The Race is just beginning

[DanaC]

Get a load of this guy: he wants to be accepted as a thoughtful, knowledgeable man, yet he remains incapable of spelling -- or of detecting a spelling error as he types. It's enough to make a man mutter yet again about thalidomide cases.

So spelling errors indicate someone is not thoughtful, or knowledgeable? Sorry, UG, I find that utterly absurd. Don't get me wrong, I rarely agree with tw, and I find his manner of arguing unpleasant for the most part, but correct spelling is not indicative of anything other than an ability to spell....and incorrect spelling is not indicative of anything wider than an inability to spell. I know some very clever, very well-educated and very thoughtful individuals who find spelling very difficult.

My brother, for example, is a very clever man. He's highly educated and I would describe him as a deep thinker. He also reads a great deal (more than me). Spelling, however, is something he's always had difficulty with: he spells phonetically and always has. There are plenty of people in the world who are not brilliant at spelling, but who are intelligent, educated and thoughtful.

This:

It's enough to make a man mutter yet again about thalidomide cases.

is beneath you Urbane Guerilla. I am appalled. Not only have you decided to level insults at people because of their spelling mistakes, but you have also insulted the many people whose bodies were deformed by thalidomide. Bodies deformed.....not minds. Thalidomide does not equate to stupidity.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

DanaC, perhaps you are unaware that I've likened tw trying to do politics to a thalidomide case playing the bagpipes -- that there is that in his developmental history that precludes his being worth listening to.

That he can't spell nor repair his spelling illustrates the low quality of his thinking in yet another way -- the man is slapdash, inattentive, and altogether systemically careless in speech and thought. That he is visibly a Communist sympathizer and a violent (and repulsive) antipatriot is the essence of tw's wrongness.

All in all, he's not someone you should defend. It will force you into, well, crazy talk. Is that something you have to do? If so, why, for crying in a bucket?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

There are plenty of people in the world who are not brilliant at spelling, but who are intelligent, educated and thoughtful.

Why thank you.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

All in all, he's not someone you should defend. It will force you into, well, crazy talk. Is that something you have to do? If so, why, for crying in a bucket?

UG you've called our country fascist.
And Dana and me pro-genocide.
You're hardly someone whose opinion we should be listening to either.

[DanaC]

DanaC, perhaps you are unaware that I've likened tw trying to do politics to a thalidomide case playing the bagpipes --

You're correct, I was not aware of that.

That he can't spell nor repair his spelling illustrates the low quality of his thinking in yet another way -- the man is slapdash, inattentive, and altogether systemically careless in speech and thought. That he is visibly a Communist sympathizer and a violent (and repulsive) antipatriot is the essence of tw's wrongness.

See, now there's a fair bit of that which could be applied to me also...

Sundae, good point chika.

[classicman]

Jumping back on track for at least a post or two....

Obama's Lead Has Faded, Poll Says

The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows Barack Obama leading John McCain by only 3 points. What a difference a few weeks can make.

A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama's glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month's NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.

Obama's rapid drop comes at a strategically challenging moment for the Democratic candidate. Having vanquished Hillary Clinton in early June, Obama quickly went about repositioning himself for a general-election audience--an unpleasant task for any nominee emerging from the pander-heavy primary contests and particularly for a candidate who'd slogged through a vigorous primary challenge in most every contest from January until June. Obama's reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.

More seriously, some Obama supporters worry that the spectacle of their candidate eagerly embracing his old rival, Hillary Clinton, and traveling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics. This is a major concern since Obama's outsider credentials, have, in the past, played a large part in his appeal to moderate, swing voters. In the new poll, McCain leads Obama among independents 41 percent to 34 percent, with 25 percent favoring neither candidate. In June's NEWSWEEK Poll, Obama bested McCain among independent voters, 48 percent to 36 percent.
Click Here!

Obama's overall decline from the last NEWSWEEK Poll, published June 20, is hard to explain. Many critics questioned whether the Democrat's advantage over McCain was actually as great as the poll suggested, even though a survey taken during a similar time frame by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg showed a similarly large margin. Princeton Survey Research Associates, which conducted the poll for NEWSWEEK, says some of the discrepancy between the two most recent polls may be explained by sampling error.

[classicman]

I found that rather interesting considering all the publicity McCain doesn't get and all that Obama does. I feel the amount of coverage is so skewed that its hard for me to believe that large a movement in the polls over such a short time frame.

Unless (conspiracy theory) the media wants them to be rather close together right now so that later as they report Obama's lead growing it will seem like a momentum surge everyone wants to be a part of.

[TheMercenary]

I have wondered that as well. I hate conspiracy theorists and those who love to populate the threads with them. But it does make one wonder.

[lookout123]

i'm just waiting for the usual links showing obama and mccain are related and then right before the election the links to secret societies will come to light.

[Troubleshooter]

As you wish...

Will secret clubs pick next prez?

CFR, Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission insiders usually run for, win White House, shows new book
Posted: November 01, 2007
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – It started in 1952.

Nearly every person elected as president of the United States since then – and nearly every opponent – has belonged to a secretive, globalism-oriented organization known as the Council on Foreign Relations.

