It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

page: 44
15
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   


In a speech to NATO leaders in Norfolk, Virginia, Giuliani mentioned Australia, South Korea, Israel, India, Japan and Singapore as non-European countries that should be considered for membership.

"Many of them cooperate with NATO already in training missions," Giuliani said. "We need their help

Giuliani challenged the line-item veto in 1997 because it stopped $200 million that was intended for his city. He successfully argued that the power can only come through a constitutional amendment, not through legislation. The Supreme Court stuck down the line-item veto as unconstitutional in 1998.



source

Rudy track record and policy ideas seem to be failing him and he hasn't even gotten down to the real policy making and debates. Put simply if Australia was to join NATO then it wouldn't be NATO any more would it ?
The people of New York City might have been grateful for the spending but people who live else where might just see that Rudy opposed the line of veto.

Bill Clinton seem to prove that you could win the White House even if you are carrying a lot of baggage but IMO you cant get elected if your policy is misguided or lacking.

I will give credit to Rudy for acknowledging that the US needs the help of its allies. With the Islamic extremist threat and China in our backyard I certainly wouldn't object to a return to something along the lines of a better version of SEATO even if NZ is just a participant rather then an active partner.

[edit on 13-10-2007 by xpert11]




posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   

posted by xpert11
Quote: In a speech to NATO leaders in Norfolk, Virginia, Giuliani mentioned Australia, South Korea, Israel, India, Japan and Singapore as non-European countries that should be considered for membership. Put simply if Australia was to join NATO then it wouldn't be NATO any more would it? I will give credit to Rudy for acknowledging that the US needs the help of its allies.


Why re-invent the United Nations? America OWNS NATO. Republicans HATE the United Nations. They opposed it in 1918 when it was offered as the League of Nations. They have consistently opposed it since its inception in 1946. Reagan did not like it and if you recall, Bush43 insulted it. Now that he is stuck in a quagmire of his own making, he is looking for help where ever it may be. It is Republicans who love the bumper sticker, “Get the US out of the UN, Get the UN out of NY”


Quote: Giuliani challenged the line-item veto in 1997 because it stopped $200 million that was intended for his city. He successfully argued that the power can only come through a constitutional amendment, not through legislation. The Supreme Court stuck down the line-item veto as unconstitutional in 1998.


US Con. Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2. “Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it . . “ It must be that the bill is taken as a whole and cannot be divided by the president. No line item veto.

Which raises serious issues about Bush43 and his 1,000 “sign-offs.” This is Bush43 and Gonzales who have Bush43 sign a law but indicate in his own handwriting what parts of it he will not enforce. For his legal obligations of office in this regard, I refer you to US Con, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8: “Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

There is NO constitutional provision for “signing off.”


With the Islamic extremist threat and China in our backyard I certainly wouldn't object to a return to something along the lines of a better version of SEATO even if NZ is just a participant rather then an active partner.


I have already explained how Bush43 hi-jacked the Nine Eleven Event. He and Cheney “invented” Islamic Extremism as a straw-man for us to take on and fight till the end of time. We do not, we refuse to address the 4 major issues which motivated OBL and continue to resonate in the Arab world. 1) The Temple Mount; 2) Israel and Palestinians; 3) Support of despotic Arab regimes and 4) Exploitation of Middle East natural resources say oil. We can afford to deal with these issues, but we are crazy if we think we can ever stop “terrorism” or “extremism.”

The NEXT president must
1) Close Guantanamo Bay
2) Ask Congress to quickly REPEAL the Patriot Act and to abolish the Homeland Security Department and the office of Director of National Intelligence.
3) Declare the War on Terror Accomplished and OVER
4) Convene a regional conference under the auspices of the UN, to re-define the Middle East and our part in it. We must face the Lebanon, Palestinian and Kurdish issues in this context. Iran, Turkey and Russia will be major players.

