Hello, nice site look this:
sesso gratis Ivo [url=http://sesso-gratis.sex-italy.org/sesso-gratis.html]sesso gratis Ivo[/url]

End ^) See you

Hello, nice site look this:
sesso Pino [url=http://sex-italy.org/index.html]sesso Pino[/url]

End ^) See you

william let me guess: you think the southern states' invocation of the doctrine of interposition should have carried the day?

you are a silly man.

Also, it's a stretch to call White Supremecist drivel and Wingnut propaganda "intellectual" effort.

Unless you are a "late bloomer" only now in college, many of us have heard those same positions since long before you were born. And, they didn't come from the respected intellects on either the Right or the Left.

William: Above you asserted that the end of segregation was a violation of States Rights.

Wow! I had to read that three times, just to make sure that I didn't misread it. It's been years since I've heard that canard.

You're still walking and quacking like that racist duck that you vehemently deny you are.

I think JimD is absolutely right about a third party challenge occurring if Rudy got the GOP nod. Interesting question; who would be the most likely Religious Right presidential candidate? Off the top of my head, I suspect Roy Moore would be a possibility...

I think there are enough Republicans who really do not give a rat's a** about the social issues but would respond to a tough on national security, tough on crime, pro-business, fiscal conservative. Furthermore, I believe most of the Republican primaries are winner-take-all. Giuliani might be able to win a plurality in enough primaries to get the nomination. I will be the first to admit that it is a longshot. It would depend on a lot of factors - one of the most important being that the field is not winnowed early to Giuliani and one other candidate. I can't see him winning many 2 person primary contests. But, if he does eke out the nomination, I am positive that there will be a third party challenge from the religious right that would guarantee election for the Democrat.

Peter -- despite the fact that he used to be a republican, I don't think it's fair to say that Jim Webb is more conservative than the guy he beat in the Dem primary. Economically, Miller is actually an ardent free-trader, clinton-style Democrat. In contrast, Webb is an unabashed economic populist. Take a look at the op-ed he wrote in the WSJ after his election. It's actually pretty radical stuff.

I don't think he needs to pledge to appoint right-wing judges or flip-flop or any of that. He can weather his liberal views by using an old play from the conservative book: federalism. Rudy's got nothing to lose by suggesting that abortion and gay marriage are issues for states to decide. An old states rights argument could play well with Southern voters wary of his views, and could actually play well in Northern states, wary of conservative control of the federal government again.

WILLIAM STOP SPAMMING UP THESE THREADS WITH YOUR WORTHLESS DRIVEL!!!!!

CHRIS, IS THERE ANY WAY THIS PERSON CAN BE BANNED?

Dear William,

Where is Osama Bin Laden?

Why did Building 7 collapse on 911? it was not hit by an airplane?

Where are the persons who send the letters with antrax to the US Congress?

Why are our boys and girls dying in Iraq?so that the defense contractors get rich?

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Yours,
Che

Additionally, it's probably worth pointing out that seven of the court's nine members were appointed by Republicans.

I agree with most of the points about Rudy. I rather think the strongest pitch he can make is twofold: one, that he is naturally tough on national security because of his 9/11 experience - dispute that point freely - and two, that he remains popular with the American people, who will probably be more forgiving than the Republican party's socially conservative base.

Moderate and conservative Democrats won several primary elections this year over more liberal opponents in many cases because they portrayed themselves as candidates who could win. See Webb in Virginia.

Well, there's always the radical option of NOT banning gay marriage. Are you incapable of even considering that option?

Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which EXPLICITLY states that states are not obligated to recognize marriage laws of other states. The ENTIRE PURPOSE of the law was to prevent one state's recognition of same-sex marragies from forcing other states to do the same. The courts have never invalidated that law. Nor has the Supreme Court ever even hinted that they are likely to find that gay marriage is guaranteed by the Constitution. Indeed, the Court has gone to great lengths to differentiate its recent rulings involving sexual orientation from the issue of marriage. So I'm afraid the Supreme Court boogey man doesn't work in this instance.