Some presidents and their challengers have belonged to additional clubs of internationalists – the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. Running mates, too, more often than not have had ties to the groups.

That the groups exert enormous influence on public policy is indisputable. What is disputed is whether such groups are, as adherents and members argue, just discussion forums for movers and shakers, or, as critics have long alleged, secret societies shaping a new world order from behind the scenes. On that last point at least, no one could challenge the critics: All these groups operate in considerable secrecy, away from the scrutiny of the American public.


Regardless of how one characterizes them, the fact that virtually all presidents belong to the same secret clubs prompts the author of a new book to wonder if the 2008 election will also be a contest between globalist insiders. Judging from the list of frontrunners of each party, Daniel Estulin, author of "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group," may be on to something.

According to a variety of sources, the following presidential candidates are either members of one of the groups or have strong ties: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson.

Mike Huckabee, though not a member, spoke to the CFR in September. Since then, his political star has risen to the point that he has become a top-tier candidate.

So often throughout recent history it has been the case.

Ever since Democrat Adlai Stevenson challenged Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, the odds have significantly favored those with membership in the elite groups.

In 1960, both John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon were members.

In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson was not a member. Neither was his opponent, Barry Goldwater. But Johnson had already staffed his administration with plenty of insiders.

In 1968, it was Nixon versus club member Hubert H. Humphrey.

In 1972, it was Nixon again against Democratic Party CFR member George McGovern.

In 1976, it was CFR Republican Gerald Ford losing to CFR Democrat Jimmy Carter.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was not a member, but his running mate, George H.W. Bush, was. So were both of his opponents – Carter and independent John Anderson. Assuming office, however, Reagan quickly named 313 CFR members to his team.

In 1984, another CFR member, Walter Mondale, was nominated by the Democratic Party to challenge Reagan.

In 1988, CFR member Bush took on CFR member Michael Dukakis.

In 1992, Bush was challenged by an obscure governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, who won the "trifecta" by being a member of the CFR, Trlateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. He was also a Rhodes scholar – another favored credential of the worldwide elite.

In 1996, Clinton was challenged by CFR member Bob Dole.

In 2000, CFR member Al Gore ran against non-member George W. Bush, but his running mate, Dick Cheney, was.

In 2004, Bush was challenged by CFR member John Kerry.

"David Rockefeller, whose family financed the CFR, is a common denominator among these parallel groups," writes Estulin. "Not only is he the CFR chairman emeritus, but he also continues to provide financial and personal support to the TC, CFR and Bilderberg Group."

What is the agenda behind these groups, which Estulin says are comprised of "self-interested elitists protecting their wealth and the investments of multinational banks and corporations in the growing world economy at the expense of developing nations and Third World countries"?

"The policies they develop," he writes, "benefit them as well as move us towards a one-world government."

Those questioning Estulin's conclusion as mere speculation need only recall organizational financer David Rockefeller's own words as recorded in his "Memoirs."

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will," he wrote. "If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

With regard to insider roles in recent U.S. presidential races, two of the most interesting were 1976 and 1992.

"In the spring of 1972, a high-profile group of men gathered for dinner with W. Averell Harriman, the grand old man of the Democratic Party, a Bilderberger and a member of the CFR," writes Estulin. "Also present were Milton Katz, a CFR member and director of international studies at Harvard, Robert Bowie, who would later become deputy director of the CIA, George Franklin, David Rockefeller's coordinator for the Trilateral Commission, and Gerald Smith, U.S. ambassador-at-large for non-proliferation matters. The focus of their discussion was the not-too-distant 1976 presidential elections. Harriman suggested that if the Democrats wanted to recapture the White House, "we had better get off our high horses and look at some of those southern governors." Several names cropped up. Among them were Ruben Askew, governor of Florida, and Terry Sanford, former governor of North Carolina and, at the time, president of Duke University."

Katz reportedly informed David Rockefeller of the viability of Jimmy Carter, then governor of Georgia. According to the author, he could be sold politically to the American people. At a dinner in London, recorded by the London Times, Rockefeller got acquainted with Carter and became convinced he could become the next U.S. president. Carter was invited to join the Trilateral Commission and quickly accepted.

Later, U.S. News and World Report would have this to say about the Carter administration: "The Trilateralists have taken charge of foreign policy-making in the Carter administration, and already the immense power they wield is sparking some controversy. Active or former members of the Trilateral Commission now head every key agency involved in mapping U.S. strategy for dealing with the rest of the world."

In 1992, Estulin concludes Bill Clinton was similarly "anointed" for the presidency at the 1991 Bilderberg Conference in Baden-Baden. Following the meeting, Clinton immediately took a trip to Russia to meet with Soviet Interior Minister Vadim Balatin, then serving Mikhail Gorbachev. Later, when Boris Yeltsin won the presidential election, Bakatin became the new chief of the KGB.

The meeting went unnoticed in most of the press, with the exception of the Arkansas Democrat, whose headline told the story: "Clinton has powerful buddy in U.S.S.R – New head of KGB."

[TheMercenary]

that's some funny shit. And you think Michelle Malkin is harpy?!?! Let me get you this: