Vegas, baby

'Vegas, Baby'

All of the free nickles come from somewhere.... even if it is the same female renting other people's children to get multiple welfare checks.... even if it is political marketing and purchasing. Even if it is a celebrity hooker with access to other people's credit card numbers and accounts. Even if it is as simple as putting the magnet back in the roulette wheels and turning the stadium lights off if the 'real deal' bookies cant cover the spread.

It's a backslide in a social sense that hasn't been seen for decades. A previous direction in use of efficient social indications and dynamic, isn't much more than electronic larceny anymore.

If Vegas doesn't implode... I'd be pretty surprised.

And just how can "a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt" be fixed by a bunch of lying narcissistic rich lawyers who care nothing for the common people except how to exploit their problems to seize power of the same said corrupt system.

We need a hero, too bad none are available.

Goobedygop! Clinton's been playing the gender card all along and 'the boys' should not let her get away with it, they should not back down even though she now says she's only playing the 'winning' card, as she continues to play the 'gender' card. Oh well, I guess like the article headline says, "That's Why The Lady Is A Tramp". Oh forgive me, the headline was "That's Why The Lady Is A Champ".

spock...it's your stupid President that won't give the troops what they need - a boat trip home. A fool's folly and war crime has morphed into a national security crisis. The Iraq war has made it far less safe here than before 9/11, so the slogan "we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" is absolute absurdity. Impeachment is the cure for such incompetence. Now what is it that you were saying about candidates that haven't screwed up anything, yet?

shes the best- no doubt about it- always the clintons are the ebst- president hillary rodham clinton.

marge - the problem there is Edwards is taking lobbyist money where do you think he made all his money from.

So if they want to play the cards per say, then people should be allowed without being condemned to use that card against them.

All is fair in politics and war!

I have commented on this before, why shouldn't Hillary play the gender card?Each candidate plays the card he/she is dealt. It has always been thus. Obama with the race card, Edwards with the no lobbiest money card, they all have. As I also mentioned earlier, Bush played the stupid card and that worked twice for him. Play the cards. So long as they are honest, why the big fuss?

CNN's approach to the democratic debate was shameful. The interviewers were busy potinficating rather than asking poignant questions. Wulf Blitzer was a disaster.

Of course Clinton had a good night with such lame questions and audience cheerleading. What was amazing is the gender question that was timidly presented for Clinton to play with and have her cake and eat it too. It's clear why so many of my students feel that the media has not credibility and relevance in their lives.

There's still a year's worth of presidential politics in front of us - followed by about 3 more months of political analysis. Can't wait till it's over. More than that - can't wait till we're done with Bush & Cheney. January 20, 2009 - Oh happy day!

I watched the Democrats debate last night, if you can call it that. The moderator, Wolf Blitzer, didn't seem to have much control. The candidates ignored the time limits placed on them. The Hillary supporters booed anyone that criticized her, as if it were on cue. There really wasn't much substance to the questions or answers.

It seems as if the media is determined to shove Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama down our throats. The questions given to Hillary seemed geared toward helping her clean up her image that was damaged in the last debate and clarify statements she had made to the media and in speeches. When asked if she was "playing the gender card" she said "No," then went on to tell how proud she is to have a chance at the presidency as a woman, and about an elderly lady that said women couldn't vote when she was young and she hoped to live long enough to see a woman president. If that's not playing the gender card, what is?

While Hillary's answers were pretty vague, Obama was a real disappointment. He got a decent amount of air time, but for the life of me, I can't tell you anything that he said. Richardson was unimpressive all around. Kucinich, unfortunately, comes across as a nerd on television, and we all know you can't be president if you don't look good on t.v. Biden and Dodd have the most experience with foreign relations, but the press isn't giving them any attention. (It's all about Hillary and Obama.) Edwards was well-prepared, seemed well-informed, clearly expressed his opinions on the issues, and had the strongest presence.

Biden, Dodd, and Edwards are the best qualified to be president, but the press finds it more important that a woman and a black man are running. Is this novelty really more important than covering all the candidates and letting the PEOPLE decide?

add to del.icio.us
add to digg
add to yahoo
related at technorati

Trying again!

r k angel, first a clarification. I responded to your comments directed to Spock. But I am not Spock.

Now as for socialism. Tax hikes in and of themselves does not enter into the realm of socialism. BUT when you raise taxes from the wealthiest individuals (Sen. Obama apparently defines those making above $97,500 as being the "wealthiest" individuals) with the sole purpose of giving benefits -- i.e. free universal health care -- to those on the lower end of the economic scale, THAT IS redistribution of wealth. And redistribution of wealth is part of the socialism equation.