[edit on 10/13/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Sure such a veto would require changes to the constitution but what other option is there at this point ?
I don't supporting scraping the UN but the UN is require an major overhaul badly. In its current state the UN is beyond a bad joke. what's worse is that NZ bases its foreign policy around the UN. Sometimes the UN will grant a mandate for peace keeping but permission is still required from the relevant government. Aust and NZ pulled most if not all there troops out of East Timor after the UN mandate expired this despite the wishes of the East Timor Government. Within the blink of an eye we had go back after rioting and general lawless broke out.

So what is the point of the UN in all of this ?

Sorry for the rant.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Xpert11 Sure such a veto would require changes to the constitution but what other option is there at this point?

If you think the Congress is going to give any president a line item veto, then you are not on the same wavelength as I am on. Earmarks are the answer Congress has “invented” (or is it discovered?) to counter the exponential growth in power of the executive branch especially since 1932. The Congress cannot give earmarks away either. Earmarks are the Viagra of Congress. It cures each Member of political impotency.

Modern means of communication give the single person (voice) of the presidency nearly automatic supremacy over the cacophony of 535 independent (voice) members of the legislative branch. I submit even those Members of Congress who ACT as if they support line item would back away if it got to the point of an amendment. Don’t forget amendments require a 2/3rds favorable vote of each chamber. Forget it. Never happen. “Line Item” is merely a distraction some politicians find useful from time to time. It shifts the public blame for out of balance budgets proposed by presidents to the Congress. It's disingenuous.

Xpert11 I don't supporting scraping the UN but the UN is require an major overhaul badly. In its current state the UN is beyond a bad joke. what's worse is that NZ bases its foreign policy around the UN. Sometimes the UN will grant a mandate for peace keeping but permission is still required from the relevant government. Aust and NZ pulled most if not all there troops out of East Timor after the UN mandate expired this despite the wishes of the East Timor Government. Within the blink of an eye we had go back after rioting and general lawless broke out. So what is the point of the UN in all of this?

Look back when the UN was formed in 1946. It was discussed at the Cairo Conference in 1943 and at Yalta in 1945. Stalin knew the US and the UK along with a reconstituted France and an anti-communist China would be the Big 4 of the Big 5. Stalin consented to come along IF he could have a veto. For various reasons we wanted the USSR onboard. Propaganda had made “Uncle Joe” a Nazi killing war hero in America. As a compromise we created the five permanent members of the Security Council and gave each a veto. That was not a gift, it was recognizing reality. Real Politick! No major player at the UN is going to consent to anything contrary to what it regards as its own vital self interest.

At the first meeting of the General Assembly, out of 50 members the US controlled about 35-40 votes. All the states of Central and South America. All the newly liberated West European states which were totally dependent on American largess. France, Italy, Norway, the BeNeLux countries. The UK was about to lose its Empire (1947). In 1946 we had it all. For a variety of reasons, it suited our own purpose to pretend the Red Army was a powerful and imminent threat to the security of Western Europe but that was a myth. An Anglo-American myth that Stalin saw no reason to refute. Recall it was Churchill’s England, the US and Japan which invaded Russia in 1920 to take down the Bolsheviks. And failed.

The Red Army is said to have lost 500,000 men in the Battle of Berlin. By 1945, Germany was strapped but still they inflicted heavy casualties on the Red Army. Consider: America had supplied 50%-60% of the Soviet war material. The US alone had the nuclear bomb and as important, the means to deliver it. The Soviets were set up to make Yak tank buster planes and T34 tanks. The Soviet Union was a 3rd rate industrial power. Maybe ahead of India? WE made the USSR into whatever it was in the Cold War for our own purposes.

Churchill both feared and hated communism. It was his lifelong obsession. He believed the USSR would collapse if pressed hard enough. He was right. But it took a lot longer than he first supposed. Aside: To off-set America’s dominate position in the UN General Assembly, Stalin demanded and got Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus admitted and seated in the General Assembly as if they were independent countries and not part of the USSR. So the USSR had 4 certain votes in the GA.

