Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 25th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Clinton wins in Pennsylvania but Obama retains edge in presidential race



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

HILLARY Clinton pulled off the win she needed in Pennsylvania last night to stay in the race and keep her presidential aspirations alive.
But the former first lady's 10-point victory, with 96% of the vote counted, over front-runner Barack Obama in the Keystone State left the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination largely unchanged.

It was not the 15-point victory which many pundits predicted would have dented Mr Obama's national lead, but it was enough to keep her in contention and possibly stave off calls from senior Democrats for her to quit the race for the sake of the party for a few more weeks.

Political analysts will now wait to see whether any superdelegates, the 800 party officials whose votes will be crucial in deciding the party's nominee, declare their support for either candidate in the next few days as a result of the contest.

Speaking in Philadelphia with her husband former President Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea at her side, Mrs Clinton told supporters: "Today, here in Pennsylvania, you made your voices heard and, because of you, the tide is turning."

She said the stakes were high and the challenges great, but the possibilities were "endless" with a president who was ready to lead on day one.

"Some people counted me out and said to drop out, but the American people don't quit and they deserve a president who doesn't quit either," she said.

As she pledged to continue her fight, she made a prominent appeal for funds to help save her campaign which recently reported debts of 10 million dollars (£5m).

"Tonight, more than ever, I need your help to continue this journey," she said.

"This is your campaign and this is your victory tonight. Your support has meant the difference between winning and losing.

"We can only keep winning if we can keep competing with an opponent who outspends us so massively."

As the crowd booed the reference to Mr Obama, she encouraged them to visit her campaign website and "show your support tonight".

"The future of this campaign is in your hands," she said.

The 60-year-old New York senator said she had been outspent "three-to-one" by her "formidable opponent" and had still won in the state.

The former first lady said her victory was "deeply personal".

"I'm in this race to fight for you, to fight for everyone who's ever been counted out," she said.

"You know you can count on me to stand up strong for you every single day in the White House. This is a historic race."

Earlier, as she came on stage to chants of "Hillary, Hillary", she said: "It's a long road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and it runs right through the heart of Pennsylvania."

She added: "We still have a lot of work ahead of us, but if you're ready, I'm ready.

"I might stumble and I might get knocked down, but as long as you're with me I will always get right back up.

"For me, the question isn't whether we can keep America's promise, it's whether we will keep America's promise."

Tuesday's victory, on the back of wins in Texas, California, Ohio and her home state of New York, will boost Mrs Clinton's claim that she has a strong record in the big states where Mr Obama appears to struggle.

The race now moves to Indiana, which goes to the polls along with North Carolina on May 6, and the 46-year-old Illinois senator wasted no time in leaving Pennsylvania for the new battleground.

Shortly after his rival finished speaking, Mr Obama took to the stage at a rally in Evansville, Indiana, to congratulate his opponent on running a "terrific race".

He urged America to make this election about making the nation "a beacon of all that is good and of all that is possible for all of mankind".

Mr Obama said his campaign's task was not simply to win the nomination, or the general election, but to "keep this country's promise alive in the 21st century".

He added it was easy to "get caught up in the distractions, the silliness, and the tit-for tat that consumes our politics".

He said the bickering, which no-one was immune to, trivialised the key issues of "two wars, an economy in recession, (and) a planet in peril".

He said his campaign had "closed the gap" on Mrs Clinton in Pennsylvania and added: "Now it's up to you Indiana."

In the speech he specifically criticised Republican John McCain for offering "four more years" of President George W Bush's policies on the war and taxes.

"We already know John McCain offers more of the same," he said.

He also criticised Mrs Clinton, but without naming his Democratic rival.

"We can't afford to play the same Washington games and expect a different result, not this time," he said.

"We can calculate and poll-test our positions and tell everyone exactly what they want to hear.

"Or we can be the party that doesn't just focus on how to win, but why we should."

Mr Obama also appeared to refer to a new Clinton campaign advert which features an image of al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

"We can be a party that thinks the only way to look tough on national security is to talk and act and vote like George Bush and John McCain.

"We can use fear as a tactic, the threat of terrorism to scare up votes, or we can decide the real strength is asking the tough questions before we send our troops in to fight."

He added he was not a perfect man and "will not be a perfect president" but said he would be honest and fight for Americans "every single day for the next four, or eight, years".

