Re: Politics!

[Guest guest]

Not Hillary Clinton:

" As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year

and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008,

Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in

campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers

and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations

from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of

Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership. "

and Pear

" Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton "

New York Times, July 12, 2006.

Also, see " Hillary, Inc. " at

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

Ron appears to be the most likely to help our kids on the

thimerosal issue. Among the front-runners, Obama and appear

least influenced by corporate money from the pharmaceutical industry.

Vance

>

> Hi everybody!

> I have been away for awhile do to a couple of medical

procedures, and I have missed out on the politics discussions. I

still have not made my mind up yet in who to vote for. Any help?

> Leigh-Catarina

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with

Mobile. Try it now.

>

[Guest guest]

While attending a wedding in San Diego last weekend and out for a walk along the ocean, I was happy to see groups of young people handing out information on Ron . I piped up about the healthcare/vaccine thing. The vaccine thing caused raised eyebrows followed by smiles.Rox Re: Re: Politics!

Thanks for all responses! Well! Hillary is not on our list and both my husband and I will not vote for her for lots of reasons. We like Ron a lot and his visions as well, but we feel that he is not going to win even if we all vote for him and because we need some change, wouldn't it be better to get a demo in power this time? Any more thoughts on this? Thanks LeighVance Laine <cheeseheadvance> wrote: Not Hillary Clinton:"As she runs for re-election to the Senate from

New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership." and Pear "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton" New York Times, July 12, 2006. Also, see "Hillary, Inc." at http://www.thenatio n.com/doc/ 20070604/ bermanRon appears to be the most likely to help our kids on the thimerosal issue. Among the front-runners, Obama and appear least influenced by corporate money from the pharmaceutical industry.Vance>> Hi everybody!> I have been away for awhile do to a couple of medical procedures, and I have missed out on the politics discussions. I still have not made my mind up yet in who to vote for. Any help?> Leigh-Catarina> > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ---> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.> Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

I agree that the chances for Ron aren't great. It's too bad

because I'd like his views to at least get more air time, if nothing

else. I'm not that impressed with libertarian plans to allow private

suits against polluters-- not that sure it would be effective-- and

some other things he's asserted, but what an improvement it would be

for vaccine injured children and children under threat from

pharmaceutical agendas. Like the kids on Medicaid in Massachusetts

who now face pharma-concocted mental health screening, aimed solely

at increasing the number of prescriptions for psychiatric drugs (will

they be passing out bullet proof vests to gradeschoolers to go with

the legislation, now that drug-induced school shootings are bound to

be in the news in MA?). Too bad about Ron , but I guess we have

to be realistic. And realistically, I think we're caught between a

rock and hard place.

Some say that the present administration wants Hillary to run because

it would be a close race against any of the few possible Republican

candidates (Giuliani, probably, though don't quote me), which means

major election tampering will be possible. If the race isn't close--

say, there can be no pretense that Giuliani is coming near the vote

count of, say, -- tampering wouldn't be so easy to pull

off. That's why I'm rooting for at this point-- because he

could actually win and win by a wide enough margin to prevent another

election coup.

That the political machine is poised to tamper with the elections is

a given, I think. It's why the Justice Department was purged a year

before the elections-- U.S. attorneys have enormous power in ruling

on disputed elections, deciding which voter registration

organizations to prosecute for voter fraud... or not.

So, anyway, the reason it's assumed that the race would be close if

Hillary ran is because it's also assumed that many people who might

otherwise have voted for a Democrat will stay home out of protest or

disinterest. That would be a bad idea because I think Giuliani is

worse as far as civil liberties, tort reform, pharmaceutical loyalty

and his alliances with some scary, scary people in the current

administration. I don't think Giuliani is as much of a fascist as

some, but he would certainly leave in place many of the incursions on

civil rights and state authority which quietly occurred under the

present administration. That sets us up for even worse than we have

now in the next four to twelve years. Those power loopholes can sit

there, waiting for another, even less democracy-defending regime to

come into power to exploit them.

Hillary's no great shakes either regarding corporate shilling, but

at least we'd retain free speech and see some of our first amendment

rights (which have been weakened under the current admin.) re-

strengthened. I predict that she'd roll back the 2007 Defense

Authorization bill which strips state governors of part of their

authority over the National Guard. This is important because the bill

allows the president power to declare martial law and command the

guard to overtake state police authority on almost any pretext. Like

a peaceful march for safer vaccines, for instance. The reason why I

suspect she'd do it is because she wouldn't use it but another

administration could, which would endanger some of her cronies and

friends in politics and journalism.