No Xpert11, the Iron Curtain and the Cold War were creations of Churchill with Roosevelt’s concurrence. I say our CIA lied to the American people and by extension to the world about the supposed strength of the Soviets. They thought they were playing it "safe." It's better to over-estimate your enemy than to under-estimate. In 1989-1991, the CIA was caught FLAT-FOOTED. The fall of the USSR was as much a surprise to the CIA as to the ordinary man on the street. They had come to believe their own propaganda. So what happened to all those BILLIONS OF DOLLARS we spent from 1947 - when CIA was founded - to 1989? Has anyone in our government asked that question? How much was stolen by insiders? How much was wasted? No, Mr X11, we’ve been led down the primrose path. A voyage of no return.

I do not believe America’s politicians were maliciously deceitful. I believe all that long lasting mis-adventure was the result of a convergence of common interests and successive generations taking “the easy way out.” What would it have gained Eisenhower to say Truman had it all wrong? Or Johnson to blame a dead hero of a president as misguided? Better to blame the Congo on Patrice Lumba. To blame Cuba on Fidel Castro. To blame South Africa on Nelson Mandala. To blame Bolivia on Che Guevara. To blame Vietnam on Ho Chi Minh. To blame China on Mao Zedong. It’s called WRITE YOUR OWN HISTORY. Machiavelli at his best or at his worst. It depends on your POV. But we are far enough removed in time to begin to see the light! Or at least to start looking.

[edit on 10/14/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Don, can you give those of us(me) that weren't able to comprehend politics in the '90s, what this 'One Line Veto' deal is??? Is it that the president can veto an spesific line of a bill that passed thru the house and congres? So the president can strike out the lines of pork? Or is there something else.

Also, the Red Scare was over by the time i have my first memory pretty much, so you have to fill me in, most of my info is from movies and TV shows, and a little bit from books, and online, but i would like to get your view about how the Russians were a non-threat made up by the goverment?

BEcause, acording to what i know, they had a great deal of Nukes, they had the means to deliver them, and then even got some nukes within 100 miles of the US when they were staioned in Cuba, so in My opinion, Russia was indeed a real threat, much more real then the 'enemies' that we are facing now in the middle east, who don't have the means to get the weapons to our land, and thats even if they have them at all?

Now, on the UN, i always have thought that the UN isn't such a bad idea, if they would actualy do something, the UN has taken the place of France at being at the butt of every joke, the UN peacekeepers have the most constraints on them of any army(if they can be called that).

But now, while we should still be a part of it, the UN shouldn't have its laws be higher then those of a country, especialy our countries laws.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
In 1945 the Soviets had a political advantage because Britain was nearly bankrupt and the US had a rookie president . IMO Churchill was spot on and the proof wasn't long in coming Stalin turned down Marshal aid because he was more interested in spreading Communism rather then rebuilding Europe.
A few of other things worth noting include that the Soviets gained the bomb in 1949 , Poland was never a free country until the Cold War ended and the one of the methods the Soviets used rebuilding there country was to loot the Soviet zone in Germany of any remaining farm machinery , manufacturing equipment e.t.c .

Don I have to respectfully conclude that your logic is warped.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

posted by TKainZero
Don, can you give those of us(me) that weren't able to comprehend politics in the '90s, what this 'One Line Veto' deal is??? Is it that the president can veto an specific line of a bill that passed thru the house and congress? So the president can strike out the lines of pork? Or is there something else.


No. You have it right Mr T/K/Z. Line (or one) Item Veto. Budgets are line by line. I got the City of Jacksonville 2007 budget. It takes 2 volumes of fine type, about 400 pages each volume, and 20 to 30 lines or items on each page. The city budget totaled $870 million. You can imagine how many lines the US budget at $2.8 t. would come to.


Also, the Red Scare was over by the time I have my first memory pretty much, so you have to fill me in, most of my info is from movies and TV shows, and a little bit from books, and online, but I would like to get your view about how the Russians were a non-threat made up by the government?