The full article contains 984 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

,

23/04/2008 08:06:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

,

23/04/2008 08:10:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Voice of reason,

EDINBURGH 23/04/2008 09:24:16
Well said 2 . Spot on .
4

tomislav,

Home 23/04/2008 09:51:50
A serious question, Firstly I am not anti US in any way (actually I quite like them) ,,,, but seriously, can anybody, and I mean anybody, please enlighten me, why does our media incessantly report this subject. It was the lead on every news channel yesterday, with live updates! I am totally lost, just who wins, or loses, a competition to be a candidate in an election, in a foreign country, a year or so from now, just doesn’t matter to me and I cannot understand why it seems to matter to anybody else (unless you are an American of course) sorry but I just don’t get it. I agree that in the fullness of time the identity of the US president is important, given their global influence, but seriously is the competition just to be a candidate of any relevance to us. I just cant see it, please help me out if I am missing something here ,,,, . In fact whenever I am asked ,,,, ‘what do you think of there American Election’ my answer is always the same ,,,, I don’t!
5

Duncan in Edinburgh /,

23/04/2008 10:21:40
Let's face it - many of Obama's supporters are just young men who want to attend his rallies so they can get their leg over.
6

Duncan in Edinburgh /,

23/04/2008 10:31:10
#1 & #2 We know all about Clinton's skeletons but what about Obama's?

This new politics of his is the biggest con ever - Obama is as much an insider as McCain and Clinton are.

Do you know that the only reason he became an Illinois state senator was because he blackmailed Richard Daley (the mayor of Chicago) into supporting him because he had dirt on Daley (no surprise if you know Chicago politics)?

Obama is as big a crook as the rest of the other crooked Washington politicians. It is rather ironic that so-called educated people have been fooled by this demagogue. But then I'm not surprised - most US College "degrees" are not fit to wipe your backside with.
7

Eddie,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 10:33:06
No 4 - It dosn't affect you, right?
Boy, are you in cloud cuckoo land. The outcome of this election will affect everyone, everywhere. The serious worry is that it is the American people who make the decision!

No. 1 - "a former U.S. Attorney told Roger Morris": "has been implicated" ; "Clinton was accused"
What do all these mean? Judging by your name, I think most people will assume you are a fool, and you probably think Diana was murdered.
8

WKKB,

23/04/2008 10:41:02
#4. I'll tell you why we keep hearing about it... it's because Brits have an insatiable thirst for this sort of stuff. It gives Brits all kinds of amunition to shoot at the US... You're right in saying the the eventual outcome of the presidential election will be important. You can bet if the wrong man/woman gets the job we had better watch out for the fall out travelling across the pond and hitting out bank accounts. It seems we're connected with some sort of umbilical cord to the US banks/financial problems and if the wrong person steps in we stand to lose along with a lot of Americans.
9

Ghostman,

Highland 23/04/2008 10:48:24
If she becomes president and Iran attacks Israel she says she will obliterate Iran. I hope she misspoke,
10

WKKB,

23/04/2008 10:49:52
the problem with Hilary Clinton is that she opens her mouth in the first place.
11

Ghostman,

Highland 23/04/2008 10:58:26
#10 That's why Bill smiles so much.
12

Silence of the Yams,

23/04/2008 11:17:35
Great lady! It's a shame that opportunist upstart Obama is going to get the nomination.
13

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 23/04/2008 11:30:55
#6 Duncan "Obama is as big a crook as the rest of the other crooked Washington politicians."

In other words, a seasoned politician. :-)

This may give voters reassurance and work in his favour.
14

WKKB,

23/04/2008 11:37:37
they're both rubbish. when it gets to the point where all they can do is point fingers, sling mud at each other and LIE... they're too immature to be president of the US and most influential single person in the world. Oprah would make a better President.
15

WKKB,

23/04/2008 11:38:21
#11 - remember... Bill will smile for anyone
16

Ghostman,

Highland 23/04/2008 12:19:00
#14 Must disagree,no-one is too immature to stand for this office.Too poor possibly,but not too immature.
17

Carolyn 1,

23/04/2008 12:40:03
-WKKB

We sling mud and lie?
Americans learned nasty politics and taking bribes from the English, who, in my opinion, were historically ruthless in their climb to power.

18

Let's have the truth,

Queensland 23/04/2008 12:59:17
#9

"If she becomes president and Iran attacks Israel she says she will obliterate Iran".

....Well that's the Jewish vote in the bag.
19

Carolyn 1,

23/04/2008 13:03:52
Of the three candidates:
Hillary is the most centrist- which is a VERY GOOD thing.
As much as I disliked (loathed) Clinton in his personal life, the Clinton administration worked across the aisle and got work done.

Obama could be president of France. His views are so far left they're off the progressive chart - many consider him to be a closet Marxist . This terrifies many Americans. He would accomplish NOTHING in government because of it.

