Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,614 Responses
- ********0
pa rum pum pum pum
rum pum pum pum
rum pum pum pum
- ********0
This probably just belong in the 'economy & banks' thread but it does have Lefty-ties to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her…
Allegations of Predatory Lending
On October 4th, 2008, NBC's Saturday Night Live ran a skit which caricatured the Sandlers as predatory lenders who had scammed unsophisticated borrowers into purchasing homes that they could not afford. This skit stemmed from criticism that the Sandler's Savings and Loan had accumulated billions of dollars in sub-prime mortgages during the sizzling home markets of the 1990's and early 2000's. When the Sandler's sold Golden West to Wachovia in October 2006, these unstable loans would become the basis for Wachovia's meltdown in September 2008Organizations funded by the Sandlers
Moveon.org
ProPublica
America Votes
ACORN
Center for American Progress
Human Rights Watch
Oceana- Saturday Night Live?
I'm impressed******** - I like how someone documented "unsophisticated borrowers". In other words, dummies who got scammed into buying homes they just couldn't freakin' afford. I'm a dishwasher at Wendy's. Bingo, you qualify for a 200k house in a newly developed McMansion shit-made fiberglass home. Pshhh!********
- snl censored the skitsputnik2
- Saturday Night Live?
- TheBlueOne0
Yeah..keep the rightwing propaganda coming...
- TheBlueOne0
Where a percentage of questionable loans made thanks to these programs? Sure. Is it a majority of all the bad housing & commercial loans made in the last decade. I think not.
Did the government tell private financial firms to split them, bundle them into packages, sell various CDS derivatives against them? Did it tell credit rating agencies to give these bundles top triple A credit scores? What a fucking joke.
Was there an atmosphere of "Ownership Society" run amok? From the White House speech writers down through insanely stupid low rates and credit lines on credit cards to "Flip This House!" mania on TV? The whole system was primed on greed to take this opening (thanks Phil Gramm!) and run it into the fucking ground.
Yeah, let's blame ACORN and the poor people for that.
What a fucking joke. The rich took advantage, as they always do, of the poor..and then they send in their clean up propaganda crews afterwards. It's the classic - "Well the slut was wearing a miniskirt! She was askin' to get gang raped!" defense.
- Only rubes and losers ever have to deal with "free markets." Winners are too big to fail ...
TheBlueOne - I think you've been skinny dipping in the liberal propaganda pool TBO. The rich taking advantage of the poor?tommyo
- If the poor victims hadn't used their houses as ATM's, done 1 hour of reading before signing bad loans then this would ..tommyo
- all be some liberal success story. Gov AND greed did this, the poor victims belong in the latter category. Responsibility.tommyo
- I place more of the blame on government than I do on the easy scapegoat rich. Funny how you're fine makingtommyo
- blanket statements about the 'rich.' The evvvviiil rich always stealing from the poor. Give me a fucking break.tommyo
- I love how you always defend the rich, you broke motherfucker.DrBombay
- Only rubes and losers ever have to deal with "free markets." Winners are too big to fail ...
- janne760
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.
In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist.
But differences define campaigns. The yeas and nays matter. And in a Senate in which party-line votes are the rule, the rare exceptions help to show how two senators who seemed like ideological twins in 2007 were not actually identical. Obama and Clinton were more like fraternal policy twins, NJ's vote ratings show.
As the battles for the 2008 Democratic and Republican presidential nominations have raged, the candidates have blasted each other for taking positions that are out of line with party dogma. Obama has repeatedly challenged Clinton's 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war, labeling her foreign policy "Bush/Cheney-lite"; Clinton has pointed to Obama's "present" votes on the abortion issue in the Illinois Legislature to raise questions about his support for abortion rights. Meanwhile, Republicans have battled over the strength of their conservative credentials on taxes, immigration, and national security.
When the campaign shifts into the general election, however, the two nominees may each seek to cast their opponent as a party extremist. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for instance, Republicans attacked Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., as an extreme liberal, including by pointing to his ranking as the most liberal senator in NJ's 2003 vote ratings.