As to "states rights" more generally, I'm not sure how conservatives using federal laws to enforce their social agenda can be reconciled with support for a strict understanding of federalism. As far as constitutional law theories go, "they started it" just doesn't quite cut it. Either you think the Fed has the power to pass significant legislation at the expense of state laws or you don't. Any other view is nothing but a pure power grab.

Giuliani can't win this, and if he does it will be a bonanza for Dems. The recent Newsweek Poll has Hillary soundly beating him even now. For starters, Giuliani has Bernard Kerik hanging around in the background. People will examine his associates with a microscope, if any of them have mafia ties it will come out, and I think some people in his past probably have close mafia ties just by the fact he is living in New York City. It won't matter if he is actually cooperating with the Mafia, the perception of a link will be there, it will be believable, and it will taint his candidacy.

The way he treated his wives is despicable, he will be easily portrayed as "anti" family values and as a philanderer. What Giuliani will do is suck up the oxygen from other second tier candidates for the GOP, taking in free media, money from donors and so on, making it impossible for other more viable candidates to rise up.

In short Giuliani is the perfect candidate to destroy the GOP completely.

"You're forced? I can think of a few other options."

Name them, please?

I can't think of any. Even if the Dems agreed to a compromise that would ensure gay marriage, guns, etc remained states' rights issues, there is nothing to prevent the judges and SCOTUS justices they appoint from violating the compromise.

If the Democrats promised to leave such issues to the states, and some way of preventing the courts from violating states' rights was worked out, I can PROMISE you that most conservatives would stop pushing for a federal ban.

However, we know that most Democrats are not content with deciding what goes on in their own states, but wish to force their views on other states, as well.

Since the Democrats insist on violating states' rights, the only way for conservatives to protect the states' rights of our own states, as well as the only way to ensure that liberals do not force their values upon us, is to legislate at the federal level.

Would you support a compromise or some sort of agreement that enshrined guns, the death penalty, policy toward illegals, gay marriage, etc as states rights?

"We know that liberals will not respect the state bans on gay marriage, so we are forced to try to ban it at the federal level."

You're forced? I can think of a few other options.

Che....MY posts are actual detailed analysis, and intellectual opinion, which I PERSONALLY wrote, and which pertain to the topic.

YOUR "posts" are ludicrous tinfoil columns stolen and copied and pasted from the World Socialist Website.

So why don't you F.O.A.D., CHE?

To all others, please ignore this post, unless you are che.

While William complains about Che, he now takes up more column inches.

And as a typical facist, he calls for the BANNING of Che.

If Che's blogs were on paper, William would demand that they be BURNED.

Fair and Balanced!

DTM: Conservatives LOVE federalism, and states rights.

BUT, Democrats and liberals have no respect for states rights, and constantly attempt to enact legislation at the federal level (or through judicial rulings by courts) that SHOULD be left to the states.

For example: The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Instead of allowing states to decide what weapons to allow and not allow, Democrats decided that Congress should decide, and passed the unpopular AWB. That same year, due in a large part to the AWB (according to Bill Clinton), Dems were swept from power.

Another example: Roe v. Wade. Instead of making abortion a states' rights issue, through the Supreme Court, liberals forced the country to legalize abortions, even though most people opposed doing so.

Even going back to the Civil Rights era, the liberals constantly refused to respect states' rights, and violated states rights through Supreme Court decisions and federal legislation.

Even though the result of such violations of states rights in the Civil Rights era led to the end of segregation, it was STILL a violation of states' rights.

Because liberals continually attempt to violate states' rights through the courts and through congressional legislation, we conservatives are forced to do the same to prevent states' rights from being violated.

For example, if SCOTUS decides to rule that gay marriages cannot be banned, then all of the state constitutional amendments will be void.