McCain will win over Obama in a landslide. He'd probably get a lot done in Congress including keeping a high profile of troops in the Iraq region.
If he has to campaign against Clinton, McCain's electability against Hillary depends on who he chooses for veep and whether or not Iraq stays stable.

As much as I dislike Bill Clinton, I'll vote for Hillary if she gets that far- and I'm not a democrat.

20

Carolyn 1,

23/04/2008 13:09:25
18
Let's have the truth,Queensland

Hillary Clinton is a New York Senator and New York has the largest Jewish population in the world after Israel.
Needless to say, Clinton already had the Jewish vote.

(especially considering Obama's 'friendship' with various Palestinian 'terrorists' is questionable and not just to Jewish voters)
21

interstellarmince,

outer-space 23/04/2008 13:31:08
More political clap-trap. More Diebold machine vote rigging. The same as the DRS vote rigging in Scotland.
22

Let's have the truth,

Queensland 23/04/2008 13:58:24
America deserves the best president that money can buy or the supreme court can appoint.
23

Carolyn 1,

Boston, USA 23/04/2008 14:08:07
22 Let's have the truth,Queensland

"best president that money can buy "- ?
that would be Obama- he is strongly endorsed by the media and given one free pass after the other and he still lost the last 3 states.
He's raised $234 million, Clinton loaned herself money.

Obama spent 3X what Clinton spent in Pennsylvania, and he still lost.

Once again,as always, your pithy anti-American retorts are false.



24

Andrah,

Embrugh 23/04/2008 14:15:01
It is scandalous that this was the top story on BBC R4 News this morning. They are only selecting a candidate for one of the major parties who in any event is likely to be seen off by McCain. The BBC has gone overboard on the Clinton/Obama saga. With its institutionalised left wing, liberal bias it is simply salivating about the prospects of either a female or a black candidate!
25

A Scot in America,

23/04/2008 14:20:20
#19
"....stability in Iraq...?????
What an interesting definition you must have of the word "stability". McCain's views on Iraq will keep the U.S. in and bleeding for years to come.
26

mike - across the pond,

wkkb 23/04/2008 15:28:29
ammunition....

seriously... its more like spitwads in study-hall....

come the day something happens in the Falklands... who'll be there giving you all the intel you can use.... yeah good old uncle sugar... just like old times....
27

mike - across the pond,

carolyn.... 23/04/2008 15:51:29
you (or me, or anybody for that matter) couldnt tell the difference between obama's "plans" and hillaries PLANS (difference intended) without looking at the top of the page...

the difference between the DNC candidates are merely the baggage they bring along...

remember when the GOP had 5 candidates, and it looked like they were all going to bash each others heads in, clear to the conventions? the hillary & obama debates seriously looked like they needed to rent a frickin room... smiling and fawning over each other.... all the glad-handing.... even talking warmly about a HC/BO ticket... then BO went out and won 11 in a row... giving him a prohibitive lead.... Hillary realized that her "dream" of a perfect political record may have been coming to a close.... and she just might not EVER get her shot... things got DIRTY... and they have BOTH taken turns peeing in the punch bowl ever since....

if YOU want to drink the DNC Kool-aid.... be my guest... lol I'll pass...

as far as WJC 'reaching across the aisle'... he didnt have to reach very far... Gingrich's "contract with america" was dumped on his desk... it was basically, "embrace this, or '96 will be your waterloo"... WJC wasnt stupid by ANY stretch of the immagination... (please ignore that stupid lying thing that happened in front of the grand jury)
28

mike - across the pond,

to: A scot in america... 23/04/2008 16:06:47
been drinking the Obama Kool-aid I see... well at least its sterile... a little salty... but sterile lol

McCain's "100 years" comment has been taken out of context by the DNC...

in response to the question "how long do you see us in Iraq?" what McCain said was... we have been in Korea Japan and Germany 60+ years... and there is no rush to get us out of either place... given an adequate timeframe for Iraq to step up to their own security, providing we can significantly reduce casualties and that the Iraqi government still wants us there, he "can see us in Iraq for 100 years"

hope you havent developed a craving for salt there pal... cause what McCain said isnt nearly as salty as what the DNC KoolAid is.... is it?
29

mike - across the pond,

queensland truth 23/04/2008 16:17:53
you mention the supreme court in a derisive way...

no more dipping off the DNC bitter punch bowl for you!!! you drink any more DNC KoolAid and you'll get the gout....

but I bet you have sparkling white teeth!!!! now dont you? lol
30

A Scot in America,

23/04/2008 16:58:31
mikey across the pond.

Has anyone been shooting at our troops in South Korea, Germany, or Japan for the past 50 years???????
31

Wally,

By The Rivers of Babylon (USA) 23/04/2008 17:01:38
I sympathize with Tomislav in #4.

Eddie in #7 - Hilary is a crook, just like her husband. There is lots of evidence. The fellow in #'s 1 & 2 is correct. This is not to say that the Bush family isn't criminal as well. They are. Both have been very thuroughly investigated & found to be very criminal.

If you want to believe in something stupid and foolish, then believe in the democracy ideology.
32

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/04/2008 18:01:43
A Scot in America in #30:

I agree with Ron Paul, we should pull all troops out of Germany, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere else, all back to America. But to answer your question, around 1975 there was an incident in South Korea where 1 or 2 US soldiers were killed by North Korean soldiers. But we've had border patrol agents along our southern border also killed several times in the last 5-6 years usually by unknown assailants. But the drug shipments are sometimes protected by Mexican troops in uniform and there have been confrontations. The Americans are under orders to always retreat in such confrontations. We are not a free country. If we were, then we wouldn't have troops all over the world as we do. The Ecuadorian government wants US troops to leave now. I think we have troops in 70+ countries. If we were a free country, then we wouldn't be under orders to retreat when Mexican troops brandish weapons. If you knew the Americans and understood past history of US-Mexico relations, you'd understand.
33

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/04/2008 18:17:02
InterstellarMince in 21 is correct. We cannot trust the integrity of US votes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=501059

Here is a report from a web page for Democrat activists. They say that news broadcasters at MSNBC yesterday afternoon as polls were closing in PA were indicating that Obama won. We've seen this many times recently, but we used to never see it. Exit polls historically always matched the official results.

No doubt the journalists at MSNBC will explain the controversy away regardless of what they said. Journalists at MSNBC, CNN & Fox all reported live from New York on the morning of September 11, 2001 that they heard & saw many explosions in the 2 buildings as they were falling. Do you think any of them ever reported it a 2'nd time, do you think the video clips of those journalists saying that live on the air were ever seen on US tv again? On election day in 2004 one of the top pollsters in America, Zogby, issued a press release late in the day saying that John Kerry won the election and that the official results did not match the exit polls.

This is how it goes in Amerika. They give us a lot of drama. They give us a lot of things to keep our minds occupied and to keep our grudges where the rulers desire them to be. We're down to 3 puppets in the race. It is quite possible that Obama's negative statements a few weeks ago about rural Americans were said as a part of a scheme to discredit Obama, that even Obama is cooperating with this - it is quite possible. It has happened before that leading candidates discredit themselves purposely as everyone is expected to go along with the script. You can't be among the final 3 candidates unless you are a puppet. Obama has a foreign policy advisor named Zbignew Brezinsky who is the democrat version of Henry Kissinger. He wants the US to use its power to force the world to accept United Nations rule over them, he said so in a bo
34

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 23/04/2008 18:20:27
I cannot understand the facination with Obama. Set against McCain, McCain will wipe the floor with him. The red neck white male vote will go for McCain rather than Obama who seems to appeal to those who have it rather easy in life and think it's cool and trendy to back Obama.
Clinton has taken all the large industrial states, California, NY, Texas, Penn, Ohio etc, the ones that will secure the presidency. Those voters who have given Clinton their vote will probably continue to do so against McCain, but they will switch to McCain if Obama is the candidate.
It reminds me on the times in the past when the Democrats have gone for the glamorous rather than the pragmatic candidate. - George McGovern - a case in point. The presidency went Republican.
The American young have been taken in by Obama but they are being naive thinking their man will win against McCain. I'm sure a lot of his backing has been coming from Republican voters so that he becomes the easy candidate for the Republicans to deal with in November.
35

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/04/2008 18:24:48
Obama has a foreign policy advisor named Zbignew Brezinsky who is the democrat version of Henry Kissinger. He wants the US to use its power to force the world to accept United Nations rule over them, he said so in a book he wrote recently.

What I'm saying is that perhaps the agenda of the elite now is to make Obama lose, perhaps he's been judged unfit for some reason. The people who rule us will decide who will be the figurehead leader and our elections are just frauds.

The mass media will indicate to the Americans who they should favor and the people will comply. If they wanted to discredit Hilary Clinton, they could do so very easily. Same is true for McCain. The mass media made Obama in the first place by constantly focusing on him for so very long. And recently we've seen a couple of strong attacks against him in the mass media, first with the Reverend Wright information, then with the negative comments by Obama.

It is likely that in order to present an image of fairness to keep the peasants stupid & out of rebellion mode they will let a Democrat be president next.

