The American Liberal

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,553
305
83
Victory Lane
ClickHandler.ashx



here is the group that showed up for the confederate flag rally


thats almost like the million man march on washington that time.


nobody gives a shit about the stupid flag.


PS - see that tower in the background. I put up a 9' security fence around it 2 yrs ago when someone climbed it. Its on top of Stone Mountain.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,553
305
83
Victory Lane
Khamenei counts on what he sees as ?Israel fatigue.? The international community would start looking for what he calls ?a practical and logical mechanism? to end the old conflict.
Khamenei?s ?practical and logical mechanism? excludes the two-state formula in any form.
?The solution is a one-state formula,? he declares. That state, to be called Palestine, would be under Muslim rule but would allow non-Muslims, including some Israeli Jews who could prove ?genuine roots? in the region to stay as ?protected minorities.?
Under Khamenei?s scheme, Israel, plus the West Bank and Gaza, would revert to a United Nations mandate for a brief period during which a referendum is held to create the new state of Palestine.
All Palestinians and their descendants, wherever they are, would be able to vote, while Jews ?who have come from other places? would be excluded.
Khamenei does not mention any figures for possible voters in his dream referendum. But studies by the Islamic Foreign Ministry in Tehran suggest that at least eight million Palestinians across the globe would be able to vote against 2.2 million Jews ?acceptable? as future second-class citizens of new Palestine. Thus, the ?Supreme Guide? is certain of the results of his proposed referendum.
He does not make clear whether the Kingdom of Jordan, which is located in 80% of historic Palestine, would be included in his one-state scheme. However, a majority of Jordanians are of Palestinian extraction and would be able to vote in the referendum and, logically, become citizens of the new Palestine.


this old bastid needs to just die already.\


he has a plan
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Because the spirit of Thomas Paine has been replaced by Ayn Rand.

So true. One of the greatest thinkers and humanists is overlooked so the richest-of-the-rich can justify their greed based on two mediocre works of fiction by a lesbian slut.

"It's always about the money, fuck everything and everyone else."*

*Not an exact quote from Ayn Rand, but close enough.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,553
305
83
Victory Lane
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) rolled out a fresh attack against Republicans on Tuesday: They're wasting huge amounts of time.

Pointing to recent GOP efforts to defund the Department of Homeland Security and Planned Parenthood and to attach abortion legislation to a human trafficking bill, among other examples, Warren said Republicans were spending their time chewing through partisan menu items that went nowhere.


"In the past six months, they have burned huge amounts of time as they try to shut down Homeland Security, tried to build a pipeline to help a Canadian oil company, tried to turn a human trafficking bill into a referendum on abortion and now tried to defund Planned Parenthood," Warren said. "All this instead of working on the kind of issues that would help level the playing field for hardworking people."

Watch Warren's full remarks, above.

Instead, she said, the GOP should at least be willing to consider Democratic proposals aimed at helping working people, such as guaranteeing workplace schedule flexibility and raising the minimum wage.

"For years now, this economy has been great for those at the top. But for everyone else, it's getting harder and harder to make it from paycheck to paycheck," Warren said, driving home a message she has been emphasizing for years.

"The world is changing and Congress can make decisions that help working people stay in the game and help level the playing field, or we can just turn our backs," she added. "So what have Republicans done over the past six months to try to make families a little more secure, to give people a fighting chance? What have they done?"

After making the case for her favored policies, the Massachusetts Democrat suggested Republicans were not pursuing such proposals because they were too busy helping lobbyists, oil companies, bankers and other wealthy, well-connected interests.

"People say that Washington doesn't work, but that's wrong," Warren said. "Washington works great for the right people."

...........................................................................................


and now they are all on break until after Labor Day
\

how did they get all this time off where nothing ever gets done. \


a President with some balls should change this shit.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,553
305
83
Victory Lane
Could Donald Trump become the next Ross Perot? Right now, there is a push by Republican insiders to try to find a way to sabotage the Trump campaign and even potentially exclude him from future debates. These Republican operatives claim that he is ?damaging the party?, but what they really mean by that is that he is playing havoc with their plans of getting Jeb Bush into the White House. You see, the truth is that most of the other Republican candidates are just there for window dressing. All of the big money is already lining up behind Jeb Bush, and his campaign recently announced that it has already raised 114 million dollars. Perhaps Scott Walker or Marco Rubio have an outside chance of contending with the Bush machine, but everyone else is just supposed to be cannon fodder and most of them know it. If everything goes to plan, Bush will clinch the nomination very early, and that is precisely the way that the Republican establishment wants it.