I doubt Clinton will use some national emergency as an excuse to

declare martial law, start another stupid war, etc.. She's concerned

about legacy and there's a bit of idealism in that shriveled

corporate heart of hers, mainly concerned with how her term goes down

in history, whether it's said to have served democracy or to have

dismantled it. Essentially she's a corporate populist, all about

making the rich richer and the middle class fat enough to stop

complaining, while feeding some starving babies and getting enough

healthcare to go around so the US doesn't rank so low in infant

mortality. Third world countries would still be grossly exploited,

polluters let off too lightly and corporations given welfare boosts

and kids vaccinated up the wazoo. But at least we'll be able to

complain about it without going to jail.

Like I've mentioned before, she does have a history of knowing who to

suck up to during a run and then biting a few of the hands that feed

her once in. She did this with big tobacco. I do think she drank the

pharma koolade and believes in a lot of bogus psychiatric theories,

which doesn't bode that great for our cause. But things can and would

get worse under a possible Giuliani admin.

I have seen tiny hints that Clinton might make a move against

pharma's power base, at least regarding vaccine safety. Maybe it's

just wishful thinking in light of limited options. I thought

Clinton's move to force pharmaceutical companies to give one year's

notice before they could stop manufacturing vaccines was sneaky in a

good way. The potent threat that politicians have used on behalf of

pharma-- whenever pharma is questioned about vaccine safety or

feeling threatened by potential litigation-- is that vaccine

manufacturers could pack up their toys and go home if they don't get

what they want. That kind of threat works with most of the

population, even if it doesn't particularly impress people on this

list. If Clinton succeeds in removing the possibility of that threat,

it becomes easier to start dismantling some of pharma's other power

bases.

Giuliani's firm defended the execs in the Oxycontin suits over deaths

from the drug. He's clearly not above defending pharma killers, so I

doubt he'd be going after pharma for just, um, a little cognitive

holocaust. This guy's dripping in pharma corruption. Again, at the

very least, he would leave everything status quo but I believe that

measures to enforce vaccine mandates would gain speed under him.

My concern with is that his term would be under constant

seige, but I do believe he'd restore constitional rights, smack

polluters, purge the health and science agencies and a few other

things which would serve our interests in the long run. I don't dare

to hope that he'd work to repeal the Lilly rider or command vaccine

accountability or environmental research for autism, but there's a

good chance that he could try.

But if it's down to Hillary and Giuliani (or Romney, though I think

he's a replicant and will rust before the elections), I'll have to

vote for Hillary. I'll probably weep while I'm doing it, but not as

much as I'd be weeping during a potential Rudy term.

> >

> > Hi everybody!

> > I have been away for awhile do to a couple of medical

> procedures, and I have missed out on the politics discussions. I

> still have not made my mind up yet in who to vote for. Any help?

> > Leigh-Catarina

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ---------------------------------

> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with

> Mobile. Try it now.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

>

[Guest guest]

too many people against the war-I don't think the Republicans stand a chance Maurineanacat_11 <anacat_11@...> wrote: I agree that the chances for Ron aren't great. It's too bad because I'd like his views to at least get more air time, if nothing else. I'm not that impressed with libertarian plans to allow private suits against polluters-- not that sure it would be effective-- and some other things he's asserted, but what an improvement it would be for vaccine injured children and children under

threat from pharmaceutical agendas. Like the kids on Medicaid in Massachusetts who now face pharma-concocted mental health screening, aimed solely at increasing the number of prescriptions for psychiatric drugs (will they be passing out bullet proof vests to gradeschoolers to go with the legislation, now that drug-induced school shootings are bound to be in the news in MA?). Too bad about Ron , but I guess we have to be realistic. And realistically, I think we're caught between a rock and hard place. Some say that the present administration wants Hillary to run because it would be a close race against any of the few possible Republican candidates (Giuliani, probably, though don't quote me), which means major election tampering will be possible. If the race isn't close-- say, there can be no pretense that Giuliani is coming near the vote count of, say, -- tampering wouldn't be so easy to pull