How horrible!!!! GHW Bush was only made vice president in 1981 because of blackmail against Reagan, and Reagan himself told many people this. Then in 1985 Reagan was incapacitated by the senility syndrome which many people think was induced by drugs, he was very much an easily influenced puppet in his 2'nd term. So in reality the 1'st Bush became the prominent leader around 1985. Can you imagine 32 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton?
36

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/04/2008 18:33:36
I really don't know why McCain is a candidate of the Republicans anyway. The media has focused on McCain for many years to make him prominent. He is nothing special. I live in Arizona where he is our Senator, I remember when he first ran for office around 1982, and I remember going to a political meeting for his support where he spoke. He's nothing special. In December of 2007 there was one poll that showed him at 17% in the republican race with Ron Paul at 15%. And then the media told us Ron Paul wasn't a candidate with any chance to win and that McCain was. Then McCain won the race.

You can't have a democracy if the mass media is propaganda. and in America 6 corporations own the entire mass media, and it is propaganda. There has been massive consolidation of ownership since 1960. This was facilitated by laws passed more than once along the way. There were researchers back in 1972 that identified that 6 corporations were trying to take over our media, and it was still allowed.

all 3 of these candidates are media creations and nothing to do with the 'peoples choice'.
37

mike - across the pond,

wally.... 23/04/2008 18:36:35
ron paul is a LOON...

1) he wants to go back to the gold standard...
can you name ONE reason why we left the gold standard??? I can... its called succeptability to market manipulation... you think its bad NOW... let somebody corner the gold market... and see what you get...

2) he wants to be "isolationist"... I forget the term HE uses.. but what you (and HE) describes IS isolationism... it didnt work for Woodrow Wilson... it didnt work for FDR... it didnt work for Jimmy Carter... it didnt work for Bill Clinton (afghanistan) what on gods green earth makes you think it will work in the 21st century? simply ignoring a problem does NOT make it go away....

3) Ron Paul THINKS he can get rid of the IRS.... from the oval office... Wally, I'd go to the street corner of your choice and wave a "Ron Paul for Pres" sign if he got a constitutional ammendment on the ballot to rid us of the IRS... Ron Paul is a member of the body that must START that process... has been there for the better part of 20 years and hasnt made ANY progress on that front... being in the white house actually gives him LESS power to get that underway... if it gave the president MORE power, we would see a "marraige" ammendment a "flag" ammendment.... and probably an "equal rights" ammendment...

just curious... how do you equate being under orders not to initiate fire with Mexican troops as not being a "free country"... what thought process leads you to think that way?
38

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/04/2008 18:57:49
Mike - just curious - but why do you ask such stupid questions?

There have been more than 1 incident where mexican troops were escorting drug shipments into the US, border patrol agents saw them and as they are ordered they backed off completely leaving the area wide open. We're talking about troops in body armour carrying assault rifles and driving humvees. There have been incidents where border patrol agents have been murdered out there doing their jobs by themselves without the proper force they should have. Their orders are that when the invaders brandish guns they are to retreat. Everyone knows that if it were the Americans' choice that we would not tolerate this. it is not our choice, it is a policy set by the people who rule us and we merely comply with it. when those 2 border patrol agents got in a gunfight with a drug smuggler a few years ago they were sent to jail for 10 years each merely for doing their jobs. and the government trusted the word of a drug smuggler over the 2 agents as to how the gunfight happened. Thats not the American will. The Americans have a strong history of very violent reactions when anyone incurs our border or even assaults our people in a foreign country. and now in post-2000 it is just lay down your guns and back off when any challenge happens.
39

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/04/2008 19:06:30
Mike, you're under the influence of propaganda on what you call the 'isolationist' stuff.

After the civil war great trade barriers were erected in order to protect American industry. Those trade barriers were weakened in the early 1900's, but did not really come down until post-WW2. It is during this period of time that we became a dominant power and our country was built in terms of domestic wealth.

from an historical point of view we have prospered under protectionism. I'm not advocating that we do not trade, but we should have trade policies that we prosper from. We import too much now, it is causing financial ruin for us. Neither McCain, Clinton or Obama can even begin to come to grips with this. Are they serving us? Or are they serving the big US corporations that produce in China? We should be exploiting the oil in Alaska and there are oil-industry sources that have said the quantity up there is enormous. We should be building nuclear plants here in our country because the electricity can be cheap and there is very little environmental impact by nuclear in comparison to the alternatives. We should have tariffs if needed to stop the trade imbalance. If the Chinese communists want their citizens to work at very low wages, that is their business. We should not join in that race to the bottom.