But now Trump has rolled in like a wrecking ball and is messing everything up for the Republican establishment. He is getting the vast majority of the media attention, he is talking about how terrible Bush is, and many of the things that Trump is saying are driving Republican insiders up a wall. The following is an excerpt from a recent article on a liberal website?

He objects strongly to the trade agreements, including the proposed Trans-Pacific deal now in the news, on the grounds that other countries, such as Japan and China, are superior negotiators and are taking us to the cleaners. He wants to build a tall wall on the Mexican border. He is against Common Core and federalizing education. He warned against invading Iraq in some detail, predicting it would expand Iran?s influence.

On each of those issues Trump is right, but that puts him at odds with Bush.

Bush is very much in favor of the Trans-Pacific partnership, Bush is not in favor of building a giant wall on the Mexican border, and Bush?s brother was the one that started the Iraq war in the first place.

Trump is not following the script of the Republican establishment, and that is making them very angry.

At this point, Republican insiders are so upset with Trump that they have even discussed ways to exclude him from future debates. The following is an excerpt from a recent New York Times article?

Many national Republican officials are increasingly resigned to Mr. Trump?s looming presence. At a meeting of the Republican Governors Association this week in Aspen, Colo., donors and operatives mused about how to prevent him from hijacking the debate.

One idea that came up was to urge three leading candidates ? Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor; Mr. Walker; and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida ? to band together and state that they would not participate in any debate in which Mr. Trump was present, using his refusal to rule out a third-party bid as a pretext for taking such a hard line. The thinking, according to a Republican involved in the conversations, was that the lesser-funded prospects who have been eclipsed by Mr. Trump would follow suit, and the TV networks airing the debates would be forced to bar Mr. Trump in order to have a full complement of candidates.

Wow.

Nothing like this has ever been done before, but this is how desperate Republican insiders are to get rid of Trump.

But if they aren?t careful, Donald Trump could go from just being a thorn in their side to being their worst nightmare.

You see, Donald Trump is already very seriously considering the possibility of running as an independent candidate. The following is an excerpt from an article that the Hill published on Wednesday?

Donald Trump says the chances that he will launch a third-party White House run will ?absolutely? increase if the Republican National Committee is unfair to him during the 2016 primary season.

?The RNC has not been supportive. They were always supportive when I was a contributor. I was their fair-haired boy,? the business mogul told The Hill in a 40-minute interview from his Manhattan office at Trump Tower on Wednesday. ?The RNC has been, I think, very foolish.?

Pressed on whether he would run as a third-party candidate if he fails to clinch the GOP nomination, Trump said that ?so many people want me to, if I don?t win.?

?I?ll have to see how I?m being treated by the Republicans,? Trump said. ?Absolutely, if they?re not fair, that would be a factor.?

If Donald Trump even suspects that Republican insiders are actively trying to sabotage his campaign, he could very easily pull a Ross Perot.

We all remember what happened in 1992. Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate, and he ended up taking 18.9 percent of the vote. Virtually everyone agrees that he took far more votes away from George Bush than he did from Bill Clinton, and so his candidacy may have actually decided the election.

Could we see a similar scenario play out this time around?

One recent survey found that Trump does have sizable support in a hypothetical three way race between himself, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton?

A poll released earlier in this week may confirm that fear. Testing a hypothetical three-way matchup among Trump, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida (R), and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, a Washington Post/ABC survey found Clinton (46%) easily ahead of Bush (30%) and Trump (20%).

Unfortunately for the Republican establishment, their relationship with Trump can probably not be repaired at this point. It would take some major sucking up to undo the damage that has already been done, and I just don?t see Republican insiders doing that any time soon.

So the odds are probably pretty high that Donald Trump will end up choosing to run as an independent.

If he does, will he run under the banner of an existing party, or will he create his own?

If Trump chooses to go his own path, perhaps he will draw from history in naming his new party.

During the peak of the populist movement, a political party known as ?the People?s Party? existed from 1891 to 1908. It was a party that sought to legitimately represent the concerns of millions of ordinary American citizens.

And that is something that we desperately need today. We need a party that will actually represent the people instead of just doing the bidding of the elite.