off. That's why I'm rooting for at this point-- because he could actually win and win by a wide enough margin to prevent another election coup. That the political machine is poised to tamper with the elections is a given, I think. It's why the Justice Department was purged a year before the elections-- U.S. attorneys have enormous power in ruling on disputed elections, deciding which voter registration organizations to prosecute for voter fraud... or not. So, anyway, the reason it's assumed that the race would be close if Hillary ran is because it's also assumed that many people who might otherwise have voted for a Democrat will stay home out of protest or disinterest. That would be a bad idea because I think Giuliani is worse as far as civil liberties, tort reform, pharmaceutical loyalty and his alliances with some scary, scary people in the current administration. I don't think Giuliani is as

much of a fascist as some, but he would certainly leave in place many of the incursions on civil rights and state authority which quietly occurred under the present administration. That sets us up for even worse than we have now in the next four to twelve years. Those power loopholes can sit there, waiting for another, even less democracy-defending regime to come into power to exploit them. Hillary's no great shakes either regarding corporate shilling, but at least we'd retain free speech and see some of our first amendment rights (which have been weakened under the current admin.) re-strengthened. I predict that she'd roll back the 2007 Defense Authorization bill which strips state governors of part of their authority over the National Guard. This is important because the bill allows the president power to declare martial law and command the guard to overtake state police authority on almost any pretext. Like

a peaceful march for safer vaccines, for instance. The reason why I suspect she'd do it is because she wouldn't use it but another administration could, which would endanger some of her cronies and friends in politics and journalism. I doubt Clinton will use some national emergency as an excuse to declare martial law, start another stupid war, etc.. She's concerned about legacy and there's a bit of idealism in that shriveled corporate heart of hers, mainly concerned with how her term goes down in history, whether it's said to have served democracy or to have dismantled it. Essentially she's a corporate populist, all about making the rich richer and the middle class fat enough to stop complaining, while feeding some starving babies and getting enough healthcare to go around so the US doesn't rank so low in infant mortality. Third world countries would still be grossly exploited, polluters let off too lightly

and corporations given welfare boosts and kids vaccinated up the wazoo. But at least we'll be able to complain about it without going to jail. Like I've mentioned before, she does have a history of knowing who to suck up to during a run and then biting a few of the hands that feed her once in. She did this with big tobacco. I do think she drank the pharma koolade and believes in a lot of bogus psychiatric theories, which doesn't bode that great for our cause. But things can and would get worse under a possible Giuliani admin. I have seen tiny hints that Clinton might make a move against pharma's power base, at least regarding vaccine safety. Maybe it's just wishful thinking in light of limited options. I thought Clinton's move to force pharmaceutical companies to give one year's notice before they could stop manufacturing vaccines was sneaky in a good way. The potent threat that politicians have used on behalf

of pharma-- whenever pharma is questioned about vaccine safety or feeling threatened by potential litigation-- is that vaccine manufacturers could pack up their toys and go home if they don't get what they want. That kind of threat works with most of the population, even if it doesn't particularly impress people on this list. If Clinton succeeds in removing the possibility of that threat, it becomes easier to start dismantling some of pharma's other power bases. Giuliani's firm defended the execs in the Oxycontin suits over deaths from the drug. He's clearly not above defending pharma killers, so I doubt he'd be going after pharma for just, um, a little cognitive holocaust. This guy's dripping in pharma corruption. Again, at the very least, he would leave everything status quo but I believe that measures to enforce vaccine mandates would gain speed under him.My concern with is that his term would

be under constant seige, but I do believe he'd restore constitional rights, smack polluters, purge the health and science agencies and a few other things which would serve our interests in the long run. I don't dare to hope that he'd work to repeal the Lilly rider or command vaccine accountability or environmental research for autism, but there's a good chance that he could try. But if it's down to Hillary and Giuliani (or Romney, though I think he's a replicant and will rust before the elections), I'll have to vote for Hillary. I'll probably weep while I'm doing it, but not as much as I'd be weeping during a potential Rudy term. > >> > Hi everybody!> > I have been away for awhile do to a couple of medical > procedures, and I have missed out on the politics discussions. I > still have not made my mind up yet in who to vote for. Any help?> > Leigh-Catarina> > > > > > > > > >

---------------------------------> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with > Mobile. Try it now.> >> > > > > > > ---------------------------------> Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.>

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

[Guest guest]

Hello,

Please, please do not give up on Ron because you think " he can't

win. " This is exactly what the controlled media want you to

believe. They want you to think he has no chance and that you'll

stay home or vote for someone else. Please pay attention to what

happens this Thursday in Iowa and next Tuesday in New Hampshire. I

predict that Ron will make a very surprising finish in those

states. Remember, Dr. Ron is the only one on either side who

does not accept money from lobbyists or corporate interests. He

wants to put control of the gov't back in the hands of the people and

take control away from Big Pharma. He is an honest, genuine man who

really wants change. If you like him, please don't give up on him.