There were TWO Red Scares. The first followed the First World War when the Communists overthrew the Czar and set up the Soviet Union. We had a scare period here when Right Wingers were hyping the threat that communism threatened. In 1848, Europe had a socialist revolt in many countries, and the solid red flag was their symbol. Hence, RED scare.

The second Red Scare was in the US ln the late 1940s into the mid 1950s. Richard Nixon was a promoter and instigator of this Red Scare. Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin was the primary motivator of the second Red Scare. As usual, they dealt in innuendo, personal vilification and here say. Even Ike was flummoxed by Sen. McCarthy.


Because, according to what I know, they had a great deal of Nukes, they had the means to deliver them, and then even got some nukes within 100 miles of the US when they were stationed in Cuba, so in My opinion, Russia was indeed a real threat, much more real then the 'enemies' that we are facing now in the middle east, who don't have the means to get the weapons to our land, and that’s even if they have them at all?


Where the US devoted 5% to 10% of GDP to military expenditures , the Soviet Union devoted 25% to 30% of GDP to the military. Russia had a hollow economy. The first USSR nuclear explosion was in 1949, but like North Korea, it may have been more a DEVICE than a deliverable WEAPON. There is a big difference.

It is also true that ultimately the USSR produced more than 40,000 nuclear weapons. (The US has produced more than 70,000). The first notable Soviet rocket was launched in 1957. Sputnik. The USSR then was like China today a very large army but not well equipped beyond maintaining local law and order. The ultimate test in rocketry is found in the US and the Saturn 5, launch vehicle to the Moon and back Kennedy challenge.

We had scheduled 20 of the Saturn 5s. However, we canceled Launch 18, 19, and 20. Every Saturn 5 was a success. Apollo 13 sustained an explosion in the space vehicle, not in the launch rocket. The Russians make their counterpart moon rocket, the N1, and it failed two times out of 2 tries. Us 12 for 12, USSR 0 for 2.

We soon abandoned our liquid fueled rockets and went to solid rockets. The Air Force’s Minuteman II is our last and best. 6,000-7,000 miles range and each can be MIRV’d to carry 10 nuclear weapons. About the same as the Navy’s Trident missiles. Which brings me to our nuclear submarine fleet. Way out front of the Soviets. Quieter. Deeper. Faster. Longer range. In every way, superior. Surface ships?

The USSR built ONE medium tonnage aircraft carrier but NO planes specifically designed for it. Tanks? Russia has a T90 but in very few numbers. Although fitted with a 125 mm gun, it is powered by a V12 diesel of 900 hp. Over 8800 M1 and M1A1 tanks have been produced for the US Army and Marine Corps, fitted with a 120 mm main gun and is powered by a 1,500 hp gas turbine.

The Russians have NOTHING near to equal to the F117 or the B2. Or for that matter, equal to the B52. Or the F14 we are taking out of service. The Russian Antonov AN225 is the largest heave lifter in the world, but the Russians have only ONE. And it is rented out most of the time to the US.

The Russians had fast planes, like the MiG29, but where we had 100s of F15s, they had only dozens of MiG29s. And we have F16s, FA18s, and F22s coming on line. There is no equal comparison between the US and Russia. We even have more people!

America is an 8.5 on a scale of 10, Russian a 3.5 on a scale of 10. China 3.0. Germany, 4.0, UK, 5.5, Japan, 3.0. France, 4.0. Italy, 2.5, and etc.

[edit on 10/14/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Xpert11 In 1945 the Soviets had a political advantage because Britain was nearly bankrupt and the US had a rookie president.

In 1945, the Soviet Union was wrecked. Britain was bankrupt in 1941, which is why the US started the Lend Lease program and swapped 50 destroyers for bases in the Western Hemisphere. The British colonial Empire was over. It was just a matter of closing it down with grace. Truman was an Artillery captain from War 1. He was a local politician in Kansas City, MO.