We know that liberals will not respect the state bans on gay marriage, so we are forced to try to ban it at the federal level.

If some kind of verifiable truce could be negotiated, where liberals would support a constitutional amendment that would make gay marriage a states' rights issue, be assured you would NOT see conservatives pushing for a constitutional ban.

The reason a constitutional amendment to make it a states' rights issue would be necessary is to prevent activist judges from ruling that it cannot be banned.

But if gay marriage, gun control, etc were enshrined as states' rights issues, you would not see conservatives pushing for a federal amendment.

However, do you think liberals would agree to respect states rights on this matter?

If not, then why should we respect states' rights on issues that are important to liberals?

Answer me that question.

Before 9/11, everywhere he went people would yell out "Giuliani is a JERK!" NY was sick of him and his philandering, and we were glad to see him go at the end of his term. And then he got a tremendous amount of hype for being the only coherent leader in a position of authority at the time of 9/11. It was really bizarre from a NYers point of view.

Conservatives will grow weary of his shtick, and that is not even including the fact that his beliefs on certain choice issues are 180 degrees opposite from theirs. He's definitely not the kind of down-home bbqin beer drinkin' brush-clearin' manly man that Bush pretends to be. Rudy is not someone you'd just wanna hang out and have a beer with.

And what does Rudy say about Iraq? He opposes withdrawing American troops in favor of having them stay there to die in record numbers in all-out Civil War in the desert? Gotta be kidding. How long should they stay Rudy, another 4 years? At what, a $100-250B per year clip? Another 1,000 deaths per year or more? And what about Afghanistan? Osama Bin Laden? Um, no. Forget it. When it comes down to it, in my opinion, comparing any of these GOP candidates to Obama or Hillary or even someone like Edwards is just a joke. Rudy should just sit this one out if he wants to hang on to what little respect he truly deserves.

Pehaps Rudi would be better off switching parties. It's not unheard of.

Bloomberg anyone?

I think the nominee will be McCain, not because the virtues of the former Mayor are more or less palatable to the Christian Republicans, but because it is his turn. This is how Republicans mostly do it, except GW Bush 43, and it's a tried and true process of getting an elder statesman like person elected.

Giuliani claiming he is a libertarian may not fly, but there is another alternative: he could be a federalist. That allows him to take a stance against federal rights and federal laws unpopular with social conservatives while not claiming he has changed his underlying views.

Obviously, federalism is not exactly an ideal platform for social conservatives who would like to see federal laws prohibiting things like abortions and gay marriages. But as I noted elsewhere, they might take it if the alternative is a Democrat winning.

What I'd like to know is why there aren't more comments from New Yorkers who support RG's candidacy for POTUS. Oh, wait. I know why. As New Yorkers, we saw that Rudy was basically a crap mayor whose approval ratings were only slightly north of food poisoning until 9/11.

We do not need another surly, callow twit in the oval office.

Giuliani's second wife (and children?) learned that he was leaving her for his mistress when he announced it during a televised news conference. That's going to play in middle America? I don't think so.

Let's see...Under the Issues section on Rudy's website we have:

Fighting Crime, Cutting Taxes, Fiscal Responsibility, Welfare Reform, Improving Education, Quality of Life, and Protecting Children.

In other words, all softball issues that he can take easy positions on, which would appeal to any R or D.

Rudy, if you want the nomination, you need to tell us you positions on issues that are actually controversial like abortion, gay marriage, guns, immigration, and Iraq.

You're not going to go far in the primary, unless you start sounding like a Republican.

Libertarians are pro-gun. Rudy is not. Also, he supports NSA spying, the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, cameras on every street corner, etc. Those are not things that libertarians support. So Rudy will have trouble claiming to be a libertarian.

The only thing that can be said in Rudy's favor is that he is honest about his views, and isnt trying to deceieve people like Romney is.

Why should the GOP nominate someone who is to the left of many Democrats?