From day one, part of the American Dream has always been owning land and building your own home. Then developers began building the homes for individuals to purchase. Now it has become purchasing a home, whether land is included or not (i.e. condominiums). Home ownership is at an all-time high, in spite of the record foreclosures. And home ownership by minorities, especial African-Americans is at an all-time high. It was this to which President Bush referred in coining the phrase "an ownership society." Sen. Clinton subsequently called this an "on your own" society. So she really wants to reject "ownership" and "and on your own," and replace that with "shared responsibility for shared prosperity." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that she wants to redistribute property and leave it up to the "village" to take care of everyone. That is the other half of the socialism equation. In fact, this latter part is clearly Marxist.

You ARE correct that 9/11 was NOT an attack by Iraq. But after that, you are really mixing up the facts with regards to Iraq. The "firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition armed forces" IS NOT A REFERENCE to the 1991 Gulf War. This is in reference to the twelve years between 1991 and 2003; the twelve years of UN resolutions trying to force Saddam Hussein into complying with the conditions of the cease fire. Iraqis shot at inspectors and UN & American helicopters. On several occasions Iraqi missiles were launched in an attempt to down U. S. aircraft flying not only in the proclaimed no-fly zones, but as I mentioned earlier, at least once upon a U. S. plane that was clearly in Kuwait airspace.

You wrote: "And just what does that have to do with ending the teaching of hatred? This is not related at all to the type of g(o)vernment!" You said it yourself, this "is a war on an idea. You can't win militarily, EVER!" Militarily you can destroy the terrorist organizations, but you still have to end the spread of hatred towards Western Civilization in order to defeat the terrorist movement. The spread of this hatred and ideology that Western Civilization (including Israel and the United States) must be destroyed is taught both at home and in the schools. So in order to win the ideological aspect of the War on Terror, it is imperative that this hatred no longer be part of the curricula in Islamic schools.

Now then, you can't have a Union, much less Justice, Tranquility, general Welfare and certainly not Blessing of Liberty...if the federal government doesn't "provide for the common defense." And "providing for the common defense" also includes protecting our national interests not just fighting only when the homeland is attacked.

You say, and a number of Democrats in Congress say "redeploy within the region." But MOST of the Democrats and Liberals are really not advocating that at all. If fact they are advocating bringing the troops all the way HOME. But even if we did redeploy in the region, you can't move 150,000 troops at a moments notice. And it cost a lot of money to redeploy. Here is an illustration. Why do you think various communities are looking to build new police and fire stations? It's so that the response times are less. Imagine if the nearest police officer or fire department was 50 miles away...100 miles away...500 miles away. If we believe we are going to have to send our troops back into the same area in a month or even in a year, it is more cost effective to just leave them where they are. Look at Germany and Japan. WWII ended 62 years ago. Yet we still have troops there!

You asked, "How does our redeploying 'give al Qaeda a military victory?'" Al Qaeda DECLARED Iraq as the main battlefield in their war against the "infidel." So if we leave their "main battlefield," that will be hailed as an American retreat. THUS an al Qaeda victory.

You are right, some areas have been cooperating with the U. S. military from day one. THAT is what the Bush Administration has been telling the American people all along. Most of the violence in the past 4 1/2 years has been in only a handful of areas. One of those is Al-Anbar Province, specifically around Fallujah, which had been one of the most violent and deadliest provinces from the very beginning of the war. But only within the past few months -- after seeing the success of the surge in Baghdad -- have the warlords in that area begun cooperating with the U. S. military. And the killings of Americans and Iraqis are way down.

Finally, you wrote: "WE need to fight ideas with ideas." In a perfect world! BUT the other side is not just fighting with ideas. They are killing innocent people all over the world: Pennsylvania, New York (1993 & 2001), Washington D.C., Spain England, Scotland, Tanzania, Kenya, Jordan, Indonesia, Philippines, just to name a few.

Obama's camp need to be smarter. Drudge told everyone that the Clintons contacted Wolf. That's code for cancel the debate because it's rigged. As you can see, they packed the place with Clinton supporters who where just as classless as the Clintons and BOOOOed Obama and Edwards. Wolf did not follow up with her for Filp-Flopping on the License issue. Why? And the Last question of the Day. The college student came out and said CNN told her to ask that question. She actually wanted to ask Hiliary about Nuclear waste in Nevada and the War. She took serious heat from her peers afterwards. Teachers told her she set a poor example for the Universtiy for asking that type of question. This is what the Clintons mean by fighting back. They punk Spitzer into dropping the license issue so she could flip-flop and they punk Wolf into rigging the Debate. Wow. Maybe when the WOMAN Bill sexually assaulted claimed that they were bullied by Hiliary, were actually telling the TRUTH. Just a thought. Good Luck DEMS.
- Ron Paul 08

Senator Clinton is not the one who plays the gender card--the talking heads in the media and her male competitors are.
And when she defends herself and counters their attacks--ah, well, these guys do not like it, especially not when it comes from a woman who is smarter than all of them.

spock,

read the definition you used again - it describes ALL political and economic systems. Tax hikes on the wealthy is not by definition socialist. It is productive - you are taxing those that the governmental system supports by definition. Understand, property, ownership, et. al. are a construct of government, they do not exist without a specific type of government that support these ideas.

