text:
Barack Obama Mitt Romney Paul Ryan Bill Clinton George W. Bush Jesse Jackson Sarah Palin
At the close of its session, Congress considered two bills addressing classified information. One had been pending for more than a year, had more than a hundred co-sponsors, was the subject of two lengthy hearings and received virtually unanimous approval in amended form from the House Judiciary Committee. The other was quietly attached to an intelligence authorization bill and was never the subject of public hearings. But secrecy has a way of trumping democracy, and the latter, which one member of Congress accurately termed an "official secrets act," passed, while the former, which would have restricted government reliance on classified evidence in immigration proceedings, died on the floor. At press time it was unclear whether Clinton would sign or veto the secrecy bill.
The Intelligence Authorization Act would make it a felony for government officials to disclose any "properly classified" information. That is eminently reasonable. By law, information may be classified only if its release would threaten national security, and officials with security clearances should not be allowed to abuse that authority by releasing information that imperils the nation.
But in practice, information is often classified that has no real potential for undermining national security, as is routinely demonstrated when leaks are made public without the sky falling. Because the entire process is secret, there is no effective check on classification decisions. The Clinton Administration--which has actually been more sensitive to the problem of overclassification than many of its predecessors--created more than 8 million new secrets in 1999 alone. And once a secret is classified, it is often decades before it is declassified, if ever.
Examples abound of improperly classified information. The most notorious is the Pentagon Papers. Erwin Griswold, Solicitor General under President Nixon, who argued the Pentagon Papers case for the government, later admitted that he had not "seen any trace of a threat to the national security" from their publication. His extensive experience with classified information taught him that "there is massive overclassification and that the principal concern of the classifiers is not with national security, but rather with governmental embarrassment of one sort or another."
The new criminal penalties will only exacerbate the problem. Under prior law, government officials could lose their security clearances and jobs for disclosing classified material, but Congress had always reserved criminal penalties for leaks of the most sensitive sort--national defense information, the names of spies and the like. The new law makes it a crime to disclose the most mundane classified information, thereby greatly increasing the incentives to classify for the wrong reasons, since the criminal sanction will silence potential whistleblowers.
The bill that did not pass, the Secret Evidence Repeal Act, would simply have required immigration officials to meet the same standards of fairness in using classified information in immigration proceedings that government officials must satisfy in criminal cases. Under current practice, immigration officials assert the authority to lock up and deport immigrants on the basis of classified evidence, presented behind closed doors to an immigration judge, without any disclosure to the immigrant or his lawyers. The Secret Evidence Repeal Act would have required the government to disclose a summary of the evidence, which would provide the immigrant with "substantially the same ability to make his defense" as would the classified evidence itself.
Here, too, one of the principal problems is overclassification. FBI officials routinely classify all information gathered during a "counterterrorism" investigation, including even routine newspaper clippings. When the FBI fails to come up with evidence to support a criminal charge, it often asks the INS to seek deportation, turning over the classified results of its counterterrorism investigation. The INS then presents that evidence behind closed doors in immigration proceedings. When the government's actions are vigorously challenged, however, it virtually always finds itself able to disclose much of the evidence. And in many of those cases, what is disclosed is far more often simply embarrassing to the government than related to national security.
Secrecy is anathema to the adversarial process and a healthy democracy. In courtrooms it thwarts the search for truth. And in the public arena secrecy allows government officials to avoid public scrutiny. In both areas secrecy often leads to sloppy thinking and disastrous results. At the same time, secrecy breeds skepticism and paranoia among government critics. As Lord Acton said, "Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity."
Ralph really ran. Against the record of his own faux campaign of 1996, against the expectations even of friends who said he lacked the candidate gene and against the calculations of Democratic strategists who were forced to go from dismissing him to clumsily attacking the Green monster, Ralph Nader mounted a presidential campaign that in the closing days of the election defied the pundits' tendency to consign most third party candidacies to endgame obscurity.
As political players began counting down the hours to voting day, Nader was thrust into the national spotlight by media that had long disregarded his candidacy. The man who had been prevented even from attending three dismal debates between Al Gore and George W. Bush found himself portrayed by a New York Times editorial as the "wrecking-ball" of the postdebate campaign. There was Nader, just days before an election to which he was supposed to have been an asterisk, staring ABC newsman Sam Donaldson in the eye and asking, "Do you think Gore is entitled to any votes? Do you think Bush is entitled? Am I entitled to any votes? We have to earn them. If Gore cannot beat the bumbling Texas governor with that horrific record, what good is he?"
Conscious of the Nader threat in states that had been securely married to the Democrats as far back as 1988 but began swinging in 2000, mainstream environmental and abortion rights groups diverted late-campaign energy and resources to scaring Oregon, Washington, Minnesota and Wisconsin Nader supporters into stopping Bush by abandoning the Green for the Gore. But the a-vote-for-Nader-is-a-vote-for-Bush drive ended up buying Nader millions of dollars' worth of free media attention. And what voters saw was a Nader far removed from the stiff scold who launched his Green bid last winter. After watching Nader joust with news anchors desperately seeking to get him to abandon his critique of both parties and declare some hidden sympathy for the Democrat, conservative commentator George Will was heard asking when it was that Nader evolved into so able a candidate.
Nader's focused, fact-based, unapologetic appearances were no surprise to hundreds of thousands of students, renegade trade unionists, angry family farmers, environmentalists, organic-food activists, campaign finance reformers, dissident Democrats and leaderless Perotistas who packed Nader's "superrallies" from Oakland to Minneapolis to New York City. Those modern-day hootenannies raised some of the more than $5 million with which Nader's campaign hired staff in virtually every state, developed a network of 900 campus coordinators, bought a few television ads and papered every coffee shop bulletin board from San Francisco to Boston with Green literature. For their contributions, those who rallied were treated to inspired performances by Nader backers Patti Smith and Eddie Vedder, crowd-rousing appeals from Jim Hightower and Michael Moore, arguments for a split from the Democratic Party by such progressive icons as Cornel West and Barbara Ehrenreich, and Nader addresses that bore less and less resemblance to college lectures and more and more to the populist orations of William Jennings Bryan and Robert La Follette.
On a Friday night in Iowa City, just days before the election, Nader arrived to find the University of Iowa Memorial Union overflowing with more than 2,000 cheering supporters. "The two parties have morphed together into one corporate party with two heads wearing different makeup," the candidate declared. The line was dutifully picked up by the Iowa City papers, which, like most local media, lavished front-page coverage on the man drawing some the biggest political crowds of the year. Unfazed by criticism from the Rev. Jesse Jackson and comedian Al Franken, who had appeared in town that day at a hastily scheduled Democratic rally, Nader said, "These frightened progressives say I'm undermining my own legacy of reform. What they don't know is that the Democratic Party has already done it."
Nader was introduced by one of the most prominent Democrats in Iowa, former FCC commissioner Nicholas Johnson, who explained, "I have worked for the election of Democratic Presidents since Harry Truman in 1948. I have received three presidential appointments from two Democratic Presidents. I have run for Congress from Iowa as a Democrat. I have served the Democratic Party at every level from local precinct chair to a Democratic National Committee task force. So it's not easy for me, this endorsement of a Green Party candidate. But the corporate corruption that engulfs both major parties has now reached the stage when we cannot afford to wait any longer."
But where does such a leap take Nader backers? If their candidate polls 5 percent or more of the national vote, the Green Party will receive at least $7 million in federal campaign funds. As Election Day approached, however, even some in the Nader camp worried that 5 percent earned at the price of a Gore loss might lead to a damning of the Greens that would make party-building difficult, if not impossible. In the final weeks of the campaign, Nader's closest advisers debated whether to tailor their schedule to states where the race was not close--such as New York, where Gore is a prohibitive favorite--or to return to swing states like Minnesota and Wisconsin, where a strong Nader could undermine Gore. Pleas from swing-state Nader backers tipped the decision in favor of the go-for-broke strategy--even as vote-trading schemes like www.nadertrader.org promised Nader fans who agreed to trade Gore votes in states like Oregon and Washington for Nader votes in New York and Texas that they could get the best of both worlds: President Gore and 5 percent for the Greens.
But a good many Nader voters were disinclined to become election day-traders. Their enthusiasm had less to do with party-building than with raising a banner of protest and, perhaps, of faith in a vision of democratic participation. In the crucial swing state of Wisconsin, the village of Belleville took a pre-election break for its UFO Parade, an annual commemoration of a supposed Halloween visit by aliens some years back. Bush and Gore backers were no-shows. But there, between the Brownies and the Belleville Dairy Queen, were forty Nader supporters, almost all of them from nearby farm towns. They carried a banner reading ralph nader is out of this world and handed out packets of seeds with a reminder to "plant a seed for democracy on November 7."
Grandmothers grabbed the seeds, children cheered "Nader!" And Dr. Cynthia Haq, the local physician, clapped as they passed. Torn between Gore and Nader, she said, "I know we're supposed to be worried about Bush, and I am worried. But it makes me feel good to see the Nader people. There's something that feels right about voting for what you believe, as opposed to voting against what you fear. I think that's why a lot of people are sticking with Nader--no matter what."
If Gore loses the White House--and some of you reading this will know whether or not he did--he'll have no one but himself to blame. Readers of this page know I've been something of a Naderskeptic all along (I'm planning a tactical vote for him here in Gore-solid New York, but if I lived in a toss-up state I'd vote Democratic and hope you would--or did--too). Still, it's not Nader's fault that huge numbers of voters don't care if Bush is a reactionary moron and find his Christian frat boy act appealing. Ralph didn't tell Gore to go after the dithering undecideds and to forget about energizing his base and reaching out to suburban and working women. Remember when abortion and gun control were going to be key issues? When the Million Moms were going to sway the election? Ralph didn't make Gore distance himself so far from Clinton--a genius campaigner with a 60 percent approval rating--that he couldn't plausibly claim the "good" economy as his own, even as he also wasn't willing to acknowledge the millions who have been victimized by Clinton's policies on prisons, welfare, drugs, civil liberties, privacy. Who was stopping Gore from announcing that on second thought, sending a $1.3 billion anti-drug aid package to Colombia was a terrible idea? Wouldn't that have been a better way to prove he was his "own man," not Clinton's, than spouting sanctimonious pieties about faith and family?
Or take capital punishment: When the issue came up in the debates, Gore and Bush both said they were for the death penalty. Gore could easily have said that, like Republican Governor Ryan of Illinois, he supported the death penalty but was troubled by studies showing an alarming number of false convictions in capital cases, and so he also supported a moratorium on executions. Sure, some of the undecideds would have peeled off to Bush--you can imagine the campaign ads in which relatives retell ghastly murders of loved ones and accuse the Vice President of denying them "closure." But then Gore could have run ads highlighting Bush's appalling record as death-penalty king of Texas, and his lazy and frivolous approach to the whole issue, which troubles some conservatives and has even become a standard laugh line for David Letterman. By taking a political risk--in a righteous cause--Gore would have been able to counteract the popular view of him as calculating and expedient, which is doing him more harm than his actual positions, which voters tell pollsters they like.
The same could be said of Gore's problems to his left. If Gore wants to defuse Nader, why doesn't he fire back on a whole range of substantive issues instead of acting like Nader has stolen votes that somehow belong to Gore by right? Gore has a record as Vice President, and he presumably believes in the positions that drive Naderites wild--for NAFTA, for military interventions around the globe, for welfare reform, for ladling vast sums of money into the Pentagon. He could take the trouble to explain why he is right and Nader is wrong on the issues that divide them, or why he is being wrongly blamed for policies that were actually the work of a Republican Congress, or why he is the best person to undo the damage Nader has identified.
Nader's not perfect, after all--Gore could ask why he doesn't belong to the party whose ticket he heads, why he told Outside magazine he would prefer a win for Bush (readers will remember he told me the opposite), why he has so little support among the people--minorities, women, blue-collar workers--whose interests he claims to represent. He could point out that while four years of Republicanism may move a few to the left, it may also drive far more people to embrace the Democrats, any Democrats, so the whole Nader phenomenon contains the seeds of its own destruction, in which case why not cut to the chase and vote for the Democrat now? He could make plenty of hay out of Nader's ill-informed and self-serving insistence that a Bush win will not endanger reproductive rights--most recently, Nader told Sam Donaldson that even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, "it just reverts it back to the states." Just! As if there aren't at least fourteen states ready to criminalize abortion the minute they get the go-ahead. As if there aren't already more than 300 restrictions on abortion already on the books! At one time Gore's ferocity as a debater was going to be his decisive strength. It may have backfired with the feel-good nincompoop Bush, but Gore could always try getting down off his high horse and asking Ralph how he would feel about letting other freedoms lose their constitutional protection. Should fifty state legislatures decide every year how much freedom of speech Ralph Nader is going to have?
It's perfectly fair to attack Nader. It's even fair to attack him in nasty, personal ways, the way Naderites attack Gore--by, for example, spreading the right-wing disinformation that Gore said he invented the Internet and was the model for Love Story. But it's absurd and kind of pathetic for Toby Moffett and the "Nader's Raiders for Gore" to wring their hands and beg Nader to step aside for the good of the country--it would make more sense to beg Gore to address the concerns of Nader voters. It would even make more sense for them to address--since Gore isn't doing the job--the fence-sitters who are moving toward Bush: pro-choice women, for instance, who think Bush isn't serious about working to limit abortion (an illusion not shared by the Christian Coalition, one might add), and union men who are having trouble choosing between their guns and their job protection.
According to a group of seven academic political forecasters, Gore is supposed to win because the man and the campaign and the issues are unimportant: Whether the incumbent party stays in the White House all depends on the state of the economy, both actual and perceived. This alone can explain the outcome of every election since 1948. If Gore loses despite his tremendous structural advantages, what can you say except he screwed up monumentally? Clinton triangulated against the left, but Gore acted as if the left didn't exist. You can't blame the left if it came back to bite him on the behind.
They thought they'd vote the Democratic slate,
But somehow felt they needed something more.
They finally found a candidate who was
More sanctimonious than Albert Gore.
I want to vote for Bill Clinton for President again, but that not
being possible I had resigned myself to Al Gore. Surely, I thought, he
would defend the Clinton Administration's record of the past eight years,
and voters would recognize it as obviously preferable to the debt and
divisiveness the Republicans had wrought.
Indeed, the only reason to favor Gore over Bill Bradley in the
primaries, which I regrettably did, was that Gore had on-the-job training
in the most productive administration in decades. That's what the vice
President brought to the table, certainly not his deer-in-the headlights
stage presence, and yet he sits dumbfounded for lack of a ready reply
when George W. Bush rails on about the failed opportunities of the
Clinton-Gore years.
"Hey, buddy," I keep waiting for Gore to say, "I wasn't going to bring
up your daddy's wreckage of the economy but you leave me no choice. Are
Americans better off now than they were eight years ago? You bet they
are. Crime, unemployment and poverty are all down, and the economy is
still on an unprecedented roll. Under Bush senior, the Japanese were
thought to be entrepreneurally invincible, and now it is US know-how
the world seeks to emulate."
Instead of a celebration of what he and the President accomplished
despite reactionary Republican control of the Congress, Gore offers only
the most mealy-mouthed rejoinders when Bush slanders the record of the
Clinton Administration.
Unfortunately, Al Gore has spent most of the election trying to prove
that he is not Bill Clinton. He needn't have bothered. No one could ever
confuse the two. Gore is by temperament, and apparently conviction, the
un-Clinton--it's like comparing a fresh out-of-the-bottle swig of Coke
with a 7-Up gone flat.
The President is a compelling advocate for his vision of progressive
government, so much so that even his lousy ideas, like welfare reform,
have a sizzle of optimism. But in the main, Clinton deserves a great deal
of credit for demonstrating that a concerned activist government also can
balance the books while lifting the US economy from the doldrums.
Whether it is a matter of personal chemistry or absence of genuine
commitment, Gore lacks Clinton's ability to convince us that deep down
he's on our side--whoever we are. Gore has made doing even the obviously
right thing, like saving Social Security and Medicare, seem partisan and
His best moment was that acceptance speech at the Democratic
convention when he sounded the alarm that George W. Bush could actually
do serious harm to this country. But since then his campaign has become
nothing more than an awkward attempt to keep up with Bush at Texas
line-dancing as a form of governance. They move together in a dreary
drumbeat of support for the death penalty and huge military expenditures,
and Gore has even muffled his criticism of Bush on guns and abortion.
Gore has come out of that contest so disoriented that he has even managed
to make Ralph Nader seem like a sexy dancer.
Which is why what could prove to be a critical 4 percent of the electorate,
composed of largely thoughtful and well-intentioned people, are willing
to risk Republican control of the White House. No small risk, given that
right-wing Republicans likely will continue to run Congress, and with
Bush as President, the third branch of government--the federal judiciary
from the Supreme Court on down--will be shaped in the image of Jesse
Helms. There is no reason to expect otherwise from a Bush presidency,
since he has warned us that Clarence Thomas and Anthony Scalia, two of
the most reactionary judges in the history of the Court, are his judicial
role models.
Nader has been less than honest in tarring the major parties with the
same brush. He surely must know that the Democrats are better, far
better, at protecting consumers and the environment, supporting labor,
including raising the minimum wage, and advancing the rights of women,
minorities and gays.
However, there is an argument for having Nader in the race and even
for telling pollsters that you intend to vote for the man. It's to force
Gore to distinguish himself from the Bush campaign in order to win back
those Nader votes.
Yet, on Election Day, Gore, for all his faults, still deserves the
votes of those who care about the frightening damage that a Republican
sweep of the White House and Congress portends for this country.
Behind that smug Bush smile lies the calculations of Trent Lott and
the heart of Jesse Helms. There even might be room for the ghost of Newt
Gingrich in a Bush Cabinet. It's Halloween time.
Bernie Sanders is right. Ralph Nader is "one of the heroes of contemporary American society." How sad, therefore, that he is helping to undo so much of his life's work in a misguided fit of political pique and ideological purity. The Nation's election editorial is wrong in its recommendation of "strategic voting" in this election. Ralph Nader's campaign does not deserve a single progressive vote on November 7. Not one.
To listen to the Naderites--many of whom I admire--you might believe they were constructing a diverse, representative progressive movement with the possibility of one day replacing the Democrats. How odd it is to note, therefore, that this nascent leftist movement has virtually no support among African-Americans, Latinos or Asian-Americans. It has no support among organized feminist groups, organized gay rights groups or mainstream environmental groups. To top it all off, it has no support in the national union movement. So Nader and company are building a nonblack, non-Latino, non-Asian, nonfeminist, nonenvironmentalist, nongay, non-working people's left: Now that really would be quite an achievement.
Although Nader has said that he would not consciously work to elect Bush over Gore, "he is not keeping his pledges," according to his onetime comrades in Nader's Raiders for Gore. Nader has been campaigning aggressively in Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. If Gore loses even a few of those states, then Hello, President Bush. And if Bush does win, then Goodbye to so much of what Nader and his followers profess to cherish. Goodbye, for instance, to affirmative action, abortion rights, gun control, campaign finance reform, minimum-wage raises, environmental protection, consumer protection, class-action lawsuits, worker-safety legislation and just about everything else the government can do to help the neediest and most vulnerable among us.
These are not the scare tactics of the "frightened liberals" that Nader and his fellow political puritans hold in such profound contempt. This is the truth. Nader supporters argue that his candidacy is likely to help elect a Democratic Congress. Oh really? In the first place, careful studies have never been able to identify the so-called silent progressive majority--the Nader voters who otherwise wouldn't make it to the polls but who once there would vote for lower-level Democrats--upon which this strategy rests. And wait a minute: I thought the Democrats weren't worth saving, anyway. The far more likely outcome of Nader's Pied Piper run is the election of a dimwitted right-wing President with Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Tom DeLay and Dick Armey inaugurating an era of conservative reaction the likes of which Newt Gingrich could scarcely have imagined.
And for what? A party that polls single digits in national elections? Who needs it? While it has been salutary to see Nader speak some occasional truth to power on television, given the winner-take-all structure of national and local elections the US political system has no role for third parties other than that of a spoiler. Excluding the lunatic Reform Party, only one third party in the twentieth century, the Socialists, ran in more than two consecutive presidential campaigns. The Socialists are also alone in having won more votes in a second election than in their first. Yet as the democratic socialist founder of In These Times, James Weinstein, points out, "Even at the height of their influence they had no potential of becoming a major presence in Congress, much less of electing a president."
Nader's candidacy, moreover, manifests some of the least attractive aspects of the sectarian left. It demonstrates the old faux-revolutionary tendency to focus fire on one's natural allies on the center-left rather than one's genuine enemies on the right. Some Naderites have also displayed a streak of leftist McCarthyism in their attacks on those progressives who question their strategy of abandoning the Democratic Party to the corporations. And Nader has demonstrated extreme carelessness with his words in this campaign, calling the choice between Gore and Bush a choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Given the obvious differences between the two parties (see "Bush or Gore: Does It Matter?" October 16), this posturing comes at considerable cost to the man's once unquestionable reputation for intellectual honesty and political integrity.
You don't have to like or admire Al Gore to vote for him. I sure don't. But elections are not therapy. Nor, as philosopher John Dewey reminds us, are they useful occasions for movement-building. If you have to start building your movement by the time Election Day comes around, it's already too late. Given the weakness of the left in America today, our elections are by definition a choice of the lesser evil. The mistake Naderites make is in their refusal to distinguish between those evils.
There is the Clinton/Gore evil where, yes, corporate power runs rampant and inequality is increasing, but minorities, gays, women and low-wage workers have made more economic (and in some cases, social) progress than at any time in nearly four decades. Then there is the Bush/Lott/DeLay evil where these same people will be pushed back to their traditional places, as the Republican Party revives its war against Social Security, progressive taxation, public education and the few remaining sources of democratic solidarity in America.
Had Nader taken a page from the Christian Coalition and challenged Gore and the party leadership in the primary process, he might have forced its center of gravity leftward in response to the organized populist anger we saw on display in Seattle last year. Indeed, I would have been happy to vote for him. A steady, patient challenge to the party's corporate domination at the grassroots and presidential level is just what both the party and its progressives need to build the kind of machine that can win tangible victories down the road. Instead, Nader has chosen to ape Pat Buchanan, leading his followers on a costly and quixotic march to nowhere. Too bad the poor and the powerless will be--as usual--the ones to pay.
In Chicago, in mid-October, I did a radio show with the Bill Buckley-ish Milt Rosenberg of WGN, a big station. Rosenberg said that because of the fairness doctrine our discussion of Al Gore: A User's Manual, written by Jeffrey St. Clair and myself, could not be broadcast until after the election. So we spent an hour bathing ourselves alternately in the dawn light of the impending Bush and Gore administrations.
It's Bush in the White House! And yes, he's there in part because of the Nader vote. The big liberal public-interest organizations, green groups, NOW, begin to roll out their mass mailings, delightedly fundraising against a backdrop of predicted catastrophe: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge pincushioned with test drillings, polar bear cubs licking at the gobs of crude oil on their fur. With any luck Bush will nominate some James Watt look-alike for the Interior Department. Watt got nothing done, but he sure scared up a lot of money for green groups.
Ralph Nader holds an unapologetic postelection superrally. It's packed to the rooftop with exultant young people, who will carry the memory of the Nader/Green drive of 2000 as their transformative political moment. He reminds the Democrats of why they lost. They offered no appealing reasons for enough progressives to vote for them. He points out that throughout American history there have been moments of renewal, of creative destruction and then refreshment of the political process. Nader sketches out the line of march for the next four years.
It's Gore by a nose! Enough progressives who had been tilting toward Nader and the Greens were scared back into the fold those last weeks. Four more years of you-know-what.
"A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." How quickly the Gore liberals adopted a totalitarian mindset, sounding like Soviet commissars back in the old days, who would urge the voters toward a 98 percent turnout for the Communist candidate, arguing that any deviation from absolute loyalty would "objectively" play into the hands of the imperialists.
A vote for Nader was first and foremost a vote for Nader. And since the programs of the Democratic and Republican candidates are pretty much the same on issues ranging from corporate welfare to Wall Street to the war on drugs to crime to military spending and the war in Colombia, a vote for Gore was actually a vote for Bush, and a vote for Bush a vote for Gore. You're getting them both.
Those waning days of the campaign there was a desperation to the alarums of the Gore people about Nader. For one thing, they knew that the Nader superrallies in New York, across the upper Midwest and in the Northwest had a hugely energizing effect on young people. Nothing like it since Jesse Jackson's populist bid for the nomination back in 1988. Back at that time Jackson folded in behind the Democratic ticket and rolled up his Rainbow, leaving hundreds of thousands of supporters with nowhere to go and nothing to do. It was one of the most despicable acts of self-interested betrayal of people's hopes in living memory. If Jackson had led the Rainbow out of the Democratic Party back then, it would have been a far better base for a third party than what the Greens have to offer.
The enthusiasms of these young activists weren't about to be quelled by lectures from Gloria Steinem or Barney Frank or Jesse Jackson Jr. about the need to take the mature view and root for Gore/Lieberman. For one thing, they watched the debates. Did they take from those labored encounters any nourishment from Gore on issues that they have an appetite for, like trade or sweatshop labor or the drug war or the growing divide between rich and poor?
Gore liberals such as Steinem, Patricia Ireland of NOW and Carl Pope of the Sierra Club have been trading in false currency for so long that they don't realize that as shills for the Democratic Party their credit was used up long, long ago.
Listen to Ellen Johnson, an organizer for the Arizona Greens, who teaches at Arizona State in Tempe. "Since the onset of the Clinton presidency NOW's once-stalwart support of many women's rights issues has eroded. While reproductive rights are important, so is quality childcare, a living wage, healthcare and eradication of environmental toxins. Although Clinton/Gore promised to address these issues in '92 and '96, no acceptable plans for improvement have been implemented. Why is NOW so willing to give Gore another chance? Oh yeah, I forgot, for abortion rights. What is Roe v. Wade worth to you, NOW? If it's the wholesale sellout of a constituency you once pledged to serve, then you are on the right track."