He can win! But he needs our help and our votes!

Thanks,

Greg

> > >

> > > Hi everybody!

> > > I have been away for awhile do to a couple of medical

> > procedures, and I have missed out on the politics discussions. I

> > still have not made my mind up yet in who to vote for. Any help?

> > > Leigh-Catarina

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ---------------------------------

> > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with

> > Mobile. Try it now.

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ---------------------------------

> > Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I live in NH and recently there has been a big hoopla about Ron

being excluded from a Fox News (or Faux News) debate scheduled for

January 6 in NH. Why would he be excluded? He polls higher than Fred

who was invited... Is it Fox's decision? If so, why

wouldn't they want Ron invited? Is he a threat to their plan to

crown either Clinton or Guiliani? Damn, were is the NWO play book

when you need it?

> > > >

> > > > Hi everybody!

> > > > I have been away for awhile do to a couple of medical

> > > procedures, and I have missed out on the politics discussions.

I

> > > still have not made my mind up yet in who to vote for. Any help?

> > > > Leigh-Catarina

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ---------------------------------

> > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with

> > > Mobile. Try it now.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ---------------------------------

> > > Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Yeah - when you look at what a big fan Hannity is of Guiliani, it makes sense that would be eliminated. They don't want to give a guy who has become popular to outstage Hannity's choice for president. Re: Politics!

I live in NH and recently there has been a big hoopla about Ron

being excluded from a Fox News (or Faux News) debate scheduled for

January 6 in NH. Why would he be excluded? He polls higher than Fred

who was invited... Is it Fox's decision? If so, why

wouldn't they want Ron invited? Is he a threat to their plan to

crown either Clinton or Guiliani? Damn, were is the NWO play book

when you need it?

> > > >

> > > > Hi everybody!

> > > > I have been away for awhile do to a couple of medical

> > > procedures, and I have missed out on the politics discussions.

I

> > > still have not made my mind up yet in who to vote for. Any help?

> > > > Leigh-Catarina

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ------------ --------- --------- ---

> > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with

> > > Mobile. Try it now.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ------------ --------- --------- ---

> > > Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

> > >

> >

>

Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

[Guest guest]

fwiw -- I LOVE RON PAUL! He definitely has my vote. He's one of the

good guys.

> > > >

> > > > Hi everybody!

> > > > I have been away for awhile do to a couple of medical

> > > procedures, and I have missed out on the politics discussions. I

> > > still have not made my mind up yet in who to vote for. Any help?

> > > > Leigh-Catarina

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ---------------------------------

> > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with

> > > Mobile. Try it now.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ---------------------------------

> > > Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

As long as by " at work " you don't mean the Justice Department of

Dept. of Homeland Security, sure, by all means! ;-) I don't know how

incredible my views are, since I feel like I have to play political

catch-up all the time. Hard to keep up with current events with two

loud preschoolers in the house, but I try. I read my alt news sources

in the bathtub.

I've wondered about ' treatment as well. She looks

and sounds much better than one might think. And the seem

sort of hip to corrupt practices in general, so I imagine they might

look below the surface.

It's ironic that MA has such a rep for great medical care, since

statistically, one's chances of dying in a MA hospital are higher

than in other states. Harvard is bought and paid for by pharma and

has a corrupt history regarding human research (I wonder what it's

like for Martha Herbert in the doctor's lounge, huh?), so it doesn't

surprise me that they've foisted this tragic, ill-advised screening

program on the state's Medicaid " hostages " . That's interesting about

SC because we were discussing with my mom where she'd like to live if

she could live anywhere and she mentioned it. Mom's also hip, lol.

So when your work mates find flaws and make corrections on my

political conceptions, please post them for my edification, lol.

Happy New Year!

> > >

> > > Hi everybody!

> > > I have been away for awhile do to a couple of medical

> > procedures, and I have missed out on the politics discussions. I

> > still have not made my mind up yet in who to vote for. Any help?

> > > Leigh-Catarina

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ---------------------------------

> > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with

> > Mobile. Try it now.