Such lines of attack are already apparent in this year's race. At a January 16 Republican National Committee meeting, Karl Rove, President Bush's former campaign architect, called Obama "a straight-down-the-line United States Senate national Democrat." Rove pointedly added: "Nonpartisan ratings say that he has a more liberal and a more straight-party voting record than Senator Clinton does. Pretty hard to do." How the eventual nominee handles criticisms of his or her voting record could help determine the next president of the United States.
Contacted on January 30 to respond to Obama's scores in NJ's vote ratings, his campaign said that the liberal ranking belies the public support he has been receiving. "As Senator Obama travels across the country, and as we've seen in the early contests, he's the one candidate who's shown the ability to appeal to Republicans and the ability to appeal to independents," said campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki.
But she also said that it's important to note the differences between Obama and Clinton on key issues. "The Democratic Party needs to nominate someone who shows a clear contrast with where Republicans are, on issues like the war in Iraq and the economy and the influence of lobbyists on Washington," Psaki said. "One of the reasons he's received such strong support is because he's drawn the starkest contrast on those issues."
Asked whether the liberal ranking could be used against Obama in the campaign, Psaki said that voters appreciate that he is up front about his positions on issues, even if those positions don't line up with their own. "Part of the reason he's appealing to some Republicans and independents is, he has that authenticity," she said. "He's very clear from the beginning that we can't do this alone and we need to work across party lines and focus more on uniting than on dividing."
Asked about Clinton's relatively moderate placement in NJ's rankings, one of her campaign advisers responded, "Her voting record as a whole shows she takes a comprehensive, balanced approach toward policy. Senator Clinton looks at the broader picture. She tries to see the challenges from not only the blue-collar worker's face, but also the white-collar worker's, not only Wall Street but also Main Street, and from that tries to put together a policy that's best for America as a whole."
The Clinton adviser said that the Democratic candidates' shift to the left reflects the two parties' stark splits over Bush's policies. Asked how the differences between Obama's and Clinton's voting records have played on the campaign trail, the adviser emphasized that the two have not differed over the past year on the critical issue of the Iraq war. "The most interesting thing of this exercise is... it simply looks at the votes," the adviser said. "Did they vote yes? Did they vote no? What did they vote? For the most part, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have identical voting records on Iraq."
The Yeas And Nays
Indeed, the similarities in Obama's and Clinton's voting records last year were extensive. Both supported most measures aimed at withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Both supported comprehensive immigration legislation including a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Both voted to support most Democratic positions on health care, education, energy, and the budget, and both voted against most Republican positions on those topics.But NJ's vote ratings are designed to draw distinctions that illuminate the differences among lawmakers. The calculations ranked senators relative to each other based on the 99 key votes and assigned scores in three areas: economic issues, social issues, and foreign policy. (House members were scored in a separate set of rankings. The full results for both chambers will be published in our March 8 issue.)
On foreign policy, for example, Obama's liberal score of 92 and conservative score of 7 indicate that he was more liberal in that issue area than 92 percent of the senators and more conservative than 7 percent. Clinton was more liberal than 83 percent of the senators on foreign policy and more conservative than 16 percent. The ratings do not mean that she voted with liberals 83 percent of the time, or that she was 83 percent "correct" from a liberal perspective.
The ratings system -- devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal -- also assigns "composite" scores, an average of the members' issue-based scores. In 2007, Obama's composite liberal score of 95.5 was the highest in the Senate. Rounding out the top five most liberal senators last year were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., with a composite liberal score of 94.3; Joseph Biden, D-Del., with a 94.2; Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with a 93.7; and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., with a 92.8.
Clinton, meanwhile, tied as the 16th-most-liberal senator in 2007 with Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.; both had a composite liberal score of 82.8. Clinton's home-state colleague, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., was the 15th-most-liberal, with a composite score of 83.