Karl Marx wrote a big paper in 1849 promoting free trade with low tariffs. He cited a study made by German academics showing that such policies would drive wages down. When you drive wages down, there is a multiplier effect that causes the economy to shrink. This is not really a good thing.

We should do what is best for our people, and not worry if some rich people have contrived a name 'isolationist' to describe us for doing so.
40

mike - across the pond,

wally & 9/11 23/04/2008 19:14:11
you must not be looking very hard for that video footage... I saw it 2 weeks ago...

the 20-somethings that put out the 9/11 conspiracy movie... they showed it... made their "see the windows blowing out"... "SEE thats proof!" claims... and I'll admit they did sound pretty convincing...

UNTIL

a PHYSICIST asked them where they wanted all the air in the building to go... realizing their gooses were COOKED... they looked shellshocked... stammered for a bit... looked at each other... said "yeah, but what about..." ... and pulled the blown window footage from their movie... not because it wasnt striking... but because it didnt build their hysteria...

you remeber all the hullaballoo about the "magic bullet"... and how now thanks to the wonders of modern animation.... we understand that there WAS NO MAGIC BULLET... its ballistic trajectory is provable... and repeatable...

this 9/11 stuff is exactly the same... there ARE some pretty compelling assumptions, that on the surface sound credible... right up until they meet facts and the laws of physics... then Occams Razor comes out and poof they are off to another "OK, explain THIS one"... and because it takes a while to think through what REALLY was going on the conspiracy theorists say "ah-ha, see you dont HAVE a ready answer for that do you. that proves (thus and such)" when in reality it actually proves only that they WANT there to be some huge coverup... they dont WANT it to be as mindless as it was...

well, wally, neither do I, but there is NOTHING to prove a 9/11 conspiracy... where would the debris from the "planted explosives" be? none has ever been found... you dont think some firefighter/rescue worker would have pocketed something, some scrap of something? this ISNT roswell... there were THOUSANDS of workers in the busiest city in america... there is no way the government could control THAT many people...

IF there IS some grand conspiracy, then it is so
41

mike - across the pond,

wally & 9/11 contd 23/04/2008 19:16:40
IF there IS some grand conspiracy, then it is so much bigger than anything you or I are capable of concieving that it simply boggles the mind.
42

A Scot in America,

23/04/2008 19:27:09
#32
Wally, you of course must be referencing US-Mexican relations starting in 1848 when the U.S. stole half of Mexico. And to compare 1 or 2 casualties along a hostle border in Korea to the over 4000 dead U.S. troops in Iraq and the untold tens of thousands of Iraqi is ludicrious. And Ron Paul's ideology might work in a 16th century America but not in the 21st,
43

mike - across the pond,

lol wally wally wally 23/04/2008 19:46:38
you know I think I could buy you a beer... if you'd only agree to stay the heck off the 9/11 conspiracy nut stuff...

ANWR... yep I agree, we need to poke holes in the tundra... drop the tree huggers 50 miles away from the nearest well... tell them we'll shut down every oil well they can find in the next month.... however are you aware we have ample oil reserves in capped wells here in the lower 48... theyve been capped for 30 years... even ones that were pumped dry 30+ years ago... extraction techniques have improved 3 to 4 fold over that time, personally I think that there is some other plan afoot on that front... run the middle east dry... then retap our supplies... also you havent heard boo about the national oil reserves either... clinton drew them down to historic low levels, W started replentishing them 7 years ago... where do those stand?

Nuclear... damned straight, we havent built a N-Plant in 30 years... we quit because of the tree huggers lunacy... its about time we started pouring concrete again...

isolationism.... I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree... there is NO way we could only consume what we can produce... look at your computer... your car... your refrigerator... if we were to do that, we would be up the proverbial creek...

drug runners on the border... northern tier guy here... dunno anything about that... other than drug runners are constantly being hunted down coming south from canada dunno why mexico would be any different... and if the government were so heavily involved to that level, why wouldnt they just fly a C130's down on a "training" mission and be done with it... why risk some low level punk driving off with a shipment?
44

,

23/04/2008 20:01:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/04/2008 20:37:43
Scot in America #32:

I did not compare the deaths of the 1 or 2 Americans in South Korea killed by North Koreans approximately 1978 or so, I only answered the question that you asked.

You did assert though that the Americans somehow stole some land from Mexico and that I will challenge. The Mexicans drew up maps showing some land in north America to be theirs'. So did the Russians, the French, the English, the Spanish and the Americans.