Truman's presidency was momentous in foreign affairs, overseeing the end of World War II including his decision to use nuclear weapons in Japan, the founding of the United Nations, the creation of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, the Truman Doctrine to contain communism in Greece and Turkey, the beginning of the Cold War, the Berlin Blockade and Airlift, the creation of NATO, and the Korean War. I would say although Truman was a ROOKIE he had a fast learning curve! Truman died in 1972. Many US scholars today rank him among the top ten presidents. Truman's legendary upset victory in 1948 over Thomas E. Dewey is routinely invoked by underdog presidential candidates.

xpert11 Poland was never a free country until the Cold War ended and the one of the methods the Soviets used rebuilding there country was to loot the Soviet zone in Germany of any remaining farm machinery , manufacturing equipment etc. Don I have to respectfully conclude that your logic is warped.

Poland has the misfortune to be located on an indefensible rolling plain between two great powers, Prussia and Germany on its west and Russia and USSR on its east. I’m not sure if Poland has ever been a FREE country anytime before the 1918 -1939 interval, and then again after 1989. Poles may be like Kurds-north.

As for the USSR taking property from the Germans, Hungarians, Romanians, Austrians and Czechs, it was a simple fact of life those nations were part of the Axis Powers which invaded and destroyed the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1945, killing 25 million Soviet people! I don’t see what they did wrong. Please do not overlook Hitler was not by himself when he invaded Russia in June, 1941 but we don’t say much about that in the West. It doesn’t fit our version of history.

Q. Does this mean anything? The Red Army is said to have lost 500,000 men in the Battle of Berlin. By 1945, Germany was strapped but still they inflicted heavy casualties on the Red Army. Consider: America supplied 50%-60% of the Soviet's war material. The US alone had the nuclear bomb and as important, the means to deliver it in 1945-1949.

[edit on 10/14/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I am well aware that the Soviet Union took there slice of Poland in 1939. Bringing the Soviet Union into the war against Japan also proved to be a costly mistake.
But who would have known at the time that the atomic bombs were going to end the war ?

As for Truman he was the right man for the job but I think that his handling of the Korean War lets down his legacy still it was Ike who ended the war.
Ever notice those who sprouted the domino theory have never said that if Korea had been unified there would have been no conflict in Vietnam ?
Of course such a notion is bogus but it is still worth thinking about.

Coming back to Republicans who oppose the UN being located in the US and US being a member of the UN. I think in part people are reflecting the UN ineffectiveness and the idealogical left overs of the Republican old guard who opposed the likes of Marshal Aid.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Xpert 11 I am well aware that the Soviet Union
took there slice of Poland in 1939. Bringing the Soviet Union into the war against Japan also proved to be a costly mistake. But who would have known at the time that the atomic bombs were going to end the war?

You have rebutted your own charge. After Okinawa we wanted to share the casualties we foresaw in taking Japan. We planned to land our forces on Shikoku, the #3 island from N to S. One million men to go ashore, with 3 million backing them up. Then we would hit Honshu, the #2 and main island. We ordered 1 million body bags. We talked of 500,000 casualties, not all KIA of course. The Soviets could have been of great aid should we have been forced to invade Japan.

The only “costly mistake.” After the fact, I am aware vis a vis the Soviets joining the Pacific War against Japan would be the inevitable division of Korea. But we were in a very much weaker position as respects Korea than in respects to Japan. The Chinese Communist were strongest in the north and were sitting next to Manchuria waiting to spring. And, Korea shares a short border with the Soviet Union. Vladivostok, the Russian’s major city out there, is a lot closer to Korea than Washington, DC. From an American’s perspective, I would not label the bringing in of the USSR as a mistake. I wished we had not done so, but there was no other option. Another case where hindsight is better than foresight.

xpert 11 As for Truman he was the right man for the job
but I think that his handling of the Korean War lets down his legacy still it was Ike who ended the war.