What the fall campaign did most of all was to show up the bankruptcy of people like Ireland and Pope--the people who soft-shoed for Clinton and Gore for eight years. The sort of people, come right down to it, who are now trying to fire Pacifica's Amy Goodman. Yes, Mary Frances Berry, consultant to the Pacifica board, was a prominent presence at an October 24 gig organized by People for the American Way, presided over by Bill Clinton, and designed to scare progressives back to Gore.
Of course they want to fire Amy Goodman! She puts on the best show on public radio, doesn't she? The liberals who run Pacifica would much rather have manageable mediocrity than Democracy Now! There's nothing so irksome as success not achieved on their terms, under their rules and their rubrics. Amy has edge. She doesn't take "guidance." She's a loose cannon. She brought Ralph Nader onto the floor of the Republican convention in Philadelphia. She's not Tweety Bird or Terry Gross. So she has to go!
How is the Pacifica directorate trying to dump the most popular voice on the network? Easy. Choke the woman with bureaucracy. Demand that she file broadcasting flight plans a week ahead. Insist that she get prior approval for all her speaking gigs. Put it about that Pacifica needs "new voices," a bigger share of the yuppo audience. Murmur not so softly that Amy is old hat, is not really and truly part of the big Pacifica Picture.
It's a control thing. There's nothing on this earth liberals hate more than radicals straying outside the reservation. Let's stray. Onward!
Show-off argumentation or dime-store vision? It's too close to call.
The plane crash that took the life of Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan on October 16 appears to have been a disaster for the Democrats, not only in the Show Me state but nationally. "It means we lose any chance of winning the Senate," laments Russell Hemenway, who runs the National Committee for an Effective Congress (NCEC), the nation's oldest and most effective liberal PAC. Here's why:
Carnahan was running against GOP Senator John Ashcroft, one of the four Republican incumbents rated as highly vulnerable (the others: Minnesota's Rod Grams, Delaware's Bill Roth and Washington's Slade Gorton). The NCEC expects Democratic losses in Virginia--incumbent Chuck Robb--and Nevada, which has an open Democratic seat. Even if the Democrats hold on to their open seats in New Jersey (a lock), New York and Nebraska (less certain) and pick up the open GOP seat in Florida, without Carnahan that means "we lose two and pick up four, max," Hemenway says. Should Joe Lieberman be elevated to the vice presidency, Connecticut's Republican governor would fill his vacancy--probably with popular GOP moderate Congressman Chris Shays, who'll be hard to dislodge--further reducing the chances of a Democratic majority.
Carnahan was, by all accounts, a pretty straight shooter as politicians go. A Southern Baptist from a small rural town, he was a relentlessly driven officeseeker as he climbed the greasy pole to the Statehouse but not overly gluttonous of publicity once in power, an effective administrator and a cautious centrist--but with flashes of heart. He picked his fights carefully, vetoing a ban on "partial birth" abortions (a veto that the Democratic-controlled legislature, including many Dixiecrats, overrode) and leading a successful campaign to defeat an NRA-backed referendum to permit the carrying of concealed handguns. But Carnahan walked away from this year's Fair Elections referendum to provide 100 percent public funding on the Maine model (while raking in nearly as much soft money for his Senate campaign as Ashcroft). And he refused to meet with representatives of the gay community for most of his tenure as governor.
Ashcroft, on the other hand, is a hard-core cultural and political conservative from Springfield, in the southwestern part of the state (known as the Buckle of the Bible Belt). His father was president of Evangel University there, run by the Assemblies of God, a pentecostal sect known as "holy rollers" for their practice of writhing on the floor while speaking in tongues. A popular governor before becoming senator, Ashcroft was so straitlaced that he banned liquor and dancing from the Statehouse. In 1997 Ashcroft tried to parlay his religiosity into a presidential candidacy, positioning himself as the candidate of the religious right. "He really damaged himself here, because in running for President, he showed just how extremist he really is," says Grant Williams of the state's Service Employees International Union. In a state with 350,000 union members and a rich labor history, Ashcroft has a viciously antilabor record: As governor he tried to pass a right-to-work referendum, and as senator he sponsored a bill that would have gutted the Fair Labor Standards Act by permitting employers to work their wage slaves sixty hours a week with no overtime pay. The darling of business lobbies, Ashcroft has been a master of the cash-for-votes trade: For example, he sponsored legislation to extend for five years the patent on the anti-allergy drug Claritin--a measure worth billions in profits to its maker, Schering-Plough--and two months later pocketed a $50,000 campaign contribution from the company, which earned him a tart St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial branding him "the Senator from Claritin." All this, plus Carnahan's popularity as governor, had made the Senate race a dead heat.
But with Ashcroft now unopposed by a live candidate (it's too late to get Carnahan's name off the ballot), Democrats are scared to death about turnout. To counter the GOP's expected majorities in rural Missouri, especially in the southwest, they'd been counting not only on energized union voters but on a better-than-usual black vote. Ashcroft is perceived, as a leading black state legislator, Rita Days, puts it, "as a racist." Ashcroft led the Senate fight against confirmation for a federal judgeship of Ronnie White, the first African-American member of the state's Supreme Court. In his abortive presidential campaign Ashcroft gave an interview to the neo-Confederate magazine Southern Partisan, praising "Southern patriots" like Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson and adding, "We've all got to stand up and speak in [defense of their memories] or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda." Last May, he gave the commencement address at and received an honorary degree from Bob Jones University.