On this particular land in question there were people of mexican ethnicity living back in 1848. It was about 5% of the total ethnic mexican population. And those ethnic mexicans did not pay taxes to the central government in Mexico City and had no real contact with it or the rest of Mexico. In California and in Texas there were armed rebellions by those same ethnic mexicans against the Mexican government who tried to collect taxes from them. and in both California and in Texas the people who lived there established new governments independent of Mexico, that happened in the 1830's. In Texas many Americans joined the rebellion, but the Mexicans who lived in Texas were generally loyal to the rebellion along with the Americans and not loyal to Mexico.

Who started the Mexican/American war of 1848 is a controversy in itself. But US forces did invade Mexico and defeat them completely. At the end of the war the Mexicans agreed to let the US have that land. The peoples who lived in these states afterward voluntarilly decided to join the United States as Americans were flooding westward constantly.

California & Texas both had governments of their own in the 1830's after their wars with Mexico. that is the history. The other 'states' had no governments whatsoever at that time. Our leaders at the time felt that Mexico was trying to grab that land. We took it first. They never had control of it.

Russia had a settlement in northern California back then. It doesn't mean that California is theirs'.

You sho
46

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/04/2008 20:58:09
Mike - I'm glad you look at the 911 information at least. We'll agree to disagree on that as well.

But when you talk about the C-130 as you did, then you prove my point. The mindset of the Americans is not to tolerate border incursions, but to be very intolerant. I understand your mindset because I am Americans. Nations are collections of individuals who understand each other, though they may not always agree.

The C130 is a transport plane used by the military. But it is possible to mount weapons on them, the particular weapon you're thinking of is where they fire either bullets or cannon fire even at very rapid fire and can lay it down with tremendous precision so that every square inch of the target has shrapnel in it. They used a KC-135 in Somalia last year in this manner. That is an example of what I mean. The Americans casually speak of extreme violence towards anyone that crosses that border as the Mexican troops have done. and the fact that our border is so porous and that our border patrol agents are de-masculated with orders to them that they not engage, they're not given the force they need, this is evidence that America is not a free country. If it was, then the American-thinking would be in charge of our policy instead of what our government does.

Some Chinese immigrants drowned a border patrol agent in the Rio Grande river. He was in the process of rescueing one of them when the others ganged up on him and killed him. Many border patrol agents have been shot at. The orders are to pull back when shooting begins. On a couple of occasions Mexican troops have actually escorted drug shipments in and our people just back up and get lost so they don't even see what happened - this is under orders.

We Americans don't approve of this at all. Yet they do it.

Scot in America is foolish to presume I speak of 1848 events. We've never had a problem with the Canadian border in that Canadians were never hostile, only recently there'
47

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/04/2008 20:58:56
Scot in America is foolish to presume I speak of 1848 events. We've never had a problem with the Canadian border in that Canadians were never hostile, only recently there's criminals smuggling drugs & people across both borders. But the Mexican border is different. There's been times when hostile people came across the border and wreaked havoc. The standard American response in the past was very strong. We sent troops, we invaded their country, we gave them the same trouble only worse. That was our response and the one preferred by our people. We sent troops into Mexico in early 1900's in exactly this manner.
48

Wally,

23/04/2008 21:13:52
scot in America, I am interested in your comment "And Ron Paul's ideology might work in a 16th century America but not in the 21st"

There was no 16'th century America. But our country did begin in the 17'th century, not the 18'th. The term 'American' was in use heavily to describe our people on both sides of the Atlantic by 1700.

Once we start thinking in ideological terms we lose because we become confused & dysfunctional, split into foolish factions. A good idea is a good idea regardless of what ideological label someone places on it. And if it was a good idea in the past it will still be a good idea today. The standards as to good and bad do not change with time. The world's conditions may change, but the standards as to what is right or wrong do not change.

Ron Paul stands for the rule of law. That is a good idea. The constitution ratified in 1789, written in 1787 is our basic federal law. and it is ignored today. Ron Paul says we should stick to it or change it as we please. That is not ideological, that is simply a good idea. The President today allows his executive branch to ignore many laws made by our elected law-makers. That is a bad thing.

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the federal Reserve bank's special powers. Because of these special powers to create money they receive a cash flow in excess of $800 billion a year. This is excessive, they do nothing to deserve this money. We should eliminate it.

Our federal government has proven to be a tyrant, its powers should be reigned in just as was done in the past. We should go back to those old ideas because they worked, not merely because those were old ideas. We don't have to throw out good ideas just because the calendar advances.

Our foreign adventures have been a disaster. We should pull all the troops home from all the countries they occup, about 70 countries. We have no business there. This does not make us 'isolationist' in our desires, that is ridiculous.