We might as well nominate a Democrat, and get the real thing, rather than someone who is a Dem at heart but an R by name.

And why would Rudy nominate judges who disagree with his personal views?

Rudy would probably not nominate Ginsbergs, but he would not nominate Roberts or Alitos either.

Rudy's judicial appointments would most likely be in the mold of Anthony Kennedy.

No thanks.

CHE STOP SPAMMING UP THESE THREADS WITH YOUR WORTHLESS DRIVEL!!!!!

CHRIS, IS THERE ANY WAY THIS PERSON CAN BE BANNED?

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

http://www.8thestate.com/?page_id=69

Rudy Giuliani opens his own bank
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Aug 17, 2006, 00:24

Momma mia! I thought Citibank advertised, "The Citi never sleeps." But no, it's his honor, the Sheriff of America, who quietly opened Giuliani Capital Advisors, a 100-person investment bank on April 30, reported by the good old Daily News, the same day Rudy met with Republicans in Iowa, in search of the commander in chief gig. And here I'm just catching up with him.

This guy works faster than someone running from his Office of Emergency Management on the 23rd floor of Tower 7(Larry Silverstein's building) on 9/11/2001, pulled eight hours after the 9/11 hit. He told the 9/11 Commission he heard that Tower 7 was going down at 9:15. No wonder he was running around the street all day. He had no place to go.

Speaking of the OEM, Ray Kelly, New York's current police commissioner recently said, "If Giuliani had any sense of the threat, he would have gotten out of the City Hall area. He put it [the OEM] right next to a target. It was just unwise." Kelly, who was fired from the post by Giuliani in 1993 and reappointed by Mayor Bloomberg, shared these edgy observations in Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 by Dan Collins and Rudy critic Wayne Barrett. Check the August 10 review by David Saltonstall, Daily News senior correspondent..

Kelly also pointed out that in addition to using the site of the 1993 "terror" bombing, archaic radios kept the police and fire departments from effectively communicating on that chaotic and tragic day. Kelly suggested also that both departments should have had a unified post, so they would have been face-to-face. Maybe the mayor had had other things on his mind, which brings us back to Guiliani Capital Advisors (GCA).

Introducing Brand Rudy

Steven Oesterle, who runs GCA, had this to say, "There are a lot of high-class investment-banking boutiques out there, but we really thought there was room for another one that we could build off the back of this brand." This brand would be, er, brand Guiliani? Move over Ralph, Calvin, Tommy, and Martha. Brand Rudy is here. Ba-da-bing, ba-da-boom.

According to the Daily News, "court filings show Giuliani Advisors has collected millions of dollars in fees and expenses from bankrupt companies. The filings open a rare window into the former mayor's new empire, which includes a law firm and the consultancy Giuliani Partners." I'm waiting for the restaurant, Rudy's Window on the World. Maybe that would leave a bad taste.

The thing is lots of retired pols strike it rich tap-dancing in business. But the big RG (how would those initials look on your tailored broadcloth shirt) is a virtual tycoon. The presidency aside, his business interests, and I quote the News, "are vast and absorbing. Even his political trip to Iowa [was] scheduled to coincide with a paid speech in Des Moines." And guess what? "Much of Giuliani's work is confidential." I'll bet.

But a Giuliani aide, Sunny Mindel, said, "We're in the private sector. We have clients about which you may not know anything." I'll bet. But their tasks include "high-profile" work for Mexico City and the pharmaceutical industry. Don't tell me. They're synthesizing Acapulco gold for pain sufferers.

Political Buzz Good for Bizness

Meanwhile, the "political buzz is good for business, but many wonder if [Rudy] can step off the money trail and back onto the campaign trail." Hey, I'll bet it's as easy as Dick Cheney going from government to Halliburton back to government to Halliburton and George Bush skipping from Harken to the Texas Rangers to the governorship and presidency. Their respective net worth is $90 million and $20 million, that's on the books. And of course, Mr. Bush luckily skipped the insider trading rap when he dumped his Harken shares the day before Gulf 1 began and hopped from the capital gains evasion rap when he sold his $600,000 worth of Texas Rangers stock for $15 million to Rangers' owner Tom Nixon. But I digress. Or do I? Is it all one thing?