But with no possibility of defeating Ashcroft, there's not much to motivate an expanded black turnout. The Democrats have a white-bread ticket for other statewide offices, headed by gubernatorial candidate Bob Holden, the state treasurer, a centrist with a charisma bypass and little visibility in the black community.
Even before Carnahan's death, senior Democrats were describing the party's get-out-the-vote drive as "OK, but not great." Toby Paone, a veteran political op who now works for the state's NEA, explains: "We've been in power eight years--we've gotten too comfortable, there's some apathy. And don't forget that Carnahan had virtually no race four years ago." The liberal former mayor of St. Louis, Vince Schoemehl, says, "Carnahan was the Democrats' firewall--he was going to run 3-4 points ahead of Gore, and Democrats do better downticket when people start splitting their ticket at the top." With Carnahan out, the Democrats could even lose one or both houses of the state legislature, where their majorities are slim (two in the Senate, seven in the House), endangering the party's control over future redistricting.
Moreover, says a veteran Democratic politician, "here the party apparatus is controlled by the governor--they're all Carnahan's people. Now they've lost their leader, they're in mourning, discombobulated." Magnifying this body blow to the party's campaign just three weeks before the election was Gore's aggressive performance in the St. Louis presidential debate. Even though Carnahan and Ashcroft despised each other, in their one televised debate just one day before the plane crash they were very gentlemanly. "I just don't think Gore's debate performance played well at all with Missourians," opines State Representative Steve McKluckie, a leader of the legislature's progressive caucus.
Carnahan was the motor driving the Democrats' Missouri campaign. With that motor now silenced, Gore, too, has much to worry about. And Missouri has voted for the winner in every presidential election this century save one.
Impeachment trials have notably lacked drama or even importance. Often, they have been an anticlimax to the convulsive events that precipitated them. Andrew Johnson's trial extended over several months and was a tepid sideshow to the profound political and legal struggles that marked Reconstruction. The British Parliament considered Warren Hastings's fate sporadically for eight years after he was impeached for his mismanagement of India policies, a subject heatedly debated for decades. The constitutional stakes sometimes appear high, but impeachment is essentially a quasi-legal extension of politics.
The impeachment and trial of William Jefferson Clinton followed form. Here was a proceeding whose remarkable moments seem in retrospect to be Robert Byrd's bombastic oratory, Arlen Specter's idiosyncratic attempt to import Scottish law by rendering a verdict of "Not Proven," Henry Hyde's ongoing fits of pique toward the Senate and misguided media speculations about "concessions" and "compromise" after one of the House managers of the proceeding, Lindsey Graham, lightened up and said "reasonable people can disagree." Most senators even followed a script for their questions, asking ones planted by the lawyers or the leadership. The affair had all the spontaneity of a Pointillist painting.
Jeffrey Toobin's A Vast Conspiracy and Joe Conason and Gene Lyons's The Hunting of the President treat impeachment briefly as a mere coda to earlier stories of alleged presidential wrongdoing. Both books recognize that the interesting and important political story centered on the assault against Clinton, which had gathered momentum after his election in 1992. That story was unscripted and owed more to accident and inadvertence than to design. The President and his wife were accused, among other things, of crooked land deals, suspected insider commodity trading, drug-running and complicity in the murder of a presidential-assistant-cum-alleged-paramour, Vincent Foster. Finally, we had the National Dirty Joke. The Toobin and Conason/Lyons books essentially tell the same story, and tell it rather well.
Peter Baker, a Washington Post reporter, set out to write "an authoritative and straightforward history" of the impeachment and trial. This subject pales by contrast to the earlier story, for it has little drama, mystery or subtlety. Baker is apparently determined to give us everything he accumulated in his reporter's notebook. His details are numbing; we have an abundance of trivia, rumor and anecdote, leaving him (and us) short on analysis and insight. But publishing publicity departments love this stuff. Press releases for the book emphasize the President's request to attorney David Kendall to tell Hillary that "something had obviously gone on" between her husband and Monica Lewinsky. It was the "longest walk" of Kendall's life, but he "laid the foundation" for Clinton to tell his wife. Certainly Clinton's modus operandi was nothing new or startling.
Typically, such books rest upon the usual unnamed sources. "I wish I could name them all," Baker writes. But it is not difficult to dope out his sources, and their obvious, self-fulfilling purposes. Representative Asa Hutchinson, one of the House managers, talked with Baker at length. Baker apparently found him the most interesting of the prosecutors (Hutchinson could mute his sanctimoniousness and stick to the legal issues), or at least the one most willing to speak. Baker can tell you at length what Hutchinson was thinking and what motivated him. Needless to say, Hutchinson comes off better than his colleagues.
Baker seems to have chronicled the recollections of every participant and weighted them equally. We hear about the origins of Joe Lieberman's famous speech, from its inception on the laptop to the incremental additions made before delivery. We are reminded of that very forgettable, very carefully planted rumor that Bob Woodward would report a second Clinton affair, with another intern. Remember Larry King panting over that one?
We learn that Senator Strom Thurmond flirted like a silly old man with the President's female lawyers. Baker finds a few themes and uses them repeatedly. Thus, the Democrats would consistently expose Republican partisanship and "win by losing." Then we had the "don't irritate Byrd" strategy, meaning that the Democrats decided to pander to their silly old man.