Paul
49

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/04/2008 21:14:45
Paul does not want to eliminate trade as Mike implied. He merely wants the trade agreements to be beneficial to the participating nations including our nation.
50

Tobermory,

Mull 23/04/2008 23:32:15
39 Wally

You make me laugh when YOU accuse someone else of being under the influence. Loosen your tin foil hat.
51

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 24/04/2008 03:47:43
Tobermory in #50:

sorry I don't wear a tin-foil hat and I note that you have no substance in your comment. But I advise you that the September 11 conspiracy theories are ridiculous. Here is a news report documenting this fact.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/9_11_conspiracy_theories?utm_source=videomrss_68210
52

Dáithí,

San Jose 24/04/2008 05:08:36
#48 - Wally

>"And if it was a good idea in the past it will still be a good idea today."

Slavery was a 'good idea' in the past dork, is it today?

Applying leeches was a good idea in the past, is it a good idea today?

Walleye, as I've told you before, just because you can type some words mean that the words will make any sense. :(

You continually post verbose statements that you feel are great proclamations but in reality is merely trying to substitute volume of words in place of facts, ideas or reality.

You are, as ever, the Emperor standing before us all - completely naked.
53

Dáithí,

San Jose 24/04/2008 05:14:34
#48 - Walleye

>"Ron Paul says we should stick to it or change it as we please."

HUH? Hahahaha! WALLEYE - YOU'VE GOT TO START READING YOUR OWN POSTS!

'We should stick to it or change it as we please?'

Greatest quote of the 2008 US Presidential Race:

Ron Paul - "WE SHOULD STICK TO THE CONSTITUTION! OR NOT!!"

Hahaha!

Do you have any idea what the saying 'talking out of both sides of his mouth' means??

Do you know why Ron Paul is a loser, Walleye? Because guys like YOU are his advocates!
54

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 24/04/2008 06:06:24
that is correct Datey, if we are unhappy with the constitution, then we should change it per the legal methods described in the constitution. But we should live by the law. We should not accept rule of men as we have currently. we should have the rule of law. we should take our laws seriously and even our government should be bound by them. That is exactly what Ron Paul says is his highest priority.

There are many examples of President Bush's executive branch of government simply ignoring laws passed by the Congress. And there are many blatantly unconstitutional things that our government has been doing for a long time. If we're not happy with the law or the constitution, then we should change it, but we should live by it.

What about the 10'th ammendment that limits the powers of the federal government to those specifically mentioned in the constitution? The federal government is way outside its boundaries and has been for a long time.

What about the way the constitution says that county sheriffs who are elected are to be the top law enforcement people in any county and yet today modern legislation allows the federal government to dictate to county sheriffs even to replace them?

The whole spirit of federalism is completely gone. What did the founding fathers call their document they used to convince people to ratify the constitution? They called it the Federalist Papers, that was their interpretations of the constitution and what it meant. The principles espoused in that document are meaningless today. The various states never approved changes in the constitution to justify what is going on.

We should live by the rule of law. A foreigner like you would not understand. But I am American. and I will stick to these principles.
55

Dáithí,

San Jose 24/04/2008 06:21:33
#54 - Wally

>"if we are unhappy with the constitution, then we should change it..."

Wally, that is NOT what you stated! Here's what you said:

Post #48: "Ron Paul says we should stick to it or change it as we please."

He said BOTH! - STICK TO IT and CHANGE IT!

Post #48: "And if it was a good idea in the past it will still be a good idea today."

The obvious fallacies in this was shown in my post above - there are plenty of ideas that were good yesterday that are clearly BAD today!

Wally, he's talking out of BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH and YOU keep trying to re-adjust it every time he (and you) are shown to be fools.

Which is every time you post.

Enough of your racist, bigoted nonsense for now. You and your 'real American' racism is sickening to all of us and has made you the worst representation of Americans on the internet.
56

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 25/04/2008 00:56:19
Datey,

I really like that pet name Walleye. and I request that you use that name in correspondence.

thanks.
57

Dáithí,

San Jose 25/04/2008 03:11:35
#56 - Walleye

It is correct to like it, as you are clearly a fish out of water.
58

Dáithí,

San Jose 25/04/2008 15:49:05
#56 - Wallace

Wallace, since you so detest foreigners names, yet YOUR name is 'Wally', short for 'Wallace'

Wallace is Scottish for 'stranger', and since you keep proclaiming how you hate foreigners and Scots, there is certainly nobody 'stranger' than you on the web.

http://www.babynology.com/meaning-wallace-m56.html

Why do you hate foreigners like Scots when you have a Scottish name, anyway?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.