Members who missed more than half of the votes in any of the three issue categories did not receive a composite score in NJ's ratings. (This rule was imposed after Kerry was ranked the most liberal senator in our 2003 ratings despite having missed more than half of the votes in two categories.) Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the only other senator whose presidential candidacy survived the initial round of primaries and caucuses this year, did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score. He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59. (McCain's composite scores from his prior years in the Senate, published in our March 2007 vote ratings issue, are available here.)
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the lone House member still in the presidential race, had a composite conservative score of 60.2, making him the 178th-most-conservative lawmaker in that chamber in 2007. His libertarian views placed him close to the center of the House in both the social issues and foreign-policy categories. He registered more conservative on economic issues.
Overall in NJ's 2007 ratings, Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 key votes on which he voted; Clinton voted the liberal position 77 of 82 times. Obama garnered perfect liberal scores in both the economic and social categories. His score in the foreign-policy category was nearly perfect, pulled down a notch by the only conservative vote that he cast in the ratings, on a Republican-sponsored resolution expressing the sense of Congress that funding should not be cut off for U.S. troops in harm's way. The Senate passed the resolution 82-16 with the support of both Obama and Clinton. The 16 opponents included mostly liberals, such as Sens. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and Sanders.
Clinton took the conservative position four other times in NJ's 2007 ratings. (See how Obama and Clinton voted in the three issue categories in this PDF.) The one that registered the loudest on the campaign trail was a vote that she cast in favor of an amendment sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that called on the Bush administration to reduce Iranian influence on Iraq and to designate the Iranian revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization. The "sense of the Senate" amendment was approved 76-22.
Obama missed that vote, but said he would have voted no. In fact, on the campaign trail, he criticized Clinton for her position, arguing that the Bush administration could use the Senate vote to justify waging war on Iran. "I strongly differ with Senator Hillary Clinton, who was the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment," Obama wrote in an opinion article in The Union Leader, published in Manchester, N.H. To combat that criticism, Clinton signed a letter to Bush urging him not to attack Iran and co-sponsored legislation requiring the president to seek congressional approval before an attack.
The Liberal Label
As Obama and Clinton have wooed Democratic primary voters, both have emphasized their liberal policy positions. But neither has embraced the liberal label the way that the Republican presidential candidates have proudly stamped themselves as conservatives.In Obama's first splash on the national stage, as keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he disparaged ideological labels as weapons used by partisans who have little else to offer. "Even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spinmasters and negative-ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything-goes," he said. "Well, I say to them tonight: There's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America."
Talk like that is what makes Obama popular across the ideological spectrum, said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. "It's not the '90s all over again," she said. "Instead of focusing in on what divides us, it's focusing in on what can unite us. People are sick of the divisions. Republicans I know -- and I know quite a few -- are very enthused by this guy."
For her part, Clinton at times has emphasized her nuts-and-bolts pragmatism. She cites her work with GOP colleagues such as Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, with whom she collaborated for three years to secure medical benefits for National Guard troops. Clinton hit that theme in a December ad aimed at independent voters in New Hampshire. "I've learned if you want to get things done, you have to know when to stand your ground and when to find common ground," she said as she looked into the camera.
In recent interviews, both candidates' supporters contended that they can handle any charges that they are too liberal for the country. Whitehouse, a Clinton supporter, said that she weathered that storm throughout her years as first lady. "What people remember as polarizing was the rabid Republican smear attack that lasted for years against the Clintons," he said. "When you actually look at her on the record and working, she's solidly bipartisan and very productive."
Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., who has endorsed Clinton, said that she has been wise to defend her 2002 vote for the Iraq war. "I admire that," he added. "I think I give her credit for being resolute in her conviction that the vote was right at the time. Senator Clinton has this in her character. I'm hopeful that when she's elected, that will manifest itself from the White House."
Obama's supporters likewise said that his record points to bipartisanship. "He has strong positions, but he doesn't demonize the opposition," Virginia Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine said in an interview. "He talks about the strength of his particular views, but he wants to hear from the other side and try to find common ground. He has a track record of always reaching out and trying to find someone on the other side of the aisle that he can partner with."