So is Trump the man for the job
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,553
305
83
Victory Lane
I watched the debates last night with two questions in mind: Who would give Hillary Clinton a run for her money? And who would be a good and useful vice-presidential running mate?

Both lists are surprisingly short.

It's easy to name the would-be nominees who wouldn't have a chance against Clinton. Donald Trump's undoubted appeal to a sizable percentage of Republican voters would not be enough to carry him in a general election, especially when half the voters would be women. He would be swamped.

Rand Paul has a quirky attractiveness that is an acquired taste, and and not enough voters will have acquired it. Mike Huckabee will continue to be the darling of the evangelical right, but that's a niche position he now owns; he just reappears, as if from an underground crypt, every four years. Ben Carson has a good personality, a measured way of speaking and a gentle sense of humor, but he's only on the stage because he's a black man critical of President Obama; the Republican base loves that, but it's not enough to fill out a presidential profile.

Ted Cruz radiates anger -- he seems more angry at his own party and its leaders than he is at Clinton or President Obama -- and while anger plays well in the short run, in the long run it turns people off. Chris Christie has experience and a forthrightness of manner that is initially attractive, but his forthrightness too easily turns into bluster and bullying; a few rounds with Clinton would leave him gasping for breath like a beached whale. Scott Walker looks good, has done well in a blue state (as he never tires of saying), and is reasonably articulate, but he has an I'm-not-quite-sure-I-belong-here look on his face, and the two policy positions that set him somewhat apart (at least in the intensity with which he holds them) -- a desire to kill the labor movement and a willingness to let mothers die rather than allow them to abort -- would sink him; Clinton would be licking her lips.

That leaves John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush.

Kasich is from Ohio (always a key state), has been successful both as a congressman and a governor, possesses administrative, legislative, budgetary and defense expertise, and comes across as a firm conservative who is not crazy -- no small feat in the Republican landscape. With the right running mate, he could bring together a coalition of fiscal conservatives, ardent Christians, moderate Republicans (there are a few left) and independents, and that might be enough, especially if Clinton stumbles in a big way.

Rubio has the advantage of being young and pretty. If he were to appear with Clinton on a stage, the advantage would be his before either said a word. He also speaks well and seems to know his stuff. He can carry Florida and take away at least some of the Hispanic vote. Again, the selection of a running mate would be key.

Jeb Bush was a very successful Florida governor who could also carry his state; he has a passion for education reform that is undeniably authentic; he has a position on immigration policy that, suitably tweaked, could capture the middle. He has ties, through marriage, to the Hispanic community. He is tall and youthful looking, but he is not young, so he has the aura of maturity. The "dynasty" problem would go away if he ran against Clinton, as it would for her if she ran against him.

Now for the vice-presidential slot. Rubio is everyone's favorite running mate, and he would be Bush's if you could have a ticket made up of two politicians from the same state. Bush isn't going to be anyone's running mate; he's already too big for that, and, besides, a Bush as a vice-presidential candidate would seem to take us back to 1980. Kasich fits well with both men. If he can carry Ohio and the candidate at the top of the ticket can carry Florida, then the electoral map already looks promising for the Republicans.

A case can also be made for Carly Fiorina, who within seconds of the "undercard" debate's conclusion was declared the big winner. Fiorina is an experienced business executive who is well-versed in the various technologies that increasingly dominate our lives. She is of course also a woman, but she's the wrong kind of woman to offset Hillary Clinton, for if one criticism of Clinton is that she is cold, calculating and a little mean, Fiorina is colder, more calculating and meaner; she'd make Clinton look warm and cuddly.

And as for the other possibilities: The candidates who wouldn't fly at the top of the ticket bring the same liabilities to the second spot, and these also-rans on the JV team bring little to the table.

Bobby Jindal looks like a gnome and doesn't even inspire confidence in his own state, where the president's approval rating now surpasses his own. Gilmore and Pataki seem to be there because they have nothing better to do. Santorum seems to be running for the Harold Stassen Chair of Perpetual Candidacy. Rick Perry is improving, but not enough to take a chance on. And if you want to capture the constituency eager to go to war tomorrow, Lindsey Graham is your man.

And so it's either Rubio-Kasich, Kasich-Rubio, or Bush-Kasich (or perhaps Senator Portman); and in the event of any of those Republican tickets, it will be Clinton-Sherrod Brown.

...................................................................................
 