Dubya used the term "ownership society", a completely absurd. Look at it this way: God isn't building any new land but He is building new people. ALL of the land is already owned; and many people are already without. ONLY the elite can be owners, there's nothing left over for the rest. (all economic systems are allocation systems) Sen Clinton did not say we should reject AN ownership system, she said we should reject DUBYA's ownership system and replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity - that is Christianity, that is good government, it is a lot of things. It is NOT Socialism

9-11 was NOT an attack by Iraqi's; there were NO weapons of mass destruction and; gee whiz. an expeditionary force chased Iraq out of Kuwait and when fired upon, they fired responded by FIRING ON MANY THOUSANDS OF OCCASIONS ON UNITED STATES AND COALITION ARMED FORCES engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council". Big surprise. The point is they did not attack the US, WE ATTACKED THEM!

you say "President Bush envisions one day having both Iraq and Afghanistan as thriving democracies" and that is entirely the point. SINCE WHEN do we have the right to tell someone else what type of government they HAVE to have; what kind of economic aystem they HAVE to have? Aren't we telling them they should be free to choose any system as long as they choose us? Just how Arrogant and Absurd is that?

And just what does that have to do with ending the teaching of hatred? This is not related at all to the type of gvernment!

Inflation, growth have increased federal revenues not tax cuts. AND spending on DEFICIT "Basically creating money and government spending NOW by paying for it LATER.

Our Governments primary responsibility is "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," I don't know where you get the idea it's "primary responsibility is to defend the country."

You say "President Bush strongly believes (as do I)"... (read below) yet this is only an opinion not justified by facts - and that is the disagreement. This SOUNDS reasonable but is not in fact logical. There is no reason to believe that we cannot redeploy the COMBAT troops into kuwait, afghanistan, etc. in the area and not "cause chaos"; they can STRIKE from those locations.

Our troops are engaging bands of guerillas. They have no real connection to the Al Qaeda organization of Osama; just using that name because they think we are afraid of the name. Frequently they have no connection to each other.

How does our redeploying "give al Qaeda a military victory"?

You actually believe the PR "And both the Sunni and Shia local communities are now cooperating with the U. S. military; and assisting us in defeating al Qaeda." Read that sentence again and not see that it says nothing; there have always been Sunni and Shia local communities cooperating with the U. S. military; and assisting us in defeating those we have named "al Qaeda" whoever they really are. This is linguistic garbage, it doesn't say anything; its a jibberish phrase, totally meaningless.

This war is a war against IDEAs, you can't win it militarily. You do NOT understand that the notion that these countries should be "democracies" and that we can force them to militarily against their will is as anti-American as you can get. We are fighting our own ideals, our own constitution, to fight this militarily. WE need to fight ideas with ideas.

and .... WOW. An intelligent discussion ln the Internet. Who da thunkit!

"Did any of the candidates ever say they were FOR the system in which lobbyists and corporations pay (bribe) for Congressional votes?'" Of course not! But John Edwards is making the point that Sen. Clinton is part of this corrupt and rigged system, because she has received money from lobbyists and corporations that he accuses of being part of the corrupt and rigged system. So, therefore, as being intrenched within the corrupt and rigged system how can she correct it?

Sorry Spock, I misspelled your name!

r k angel,

1. Wikipedia defines socialism as follows: "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation." Sen. Clinton and the other Democratic candidates advocate tax hikes on the wealthy in order to pay for universal health care. In addition, Sen. Clinton said that an "ownership society" is really an "on your own" society. Then she said it's time to reject an "on your own" society. Thus she says we should reject an "ownership society" and "replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." THAT IS SOCIALISM.

2. You wrote: "We were NOT attacked by Saddam or Iraq. EVER." One clause in the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq states: "Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and BY FIRING ON MANY THOUSANDS OF OCCASIONS ON UNITED STATES AND COALITION ARMED FORCES engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;" (Emphasis mine.) And on at least one occasion Iraq fired a missile at one of our planes that was clearly in Kuwait airspace. These attacks, alone, were an act of war against the United States.