Kerry, who has endorsed Obama, told NJ on January 29 that attacks on his own liberalism had no impact on the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. That line of attack wouldn't work against Obama either, he said. "The whole point, folks, is -- and the Republicans love to be simplistic and they also love to be wrong -- is that he represents somebody who's bringing together a broad coalition of people," Kerry said. "It's not going to stick. People are tired of the stupidity of these labels. They're tired of that game."
Asked about the question of ideology in this year's campaign, Democrats generally said that most voters do not focus on labels such as "liberal" and "conservative." "By and large, your average person out there, particularly young voters, are less interested in labels and more interested in seeing that somebody is going to put up or shut up," said Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.
Republicans, however, insist that they can make hay by showing how liberal the Democratic nominee is. "Senator Obama's voting record, from what I have seen of it, tends to be very left-leaning," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "I saw Senator Kennedy's endorsement of him as both an acknowledgement of that similar ideological view, but also -- perhaps just as significant -- that he represents the future and [Clinton] represented the past."
In the general election, Cornyn said, the ideological differences between the Republican and Democratic nominee "would be certainly a stark contrast." Drawing that distinction "would be important to present to people," he said, adding that notwithstanding Obama's appeal "really across party lines," his ideology "would be certainly what the election would focus on."
Graham, a McCain supporter, was equally adamant that ideology would be very important. Whether Clinton or Obama is the nominee, Graham said, the differences between the two parties' candidates on taxes, judicial nominees, and war policy would be significant. "I mean, there would be big, huge thematic differences," he said.
When asked about the Clinton ad featuring her work with him to show how she reaches across party lines, Graham noted he was proud that they extended military health care to the Guard and Reserves. "I don't want her to be president not because I don't like her," he added. "I know the judges that she will appoint will be the opposite of what I would like. I know what she would do with the tax problems we have -- she will not make the tax cuts permanent. And I know what she would do in Iraq. She would withdraw. She said she would begin withdrawing in 60 days of becoming president. That would be a disaster."
- Wow!********
- During every election the Dem Presidential candidate is always nominated as the most liberal!Renegade
- Wow!
- ********0
Not a Single Canadian Bank Failed During the Great Depression
- in the 1930s********
- Canadian banks have the highest global security rating now too.Mimio
- in the 1930s
- ********0
US debt clock runs out of digits
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/busin…
- ********0
http://www.usatoday.com/money/ec…
Once hailed for running their savings-and-loan company like an endearing mom-and-pop shop, Herb and Marion Sandler are now being vilified as ruthless home lenders who helped destroy Wachovia Corp. and contributed to the financial decay that led to the U.S. government's $700 billion rescue plan to buy rotten mortgages.
- TheBlueOne0
From Above Article:
"Citigroup Inc. is fighting in court to enforce an earlier agreement that would allow it to buy Wachovia's banking operations for $2.1 billion, or $1 per share."
So let me get this straight, Citicorp, who we've already bailed out is using funds in a lawsuit to get a hold of Wachovia, which has even more bad debts in it - whereas Wells Fargo is doing the whole thing privately?
As a partial now-owner of Citicorp I'd like to tell them to stop it - if they have enough money for a lawsuit to put more debt onto their already debt addled balance sheet then maybe they don't need anymore money from the US Taxpayer...
- citicorp isn't one of the banks in trouble. So I'm sorry TBO, you aren't a part owner.tommyo
- Well either way I hate citicorp. If they buy wachovia I close my account....TheBlueOne
- ...and citicorp better not get a dime of that $700 billion then...TheBlueOne
- Well you're in luck because I hear Wells bought it for $7 a share and citi is mad.tommyo
- No one should get a dime of that 700b as far as I'm concerned.tommyo
- Taxpayers are getting fucked here one way or another.********
- tommyo, I agree, that's some major BS letting these cats out with taxpayers money. Hey there were plenty of R's and D's that tried to vote against that.********
- ...that voted against that sorta SHIT********
- Yeah voted against...then when the bill got even worse for us taxpayers they voted for it. Insane.tommyo
- +1DCDesigns
- tommyo0
TBO,
With all due respect. The post you made makes me cringe. Here's why.
