|New Civilization News: Today's Threads.. Twisting Tighter Tougher & Through to Transformation?|
6 comments19 Feb 2003 @ 18:22 by sharie : Questions, Suspicions, hmmm...
Clinton was President when the corrupt mobsters began to seize control of our government. He could have stepped in and made a demand for a re-count in Florida. He did nothing, let the Supreme Court usurp the voters, and walked out of the White House. I suspect he pocketed a few million under the table for that. He and Hillary were bankrupt because of their legal bills as you recall. But suddenly they show up in Manhattan with millions to buy a mansion. This is all very strange. Where'd they get the money?
I definitely think we'll see Hillary in the White House again at some level (not that I'm a fan).
Thanks for the post.
20 Feb 2003 @ 01:27 by jazzolog : Mobsters
Not sure whom Sharie means with that comment, but I'd say Eisenhower was President when what he referred to as "the military-industrial complex" began to seize control---and in a famous speech he warned us. By the time we get to Carter, CEOs on the golf course could figure out how to dump an entire political party. Clinton? Despite his political skills, he was surrounded.
Julie's right about his charisma though. Somebody wrote on the Internet yesterday that Clinton could be Britain's Prime Minister tomorrow. I haven't seen him in person, but I have Hillary who seems like a pretty ordinary human to me. I saw John Kennedy though---and he absolutely glowed.
22 Feb 2003 @ 13:32 by sharie : I stand corrected
The mobsters began to seize control of our government around 1914 from what I gather - with the illegally-imposed federal income tax which pulls in trillions of dollars a year - we see where that's gotten us.
In my comment above, I was referring to the mafia don and his family which currently control *all* the public funds. This is the first time in history where one group controls all of america. That's what I was referring to.
13 Jan 2015 @ 03:17 by Dasia @126.96.36.199 : yrvrJeCAijXAooqAzb
Well I guess I don't have to spend the weekend fiiurgng this one out!
14 Jan 2015 @ 00:20 by Marcela @188.8.131.52 : IuRremMyBeVC
Obama has no idea what he's going up against chnlleaging the Clinton machine. His unfavorables will soar once Hillary's surrogates get done smearing him .and given that he has yet to face any serious opposition in any of his previous runs for elected office, it's unlikely he'll know how to effectively respond when his back's up against the wall. Obama is definitely a factor in this race, but Hillary is still the frontrunner, much as it pains me to say it. John Edwards has some built-in advantages, but I suspect the immigration issue will be his achille's heel. Edwards will be walking a tightrope right away as he tries to simultaneously court favor from the industrial unions that dominate Iowa's caucuses and the service unions that dominate Nevada's caucuses. The latter demographic wants lawless immigration policy the former does not. And even if Edwards threads that needle, he has a broader immigration problem in that his likely support for comprehensive immigration reform directly conflicts with his primary campaign theme of reducing domestic poverty. If comprehensive immigration reform becomes a reality, poverty in America will increase .and increase substantially. Edwards will have a big problem trying to talk his way out of that double-edged sword.While there is tremendous (and legitimate) worry among Democratic voters that Hillary is unelectable nationally, her well-oiled machinery is likely to be as ruthless as George Bush's was in 2000, all but guaranteeing her the nomination and crushing any obstacle that stands in her way. I'm already convinced that Obama will be on the receiving end of the same hit job that John McCain was in 2000, only at the hands of Hillary. However, the bloodthirsty spectacle that BushRove got away with in 2000 will not be as successful for Hillary, further staining her hands.But barring a Giuliani nomination on the Republican side that would ensure a third-party challenge from the right and put every Southern state on the table, Hillary and Obama would both be defeated in November 2008. If the Republican nominee is Romney, McCain, or any number of second or third-tier GOP contenders, I can't see a single red state from 2004 turning blue. Iowa or Colorado could conceivably tip blue for Obama (though it wouldn't be enough for him to win), but neither of them would tip for Hillary. Both candidates would likely lose a couple of blue states to either McCain or Romney.As for the GOP field, I think their safest bet, based on my limited knowledge of his political profile, is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. With George Allen and Bill Frist out of the way, he's the only Republican in the race who seems capable of averting the GOP civil war, bridging the chasm between the values voters and the robber barons. Gingrich and Brownback would be too scary to the Greenwich, Connecticut, crowd and the party's campaign coffers would suffer for it. If I was a Republican activist, I'd be looking pretty seriously at Huckabee right now.
19 Feb 2015 @ 16:31 by dewifortuna @184.108.40.206 : Barca168.com Agen SBOBET IBCBET 368BET C
Barca168.com Agen SBOBET IBCBET 368BET Casino 338A Bola Tangkas Togel SINGAPURA HONGKONG Online Indonesia Terpercaya
Other entries in Politics
1 Jul 2010 @ 02:21: PHILIPPINES’ NEW PRESIDENT: AKBAR OR NERO?
4 Jun 2010 @ 08:30: SCUTTLE EU NOW, BEFORE 4TH REICH OPTION AWAKENS!
17 Nov 2008 @ 10:11: My 'story' I just uploaded to change.gov
8 Nov 2008 @ 16:06: A Boy Named Sue and the False American Dream
7 Nov 2008 @ 16:01: No He Can't...
6 Nov 2008 @ 09:16: History is NOW
5 Nov 2008 @ 16:58: Obamas World - Africa and the World beyond Poverty !? - but how? - what world?
5 Nov 2008 @ 14:02: Proud to be An American
26 Oct 2008 @ 15:26: Systemic Intelligence: How to teach Systemic Thinking effectively
26 Oct 2008 @ 10:27: OBAMA IS AMERICA’S MAN OF THE HOUR