Truman continued the Roosevelt internationalist presidency which had replaced the isolationism of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. Looking outward instead of looking inward. In fairness to those 3, the world had changed dramatically between the 1920s and the 1940s. But the anti Roosevelt Peace at Any Price component strong in the 1930s was still alive and well. Truman handled the war exactly as he should. He choose to go to the United Nations. They UN Security Council authorized armed force to repel aggression. The UN did not authorize armed force to effect regime change in P’yongyang. Truman’s writ ran only to the 38th parallel.

MacArthur was a Republican presidential hopeful who was disappointed towards Truman for not going to war in China to preserve the Kuomintang of Chiang Kai Chek. Who fled to Taiwan in 1949. Over here we called them “China First-ers.” Even the new Red government of China warned MacArthur not to move his army closer to their border than 20 miles or 25 km. Which is unclear. We don't do well with km here. In any case, MacArthur wanted to begin a war with the Chinese Communists. He took his troops right up to the Yalu River. Mac wanted permission to use nuclear weapons against China. Truman said “no” Mac said “yes” so Harry fired him. That’s a real commander in chief acting properly.

The 1952 election pitted Eisenhower against Stevenson. In some ways it was a precursor of the 1968 election between Nixon and Humphrey. The Dems were sharply criticized by the pro war Republicans. By late 1951, the Chinese had pushed us back to essentially the 38th parallel where the war had stagnated. Still flush with the glory of World War Two, no good Republican was about to allow any “yellow color slope eyed” race to beat white Americans. (Even if they ignored that Truman had desegregated the Armed Forces).

Truman could have had the same terms in 1952 that Eisenhower accepted a year later, but Truman might have been impeached had he agreed then. With Ike’s war hero status he could put his imprimatur on a truce, then everyone would be satisfied. I have no hesitancy defending Truman even in those things he did wrong, like seizing the steel mills during a strike while the Korean Police Action was on-going.

Xpert 11 Ever notice those who sprouted the domino theory
have never said that if Korea had been unified there would have been no conflict in Vietnam ? Of course such a notion is bogus but it is still worth thinking about.

I don’t know. I think our involvement in Vietnam was due to 1) sliding down a slippery slope, and 2) hubris. As to cause 1, it is an example of not buying a round trip ticket. We had no exit strategy. Eisenhower gets credit for that miscue. He sent aid to the French as early as 1954. Before Dien Bien Phu. It was Ike and the Dulles brothers who counseled non-compliance with the 1956 Geneva Accords which called for a country-wide election in 1958 to unify the country under one government. It became obvious the Diem brothers would lose badly to a real national hero, Ho Chi Minh. It was Ike and his Secretary of Defense McElroy who put in the first MAAG. Military Advisory and Assistance Group, into what had become known as South Vietnam. That label was an American label. I don’t think the world ever accepted it, at least diplomatically.

Hubris. Cause 2. Kennedy followed Eisenhower. The first thing Kennedy did was to adopt the Cuba Plan conjured by the Dulles brothers, John Foster the Secretary of State and Allen W the director of the CIA, as his own. Both men were Wall Street international bankers by trade. Both were angry over Fidel seizing American property in Cuba. About revolutions we don’t give a dam, you seize our property and we’ll never let go. Like a snapping turtle, we won’t let go until it thunders. Aside: The alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii). It’s dangerous. That ‘Liberate Cuba Plan’ was to become better known as the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

The next foreign problem left over by Ike for Kennedy was South Vietnam. It too was to be a fiasco but one that lasted much longer than the Bay of Pigs. The side we backed had as much popularity in Vietnam as yellow fever or gonorrhea. A puppet government, we were propping it up after the French departed and it never had more than 5% of the populace behind it. And even those were left over French colonial lackeys. Not a group you’d want your children to emulate.

It is argued that JFK would not have escalated the war past the 5,000 or so troops he had there in 1963. Perhaps wishful thinking after November 22, 1953? Kennedy's successor LBJ, was not accustomed to losing nor to losing gracefully. But see note 1. His military advisers underrated the underlying strength of the Viet Cong revolution in the countryside and despite putting 550,000 soldiers and marines into the country, as you know we lost. All of that was a stand-alone item, and not in any way related to Truman or Korea. IMO.