Yes those programs helped fuck up this economy. We both agree that they 'helped' get us into this position. The last 16 years of questionable leadership from the top also played a part. The FED is a huge player in this problem. The mortgage lenders/industry are also very responsible for this mess.
Here's where I differ. MACRO: Did the government 'tell' them to bundle these? No. Did it stop them? No. Were these banks giving gobs and gobs of money to both Republicans AND Democrats. Yes. A most emphatic YES. Our government on BOTH sides sold us up a fucking creek. It's not some Republican adgenda. It's a government adgenda.
MICRO - 'It's the classic - "Well the slut was wearing a miniskirt! She was askin' to get gang raped!" defense'. Is where I have the biggest problem with your post. So the people who are now poor because they didn't save, they over spent, they got into loans without using their heads are now the poor poor victims of the rich? I'm sorry if this sounds completely cold, but people make their own choices in life. No one MADE these people go sign up for loans they and their lenders knew they shouldn't have. Your storybook poor poor victims were greedy, just as the banks were, just as our government was. My storybook poor poor victims in this mess are the people who DID think ahead, who DID act responsibly and are now paying the tab. The rich are included in my pool of victims. :) You might want to make blanket categorizations of the 'rich' but most of the rich in this country are the people who've make good choices. Sure sure I know how liberals see the rich. A pack of blood thirsty goat-fuckers who are out of touch and would eat their neighbors child if it gave them a leg up. But it's simply not true. Do we believe that all 16 year old girls act the way those spoiled girls act on that show - My Sweet Sixteen?? Yes there are plenty of greedy rich bastards, but there is also plenty of blame to go around. It's just really easy to throw the rich under the bus. I think we can (or should) all agree that people make their choices, the quality of your choices determine your outcome. The rich taking advantage of the poor. Please. Everyone fucked each other in the ass on this one (no lube). Everyone. A HUGE majority of the 'rich' are responsible people who make sound choices - oh I know this is blasphemy! Now because of our governments un-sound policies, mortgage industries un-sound policies, and those poor poor victims who made very bad choices the responsible are ALSO getting hit hard. Those are the victims. The people who saved and saved over the past decades so they can retire and enjoy life. The people who lived smaller and bought the things they could afford. Everyone else in this mess was playing with fire. Your logic about the slut in the miniskirt makes the assumption that the raping of the 'slut' was ONLY caused because she wore a miniskirt. It should be - "Well the slut was wearing a miniskirt and put my dick in her mouth! She was askin' to give me a blowjob so why is she now calling it rape?!" defense' That's more accurate.
- It was a two party deal - what I'm saying is this whole "ACORN did it" is Republican BS to limit their culpability...TheBlueOne
- ..don't let either party dick around with their responsibility for this clusterfuck.TheBlueOne
- besides..exactly why I've hjust now realized to now longer argue on the internet...TheBlueOne
- My masters in poly sci grinds to a halt against designer knowledge...TheBlueOne
- ..people pick up on the tossed off flippant part and write a dissertation on it...TheBlueOne
- Of course republicans are going to pick and choose their culprits. So are the dems. It's insane the way our govtommyo
- acts like and treats us like children. I'm sickened and we need a change. All I'm saying is that as citizens we need totommyo
- stop parroting the rhetoric and open our eyes to the fact that both sides of gov, corporations and people need to accept blame.tommyo
- blame. (I hate when the last word doesn't fit in this fucking box!!!!)tommyo
- "It's not some Republican adgenda. It's a government adgenda." - BINGO!********
- No, not a government agenda, it's a corporate agenda. They just pay the politicians to help.DCDesigns
- ukit0
I'm just sad that Rand's relentless anti-Clinton posts from the primary didn't make it in:D
- I am a relentless attack doghallelujah
- are you wearing lipstick?TheBlueOne
- tommyo0
Look let me pose a question and then I really need to get some work done and focus on my own economy.
If you took all the money in the US and distributed it to every citizen equally - what do you think would happen over 10 years?