3 & 4. President Bush envisions one day having both Iraq and Afghanistan as thriving democracies, with self-sustaining economies, as roll models for their neighbors. Then, hopefully, the populace will demand democracies in their own countries -- including a sovereign Palestinian state. While all that is going on, attempts are being made to end the teaching of hatred towards the civilized world and Israel in the Islamic schools throughout the region and the world. That might be even more difficult than democracy actually spreading throughout the Middle East. BUT, the spread of democracy, the two-state solution and ending the teaching of hatred is the ONLY hope for true peace in the Middle East. NOTE: This is a very long term vision. It may take 20-30 years to fully implement -- IF AT ALL.

5. I agree with you that the U. S. Supreme Court IS an equal branch of the government. However, the international laws to which Spoke was referring are recent laws passed by various foreign legislative bodies. Several of the Supreme Court Justices, over the years, have cited various international laws in their written opinions. You are absolutely correct when it comes to such long established international laws as the Magna Carta, etc.

6. See earlier comment.

7. President Bush's tax cuts have actually increased federal revenues. The federal government's primary responsibility is to defend the country. Regardless of what you may think of his policies and the implementation of his policies, the fact is the federal government has foiled every attempt at another attack on the homeland.

8. President Bush strongly believes (as do I) that pulling the troops out of Iraq, even to redeploy them within the region, before Iraq is able to govern, defend and sustain itself, gives al Qaeda a military victory and will cause even greater chaos in the Middle East. Our troops in Iraq are engaging al Qaeda every day. And both the Sunni and Shia local communities are now cooperating with the U. S. military; and assisting us in defeating al Qaeda. The current analogy is we are now 3 points behind in the middle of the third quarter. WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD WE PULL OUR TEAM OFF THE FIELD NOW.

I'm sorry, I must have missed something.

Did any of the candidates ever say they were FOR "the system in which lobbyists and corporations pay (bribe) for Congressional votes."?

Or did you just mis-interpret something someone else because that's what you want to believe they said? I don't remember anyone ever saying that they support a system of bribes for votes.

rk angel--I wish it were you running, instead of Hillary. At least you say what you think. It's twisted and wrong, but at least you say it. The heck of it is, Hillary believes most of your clap-trap, but won't say it. That's because most Americans would never vote for a person with your opinions..and she has to hide her socialist leanings until after she thinks she will be in office. I'm glad you mentioned the Liberal Rule #1 of Appeasement: you can't win a war on terror. By the way, how's the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Black Panther Party doing these days? If you thank the Dems for your VA funding you're in a small group. Even Vets' groups criticized the Dems for not separating VA funding this year--as it had been done. Instead, the Dems tacked it on at the last minute to a huge spending bill that they already knew Bush would veto--making VA funding a political football. So, facts be damned, you go girl--send your little flimsily-thought-out manifesto all around the net, so everyone will know what you and Hillary really believe!!! She (or you, for that matter) couldn't get elected dog-catcher if people knew what you really believe. And Stephen Colbert says reality has a liberal bias??? I remind you that he is a comedian--after all, one cannot take opinions like his--or yours--seriously.

r k angel, the "system" John Edwards was talking about was not the "Representative Democracy." He was talking about the system in which lobbyists and corporations pay (bribe) for Congressional votes.

1.Do you have any idea what a Socialist is? if you want an answer I can explain it to you.

2. We were NOT attacked by Saddam or Iraq. EVER! We were attacked by a small group of terrorists = who also had Saddam on their hit list! Saddam was never a threat to the US. EVER!

3. The war we are alledgedly fighting, the war on terror, is a war on an idea. You can't win militarily, EVER!

4. the war we are actually in, in Iraq, seems to not have had a purpose to begin with, nor now, except possibly to stop the killing. ... you kill to stop the killing; how do you "win" that war?

5. the supreme court IS an equal to the Executive and Legislative branches, and their job to "interpret" (spelling corrected) includes such international laws as the Magna Carta, Roman Laws, etc. We BUILD upon this foundation, not ignore it.

6. For those who do not understand english, Hillary said not that she supports drivers licenses for illegal immigrants but that she supports her home state's governor trying to do something about the issue of illegals not having insurance but driving anyway. When asked the direct question as to does she support giving them licenses she said "no". These are different questions.

7. I am a veteran. It was Hillary, Feinstein, Murray who pushed with McCain to get the VA funded last time, Hillary has a record here; as dothe democrats. It was Bush who cut the funding, for his "tax cuts".

8. The Military has all the money it needs, for now. The majority of the American people want our troops home, do NOT want to spend Trillions on Iraq; but the Republicans are blocking the majority's efforts. All Bush has to do to get the money is to pull COMBAT troops out of Iraq and redeploy them within the region - make them not a target.

Seriously bud, get a clue! as Stephen Colbert says “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”