Note 1. Johnson was affectionately and somewhat jocularly known as “Landslide Lyndon."
In 1948, Texas Governor Coke Stevenson ran for a U.S. Senate seat against Texas Congressman Lyndon Baines Johnson. Six days after the polls closed, Precinct 13 in the border town of Alice, Texas, showed a very interesting result. Exactly 203 people had voted at the last minute in the order they were listed on the tax rolls and 202 of them had voted for Johnson.

That tight race went to the US Supreme Court where Associate Justice Hugo Black upheld the result, and Johnson squeaked by with an 87-vote victory. For this feat, columnist Drew Pearson gave Johnson the sobriquet Landslide Lyndon. Fact: Johnson had been the lone Texas congressman to back FDR’s “court packing” plan in 1937. Payback? That's the 2 rules of politics. 1) Never forget your friends. 2) Never forget your enemies.

[edit on 10/15/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
So why is the Line Veto Bill a bad idea... it seems like a good deal to me, a effective measure againt pork(as long as after the pres takes out the lines, it would go back to the house and senate to be repassed).

Also, what you have laid out only furthers the notion that The USSR was INDEED a threaet during the Cold War, a much greater threat then Iraq, or Iran was and are, and would seem a greater threat then China would be (although im not sure on the Chinise Missile capabilities).

The USSR had Weapon that could hurt us, weapons tht could reach us, and enough of an army/navy/airforce that they could have fought us, ableit not suscessfuly, but they could fight us, something that oue enimies of today cannot realy do...

It is said that during the time when the US invaded Iraq, Saddams Air force refused to take to the air, in fear of our F-15's that were in the sky, knowing that they would have been taken out without a fight!

So while we were more advanced in every aspect then the Russians, they could at least hit us a few times, and because they couldhit us, we didn't hit them... right?



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TKainZero
 


TKainZero So why is the Line [Item] Veto
Bill a bad idea... it seems like a good deal to me, as long as after the president takes out the lines [pork], it would go back to the house and senate to be repassed. [a effective measure against pork]

The way the Line Item Veto is presented to us, the altered bill is NOT returned to the Congress to be reconsidered. Aside: It is the equal to the “sign off” that Bush43 has done more than 1,000 times. In his”sign off” he rejects part of a bill but signs the whole bill. Hmm? I don’t think a “sign off” has been taken to court yet? End.

This dispute represents the struggle between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch for control of the US Federal Government. To illustrate my point I aver that from 1789 until 1932 the total number of Federal civilian employees never exceeded 50,000. (Not counting the Armed Forces).

By 1941, I aver the number of Federal civilian employees had rose to over 1,000,000. A period of “inflation” equal to the one the early Universe underwent according to recent cosmological theory. This huge workforce gives the presidency great power. Congress, which had been preeminent in the Federal system prior to 1932 was left far behind. Earmarks - called ‘pork when you oppose it - are the response of today’s Congress to that overwhelming power now lodged in the Executive Branch. Money substitutes for people nowadays. Earmarks are here to stay.

TKainZero The USSR had Weapon that could hurt
us, weapons that could reach us, and enough of an army navy air force that they could have fought us, albeit not successfully, but they could fight us, something that our enemies of today cannot really do...So while we were more advanced in every aspect then the Russians, they could at least hit us a few times, and because they couldn’t us, we didn't hit them... right?

Yes, Mr T/K/Z. MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction. There were even rumors of a Doomsday Bomb. That is a nuclear device located safely in your own territory and wrapped in 1000s of pounds of cobalt. It is set to go off automatically after the second exchange between super powers. The resulting fall-out, circulated around the earth by the winds, would wipe out all life on earth. Animal, vegetable and mineral.