"Court papers and other filings offer a glimpse at the [Giuliani) banking business," reported the Daily News, "in which Giuliani Partners has a controlling stake." In fact, GCA's numero uno banking client seems to be Delta Air Lines. They hired the boyz last September (the cruelest month) at a monthly fee of $400,000. That's a lot of scharola (escarole, green stuff) as we used to say in the old neighborhood. It's supposedly an industry standard-fee but it still pissed off pilots who had to take pay and retirement cuts, including a retired pilot friend of mine who sent me the brand R article. But that's life they say. And Giuliani asked for $20,343 in lodging and $9,471 in business meals for his crew. That's living large, I say, on OPM (other people's money).

Banco GCA also nipped Aloha Airlines for about $3 million for work on restructuring, and ditto for U.S. Airways creditors' committee. Jesus, if I were cynical I'd say these looked almost like disguised campaign contributions, like W's $15 mill from Tom Nixon. But hey, let's be optimistic. The man's the American Dream, right. Father was a rough and tumble bartender, head-busting loan-collector in a saloon in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, did some time in Sing Sing; cousin a hijacker suspected of taking part in several murders; the family in general connected to the Family. Their rap sheet can run down your arm.

GCA in fact has 36 deals on its website with midsize companies, too. And other clients and its own investments, like 20 percent of a company selling energy-efficient lights to cities, with a $150 grand retainer for the deal. That's about what brand Rudy earned a year as mayor. And the White House gig pays $400,000 a year, the monthly fee for Giuliani Capital Advisors. Anything wrong with this picture? What does Commissioner Kelly think? Well, it turns out a couple days after his Saltonstall interview, Kelly redacted most of his criticisms. Good soldier, let the negativity go. Be positive like brand Rudy. Arm-twisting here? Nah.

Why even Bernie Kerik, another Giuliani find for police commissioner, worked his way up to head of Homeland Security and did a stint before that as security chief in Iraq, until the Daily News brought us his double affair laid bare, one with Correction Officer Jeanette Pinero (for the bad boy in him) and one with famed publishing queen Judith Regan (for the autobiographic author in him). These were followed by revelations of his accepting nearly 200 grand in work on his home, thousands in cash and gifts without disclosure, and ties to a construction company believed to be linked to the mob. A real beaut Bernie.

Keeping His Political Torch Lit

Nevertheless, New York's ex-mayor is keeping "his political torch lit." He hired John Avlon, former City Hall speechwriter as director of communications for his political action tribe. He's not letting the Republican Christian Right stop him either. He still has his urban roots, albeit a remarkably lousy record with blacks and other minorities. That should be worth something with all those nice white folks from all-white places.

Avlon, by the way, is a columnist for the New York Sun, slightly to the right of Ghengus Khan. He's even, believe it or not, a critic of Bush's domestic policy. He doesn't like his ties? Among his heroes is the model centrist (and not so model husband) Bill Clinton. What a group.

But hey, that's what it takes. Politics, as Hunter Thompson once said, is "the ultimate blood sport." You have to want to kill to win. Did Gore? Kerry? Clinton did. Bush did. Just take a look at the stolen elections. And brand Rudy, what about him? Now on his third marriage, his first to his cousin, ending in annulment, the second to the genuinely classy Donna Hanover, mother of his two children, dumped for third bride, Upper East Side cutie Judy Nathan. This after, as Bob Novak of all people said, years of public adultery. Well, who knows how it will all wash in Wisconsin. Out, out damned spots.

For sure, you can expect anything from brand Giuliani. Just click the link to the left to my last Online Journal article on brand R. It's an eye-opener.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.