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ---------------------------------

> > Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with

Search.

>

[Guest guest]

I don't think we should not vote for someone just because we don't

think they can win. If every person who supported someone votes for

that someone, then there's always a chance. I sure won't waste my vote

on someone based on a popularity contest.

My op, as one with conservative values, many don't think Hillary can

win, so why not support her as an opponent. I don't, but I could be

wrong.

Debi

[Guest guest]

I've been watching Ron fot the past 6 months...he definately

has my vote!

-Trish

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi everybody!

> > > > > I have been away for awhile do to a couple of medical

> > > > procedures, and I have missed out on the politics

discussions. I

> > > > still have not made my mind up yet in who to vote for. Any

help?

> > > > > Leigh-Catarina

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ---------------------------------

> > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with

> > > > Mobile. Try it now.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ---------------------------------

> > > > Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Of course it shouldn't be a popularity contest, but the stakes are so

screamingly high this time around that a " Nader factor " could set us up

for eight more years of hell and increasing loss of rights. You may be

conservative, but to the current administration and its extension,

you're a dangerous radical. So at the polls, we might all consider the

candidate least likely to exploit the following to shut us up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/opinion/19mon3.html

We may be stuck having to guess who this would be.

>

> I don't think we should not vote for someone just because we don't

> think they can win. If every person who supported someone votes for

> that someone, then there's always a chance. I sure won't waste my vote

> on someone based on a popularity contest.

>

> My op, as one with conservative values, many don't think Hillary can

> win, so why not support her as an opponent. I don't, but I could be

> wrong.

>

> Debi

>

[Guest guest]

I just want to clear something up because I sensed some confusion on

this point. Ron is running as a Republican. He has stated that

he does not plan on running as an independent should he lose the

nomination. Therefore, Ron could not possibly have a " Nader

effect " in the election should he win the Republican nomination.

For detailed info on where he stands on the issues please visit:

www.ronpaul2008.com

Greg

> >

> > I don't think we should not vote for someone just because we don't

> > think they can win. If every person who supported someone votes

for

> > that someone, then there's always a chance. I sure won't waste my

vote

> > on someone based on a popularity contest.

> >

> > My op, as one with conservative values, many don't think Hillary

can

> > win, so why not support her as an opponent. I don't, but I could

be

> > wrong.

> >

> > Debi

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I think people are going to be surprised at the pull that Ron

has. He's a sleeper candidate.......

> > >

> > > I don't think we should not vote for someone just because we don't

> > > think they can win. If every person who supported someone votes

> for

> > > that someone, then there's always a chance. I sure won't waste my

> vote

> > > on someone based on a popularity contest.

> > >

> > > My op, as one with conservative values, many don't think Hillary

> can

> > > win, so why not support her as an opponent. I don't, but I could

> be

> > > wrong.

> > >

> > > Debi

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I think you're right . The media establishment has no idea

what's about to smack them right in the face. People are tired of

Bush and his clones who are running for president. People want

change and they know Ron will deliver.

Greg

> > > >

> > > > I don't think we should not vote for someone just because we

don't

> > > > think they can win. If every person who supported someone

votes

> > for

> > > > that someone, then there's always a chance. I sure won't

waste my

> > vote

> > > > on someone based on a popularity contest.

> > > >

> > > > My op, as one with conservative values, many don't think

Hillary

> > can

> > > > win, so why not support her as an opponent. I don't, but I

could

> > be

> > > > wrong.

> > > >

> > > > Debi

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I know that is determined to run as a Republican. I don't know

what or who is going to crop up in the public eye after the

canditates are chosen for each party, given that most of us are so

displeased with how limiting these choices may end up being. I'm not

sure could switch banners if he's not chosen as the Republican

candidate or if he would, but there may be other choices to create

a " Nader effect " . Even Nader. They don't look so enticing (who ARE

these people?) at this point, but who knows:

http://tinyurl.com/285t3e

> > >

> > > I don't think we should not vote for someone just because we

don't

> > > think they can win. If every person who supported someone votes

> for

> > > that someone, then there's always a chance. I sure won't waste

my

> vote

> > > on someone based on a popularity contest.

> > >

> > > My op, as one with conservative values, many don't think

Hillary

> can

> > > win, so why not support her as an opponent. I don't, but I

could

> be

> > > wrong.

> > >

> > > Debi

> > >

> >

>