SCENARIO. It’s hard to say about the Soviets. Much of their stuff does not work well. I would not be surprised to learn 50% of their rockets would have failed to get off the launch pad. Then half of those that did might not come even close to the intended target and half of those that did would failed to explode. So, if the Ruskies fired off 100 rockets towards the US maybe 25 would hit their target. Not good, for sure,

I’d expect the US retaliation of say, 300 MIRV’d missiles each with 5 bombs and 5 decoys, would hit 98% of the intended targets, about 1,400 targets in the USSR. Tally? US hurt badly, but not fatally. USSR? In the history books only.

[edit on 10/15/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 04:46 AM
link   
One of my teachers in the past told me that the russian missles were consider 'a hit' and accurete if they hit within a 100 miler radius of the Target.

So, yea, they could hurt us, badly, something that our 'enimies" of today don't seem to have the power to do.

Also, what capiblities does China have today? Are they running with ex-soviot tech, or have they devoloped thier own tech?

And thanks for telling me about that Massive plane, man that is beautiful, what a feat of engernerring, i still like the H-4 'Spruce Goose' Hercules though, that is just an amazing plane, but i guess that big ol Russian thing is better, becuse it can acctuly have a use.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Don I agree with most of the things you say about the Korean War. After the Inchon the North Koreans were on the ropes until MacArthur got cocky and the Chinese intervened. UN mandate or not it was a mistake not to finish North Korea off and dropping Atomic bombs wouldn't have been required. Had the job been done today Korea would be one nation today and there would be no need for a US presence in the south of the country.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
It looks like Brownback is dropping out of the Race.

firstread.msnbc.msn.com...

Not 'offical', but he has given the 'Its offical, when i say it is offical' line.

He says he will be in Kannsas when he makes it offical... so, now we are down to 8.

Rudy, Thompson, Romney, McCain, Paul, Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter

Now, taking bets on the next to Drop! I say Huckabee.

Thoughts???



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TKainZero
 


It really only makes sense because the lesser players have played there role which is to maintain the illusion of democracy. I am not talking about a NWO conspiracy but I am referring to the fact that the best fund raisers win the race. Given that the Republican are being caned in the fund raising the stakes there is no point having lesser players divert money away from the front runners.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TKainZero
 


Actually Huckabee isn't doing too bad, I doubt he'll drop out next. I think Hunter or Tancredo will be the next two to go away.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by djohnsto77
 


I think Huckabee is more likyl to drop out, just based on the fact that Hunter and Tancredo seem to be more subborn, and will be in it even far after it is apperant that they are dead in the water, and to get the message out about the Dire situation on the boarder...



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKainZero
I think Huckabee is more likyl to drop out, just based on the fact that Hunter and Tancredo seem to be more subborn, and will be in it even far after it is apperant that they are dead in the water, and to get the message out about the Dire situation on the boarder...


I see Huckabee staying in the race as long as the christian right is steadfast in their decision to vote for someone who supports their ideals. They've said no to Romney and Giuliani. They wouldn't go for Paul, and Tancredo or Hunter won't get enough other votes to carry them. That leaves McCain and Huckabee. I'm not 100% certain on McCains stance on religion, but Huckabee is pro life all the way, and believes in evolution. He's their guy. I think he will also have enough extra votes to carry him.

Ultimately i think we'll see a split republican vote in the primaries, with the southern states going to a christian conservative and the rest split up amongst Giuliani, Romney & McCain. Paul could steal a state, but i think this whole primary is a means to gain enough exposure for a meaningful third party run, which Nader will throw his support behind. Paul will take votes from both parties, including old school conservatives, those looking to make a statement and others who are sick and tired of the way things are run.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   
The Cyfre welcome to the thread .
IMO Rudy will look to chose a running mate who he thinks that can counter the Christians rights concerns about his social views. Despite being corrupt and hypercritical the religious right still forms the core of the Republican supporter base. Old school conservatives in the US are now Libertarians . I cant figure out why Ron remains in the Republican party.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by xpert11]




top topics



 
15
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join