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,885
693
113
50
TX
I watched the debates last night with two questions in mind: Who would give Hillary Clinton a run for her money? And who would be a good and useful vice-presidential running mate?

Both lists are surprisingly short.

It's easy to name the would-be nominees who wouldn't have a chance against Clinton. Donald Trump's undoubted appeal to a sizable percentage of Republican voters would not be enough to carry him in a general election, especially when half the voters would be women. He would be swamped.

Rand Paul has a quirky attractiveness that is an acquired taste, and and not enough voters will have acquired it. Mike Huckabee will continue to be the darling of the evangelical right, but that's a niche position he now owns; he just reappears, as if from an underground crypt, every four years. Ben Carson has a good personality, a measured way of speaking and a gentle sense of humor, but he's only on the stage because he's a black man critical of President Obama; the Republican base loves that, but it's not enough to fill out a presidential profile.

Ted Cruz radiates anger -- he seems more angry at his own party and its leaders than he is at Clinton or President Obama -- and while anger plays well in the short run, in the long run it turns people off. Chris Christie has experience and a forthrightness of manner that is initially attractive, but his forthrightness too easily turns into bluster and bullying; a few rounds with Clinton would leave him gasping for breath like a beached whale. Scott Walker looks good, has done well in a blue state (as he never tires of saying), and is reasonably articulate, but he has an I'm-not-quite-sure-I-belong-here look on his face, and the two policy positions that set him somewhat apart (at least in the intensity with which he holds them) -- a desire to kill the labor movement and a willingness to let mothers die rather than allow them to abort -- would sink him; Clinton would be licking her lips.

That leaves John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush.

Kasich is from Ohio (always a key state), has been successful both as a congressman and a governor, possesses administrative, legislative, budgetary and defense expertise, and comes across as a firm conservative who is not crazy -- no small feat in the Republican landscape. With the right running mate, he could bring together a coalition of fiscal conservatives, ardent Christians, moderate Republicans (there are a few left) and independents, and that might be enough, especially if Clinton stumbles in a big way.

Rubio has the advantage of being young and pretty. If he were to appear with Clinton on a stage, the advantage would be his before either said a word. He also speaks well and seems to know his stuff. He can carry Florida and take away at least some of the Hispanic vote. Again, the selection of a running mate would be key.

Jeb Bush was a very successful Florida governor who could also carry his state; he has a passion for education reform that is undeniably authentic; he has a position on immigration policy that, suitably tweaked, could capture the middle. He has ties, through marriage, to the Hispanic community. He is tall and youthful looking, but he is not young, so he has the aura of maturity. The "dynasty" problem would go away if he ran against Clinton, as it would for her if she ran against him.

Now for the vice-presidential slot. Rubio is everyone's favorite running mate, and he would be Bush's if you could have a ticket made up of two politicians from the same state. Bush isn't going to be anyone's running mate; he's already too big for that, and, besides, a Bush as a vice-presidential candidate would seem to take us back to 1980. Kasich fits well with both men. If he can carry Ohio and the candidate at the top of the ticket can carry Florida, then the electoral map already looks promising for the Republicans.

A case can also be made for Carly Fiorina, who within seconds of the "undercard" debate's conclusion was declared the big winner. Fiorina is an experienced business executive who is well-versed in the various technologies that increasingly dominate our lives. She is of course also a woman, but she's the wrong kind of woman to offset Hillary Clinton, for if one criticism of Clinton is that she is cold, calculating and a little mean, Fiorina is colder, more calculating and meaner; she'd make Clinton look warm and cuddly.

And as for the other possibilities: The candidates who wouldn't fly at the top of the ticket bring the same liabilities to the second spot, and these also-rans on the JV team bring little to the table.

Bobby Jindal looks like a gnome and doesn't even inspire confidence in his own state, where the president's approval rating now surpasses his own. Gilmore and Pataki seem to be there because they have nothing better to do. Santorum seems to be running for the Harold Stassen Chair of Perpetual Candidacy. Rick Perry is improving, but not enough to take a chance on. And if you want to capture the constituency eager to go to war tomorrow, Lindsey Graham is your man.

And so it's either Rubio-Kasich, Kasich-Rubio, or Bush-Kasich (or perhaps Senator Portman); and in the event of any of those Republican tickets, it will be Clinton-Sherrod Brown.

...................................................................................
Cruz/Carson :0074.

Intesesting read, thanks for posting
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top