My opinion is that the people who make good choices are going to become wealthier and the people who make bad choices are going to get poorer. It's human nature. Fuck, it's actually just mother nature to be honest. The bear who doesn't store up food is going to die in the winter, the one who does will survive. Of course there are other variables involved such as greed. So in this case I see a lot of bears who didn't save up from winter now stealing from the bears who did. It really comes down to choices and responsibility for those choices. Our current administration did not lead by example and our current congress hasn't either. We need to all wake up.
- robco0
this is going to get messy.
'NEW YORK - Tens of thousands of eligible voters have been removed from rolls or blocked from registering in at least six swing states, and the voters' exclusion appears to violate federal law, according to a published report.'
- I haven't received my voters card telling me where I can vote yet. Wtf. Has anyone?********
- i did - put it on the fridge like an A in math class.robco
- go tell that to the illegal shit that they were doing in Ohio. Of course in Obama's favor********
- ...hopefullymikotondria3
- I got mine! mmm Maybe with all this voter eligibility I'll be the only guy in Calif. voting!! Bring in the independents!!tommyo
- I haven't received my voters card telling me where I can vote yet. Wtf. Has anyone?
- lackofcolor0
IF YOU recently registered to vote or changed your voter registration. Check your states website, most will show you your registration status and polling location.
- ********0
Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains. - Winston Churchill
- What about a moderate?ukit
- You got me there! I'm actually an independent, but see no point in voting for a socialist.********
- he might have reconsidered this statement in today's americahallelujah
- thats a great quotesikma
- Reconsider? I doubt it. It's completely accurate. Look at the numbers.********
- You don't have to worry about voting for a socialist, but Obama IS NOT one.joeth
- Doesn't say anything about Republicans or Democrats either...IRNlun6
- *because, not butjoeth
- Ha, ha, ha! Obama not a sOcialist?!? I almost spit iced tea through my nose there. Uhm...********
- http://www.aim.org/a…********
- You forget, JX, that British politics has always lain far to the left of your Right. We are not a frontier-land country.Nairn
- ..well, I say 'always' - I mean since you cheeky blighters fought for your independence.Nairn
- you had us Nairn, you had us! That Cornwallis screwed up a bit. hehee ;)********
- “He wasn’t an alcoholic, someone said later — no alcoholic could drink that much.” The prime minister of Australia noted of Churchill: “In every conversation he ultimately reaches a point where he positively enjoys the war.” After the bombing of British cities Baker quotes him: “This ordeal by fire has, in a certain sense, even exhilarated the manhood and the womanhood of Britain.”
“One of our great aims,” Churchill wrote in July 1941, “is the delivery on German towns of the largest possible quantity of bombs per night.”******** - noted of Churchill: “In every conversation he ultimately reaches a point where he positively enjoys the war.” After the bombing of British cities Baker quotes him: “This ordeal by fire has, in a certain sense, even exhilarated the manhood and the womanhood of Britain.”
“One of our great aims,” Churchill wrote in July 1941, “is the delivery on German towns of the largest possible quantity of bombs per night.” Soo******** - the bombing of British cities Baker quotes him: “This ordeal by fire has, in a certain sense, even exhilarated the manhood and the womanhood of Britain.”
“One of our great aims,” Churchill wrote in July 1941, “is the delivery on German towns of the largest possible quantity of bombs per night.” Soo******** - the womanhood of Britain.”
“One of our great aims,” Churchill wrote in July 1941, “is the delivery on German towns of the largest possible quantity of bombs per night.” Soo******** - towns of the largest possible quantity of bombs per night.”
Churchill.******** - moderate = no ballslackofcolor
- ukit0
Today's liberalism is yesterday's centrism. The country has been moving in a more conservative direction.
- Disagree. Republicans are WAY more liberal than ever. As far as stereotypes go at least. If anything, Bush has made atommyo
- lot of traditional conservatives out. This whole god this and god that, spend spend spend isn't traditional conservatism.tommyo
- Bush is no conservative. He was just the dauphine.********
