-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994. The case inspired Megan's Law, which requires law enforcement agencies to notify the public about convicted sex offenders living in their communities.
Others spared include Ambrose Harris, who kidnapped, raped and murdered 22-year-old Lower Makefield, Pa., artist Kristin Huggins exactly 15 years ago Monday. And it spares Brian Wakefield, who killed two people in 2001.
"Justice should have been served," said Sharon Hazard-Johnson, whose parents were killed by Wakefield. "I think we all know that justice has not been served. It is quite unbelievable."
Corzine said he was moved by passionate views on both sides, but believes eliminating capital punishment "best captures our state's highest values and reflects our best efforts to search for true justice."
"This bill does not forgive or in any way condone the unfathomable acts carried out by the eight men now on New Jersey's death row," Corzine said. "They will spend the rest of their lives in jail."
Victims' relatives and defense attorneys aren't so sure of that.
Richard Kanka, Megan's father, predicted Corzine's commutations won't stand because of the legal standard of ex post facto, which bars people from being punished under laws that didn't exist when they committed an act.
"They can't give these guys life without parole," Kanka said. "What they want to do is going to get overturned."
Tom Rosenthal, a spokesman for the state public defender's office, which represents the eight men, agreed that was an issue but said it's too soon to know whether the public defender will challenge Corzine's move.
New Jersey reinstated the death penalty in 1982 — six years after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to resume executions — but it hasn't executed anyone since 1963.
"There is little collective will or appetite for our community to enforce this law and therefore the law has little deterrence value — that is if you ever accepted that there was deterrent value," said Corzine, a longtime death penalty foe.
A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed New Jersey voters supported keeping the death penalty by a 53 percent to 39 percent margin. The telephone poll of 1,085 voters was conducted from Dec. 5-9 and had a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Death penalty opponents hailed the new law as a historic victory against capital punishment. Officials in Rome planned to light the Colosseum in support. Once the arena for deadly gladiator combat and executions, the Colosseum has become a symbol of the fight against the death penalty.
The bill passed the New Jersey Legislature largely along party lines, with controlling Democrats supporting the abolition and minority Republicans opposed. Republicans unsuccessfully sought to retain the death penalty for those who murder law enforcement officials, terrorists and those who rape and murder children.
"New Jersey is doing the right thing," said Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo, a Democrat. "By abolishing capital punishment, we will no longer lower ourselves to the level of those who commit murders."
The nation's last execution was Sept. 25 in Texas. Since then, executions have been delayed pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision on whether execution through lethal injection violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
"This is a harbinger of things to come," Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said of New Jersey's decision.
"A thorough examination of the state's death penalty system has revealed it for what it truly is: a colossal public policy failure that wastes taxpayer dollars and diverts valuable resources from proven crime prevention measures."
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Updated Yahoo Posting
December 18, 2007 - 14:17 ET by stratmanSome decry N.J. death penalty abolition
By TOM HESTER Jr., Associated Press Writer 28 minutes ago
TRENTON, N.J. - The New Jersey Public Defender's Office said Tuesday it won't challenge Gov. Jon S. Corzine's decision to commute the death sentences of eight men now that the state's death penalty has been abolished.
The office had questioned whether Corzine had authority to do that because the penalty of life imprisonment without chance of parole didn't exist when the men committed their crimes. But spokesman Tom Rosenthal said legal research has shown that the governor does have the authority.
Corzine commuted the sentences Monday as he signed a law making New Jersey the first to abolish the death penalty in more than 40 years. Relatives of those killed by the eight had worried that if the commutations were overturned, it could open the door to at least some eventually getting released on parole.
Rosenthal said federal case law related to the 2003 decision by then-Illinois Gov. George Ryan to commute death sentences of all 167 inmates on that state's death row to life in prison indicated governors have authority to do so and Corzine's move would be upheld.
"We wouldn't prevail, so we won't be pursuing that," said Rosenthal, whose office represents the eight men. He said that means the men who sat on death row will spend the rest of their lives in prison.
Even without a court challenge, the action could still have political effects.
Marilyn Flax, whose husband was abducted and murdered in 1989, vowed to work against Corzine and the lawmakers who voted last week to abolish the death penalty.
"I will make sure my voice is used and they are not re-elected," she said.
John Martini Sr., the man who killed Flax's husband, is among the eight men whose sentences were commuted.
Another of the eight is Jesse Timmendequas, the sex offender who murdered 7-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994. The case inspired Megan's Law, which requires law enforcement agencies to notify the public about convicted sex offenders living in their communities.
Megan's father, Richard Kanka, is still hopeful the men won't see old age. "The only thing we can really hope for is somebody in jail will knock off these guys," he said.
The New Jersey Constitution gives the governor authority to "grant pardons and reprieves in all cases other than impeachment and treason."
New Jersey reinstated the death penalty in 1982 — six years after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to resume executions — but hasn't executed anyone since 1963.
Corzine said he was moved by passionate views on both sides, but believes eliminating capital punishment "best captures our state's highest values and reflects our best efforts to search for true justice."
A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed New Jersey voters supported keeping the death penalty by 53 percent to 39 percent. The telephone poll of 1,085 voters was conducted from Dec. 5-9 and had a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The bill passed the legislature largely along party lines, with controlling Democrats supporting the abolition and Republicans opposed. Republicans unsuccessfully sought to retain the death penalty for those who murder law enforcement officials, terrorists and those who rape and murder children.
The nation's last execution was Sept. 25 in Texas. Since then, executions have been delayed pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision on whether execution by lethal injection violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Rejoice, comrades! Rejoice!
December 18, 2007 - 14:33 ET by Roger the ShrubberRejoice, comrades! Rejoice! Go hug a tree and symbolically stand in live for bread because to today is the birthday of:
1. Donor of hundreds-of-thousands-to-the-DNC-and-HRC-backer Steven Spielberg
2. Moonbat supreme Ramsey Clarke
&
3. Jozef Stalin
On the brighter side, today is also the birthday of great guitarists like Keith Richards, Elliot Easton (The Cars), and Kreator's Mille Petrozza. Oh, and the great author and writer on two of the greatest Blue Oyster Cult tunes turns 68 today: Michael Moorcock!
I must be a lot older than you.
December 18, 2007 - 16:41 ET by ricklailOnly the first 3 names plus Richards are the only ones I know. I must be a lot older than you than I first thought.
I will be pulling for your Panthers when they play DOOK Thursday night in Madison Square Garden. I hope they put the smackdown on that bunch of losers from Durham. GO HEELS.
I was waiting for a good time to bring this link up. It is about DOOK. It has some rough language, and I mean rough.(It would cause a drill sgt to blush.) It was sent to me by one of the others here on this site. You don't have to be Tar Heel fan to enjoy it.
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.” General George S. Patton.
You are too old to remember
December 18, 2007 - 16:44 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou are too old to remember The Cars? Man, their first album came out around 1979 or so.
I think you will be unpleasantly suprised if you found out how old I am :P
I am torn Thursday night, since my Panthers will be on one network, while my fading Steelers will be on another! Pitt hasn't played DOOK in 20-some-odd years, so it hould be interesting...
The Cars
December 18, 2007 - 17:00 ET by ricklailI don't remember the Cars but around '79 was my country years. I didn't listen to anything but country. I am 56. Did they do "Drive" or was that Alan Jackson? After Creedance broke up rock music pretty much died as far as I was concerned.
The DOOK game should be about over with when the Steelers start. It starts at 7.
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.” General George S. Patton.