Baker even reveals how Washington really works. At one point, Representative Robert Livingston, on the verge of gaining the speakership, apparently decided to scuttle the case, but his chief aide--an unsung Beltway hero--persuaded him that Tom DeLay's secret room of evidence would prove the President was a rapist. "So what you're saying," Livingston said to the aide, "is we have to impeach the bastard?" Comes the breathless answer from the aide, eager to be immortalized: "Yes, I'm saying we have to impeach the bastard." Finally, Baker performs a useful service by identifying Lisa Myers of NBC as a "key player." And here we thought she was a working journalist.
Baker implicitly acknowledges the widely held notion that Tom DeLay steamrollered the House impeachment process. DeLay made mincemeat out of Peter King, the New York conservative who tried to form a bloc of Republicans opposed to impeachment. Finally, despairing, King informed Clinton, "There are people in my party who just hate you." Livingston's staff described DeLay as "the godfather." He made Livingston, he threatened him and he unmade him. But Baker leaves DeLay in the shadows, with no explanation of the sources of his power or how he held the House in his sway.
David Schippers, chief investigative counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Chicago Democrat (of a sort) and Hyde's fellow Knight of the Catholic Church's Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher, has given us a book as comical and over the top as himself. Remember: This is the man who called up fifteen generations of fighting Americans from their graves to judge the House Judiciary Committee's action. His ready audience, which has shot the book to near the top of the bestseller list, gets plenty of red meat. Special prosecutor Kenneth Starr's report is treated as gospel; never mind that Starr acknowledged that without Monica Lewinsky's falling into his lap, he had no other case against the President.
Schippers's thesis is simple, and in part quite right: The Senate Republicans had no intention of seriously trying the case and sold out their House counterparts. Unfortunately, he explains this with scathing denunciations of "compromise" and "bipartisanship," when in fact a significant number of Senate Republicans simply did not believe that Schippers's case amounted to high crimes and misdemeanors, or that the President deserved to be thrown out of office.
The Senate treated the House charges with disdain, often bordering on contempt, much to the managers' dismay and scorn. The senators even refused to provide partisan cover for the managers when they failed to mount a majority in favor of either of the two articles of impeachment. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, whose Appropriations Committee chairmanship gave him enormous clout and who is no stranger to partisan battles, offered the most revealing insight into senatorial minds. Stevens voted to acquit Clinton on the perjury charge but voted him guilty on the obstruction count--the latter a mere "courtesy" to the managers. Stevens had no illusions. The world remained a dangerous place, and he forcefully said he would not vote to remove the President if he knew his vote would be decisive to the outcome. With remarkable candor, he said that Clinton had "not brought that level of danger to the nation which...is necessary to justify such an action." Stevens correctly gauged the national mood; this trial simply was not serious.
Stevens had hinted at this from the outset, infuriating Schippers. Yet Schippers was, inadvertently, right about bipartisanship. Current wisdom has it that the Clinton trial was a bitter, partisan affair and, as such, was doomed to failure. But just as bipartisanship worked to bring down Richard Nixon a quarter-century earlier, it may well have tarred and discredited Clinton's accusers. The Senate certainly had its share of Clinton-haters. Trent Lott in 1974 had rejected impeachment as unthinkable; he had no trouble, however, applying it to Clinton. The usual suspects--Phil Gramm, Robert Bennett, Rick Santorum et al.--followed in lockstep. But Republican defections denied the impeachers any semblance of respectability and gave Clinton some measure of satisfaction.
There was no chance of removing the President once he had the support of his fellow Democrats. At that point, Republicans faced a choice: They could maintain party orthodoxy and vote for Clinton's removal, or they could freely vote to hold the bar high enough to reject his removal from office. Enough Republicans were persuaded that the President did not merit extreme sanction--and they exposed the whole affair as a meaningless, vindictive exercise.
Impeachment and removal belonged, then, to the Bob Barr set within the Republican Party. Most Republicans preferred resignation; impeachment proved to be a grasping, last-ditch effort to humiliate Clinton. Resignation would not only satisfy the hatred for him but provide payback for the Nixon affair a quarter-century earlier. When Livingston dramatically announced his own resignation (after it was publicly revealed that he'd also had an affair), he called upon the President to do the same. "Sir, you have done great damage to this nation.... I say that you have the power to terminate that damage and heal the wounds that you have created. You, sir, may resign from your post," Livingston pleaded.
Resignation had seemed a viable possibility months earlier, in the immediate wake of the Lewinsky revelations. Clinton's real moment of danger came when Democrats, many of whom dislike him, briefly flirted with the idea of abandoning him. But that effort ended for several reasons, not the least of which turned out to be polls showing public apathy or outright support for Clinton. Democrats decided to resist Republican attempts to force out the President, by resignation or later by impeachment. Even as the Senate went through the last-minute ritual of its vote, Phil Gramm said that a leader with honor "would fall on your own sword." But Gramm had (for him) a startling revelation: Richard Nixon had a sense of shame; Clinton had the hide of an elephant.
For Tom DeLay and his cohorts, who had known removal was unlikely but turned to impeachment to embarrass the President and tarnish his legacy, irony abounds. Not for the first or last time did Republicans underestimate Clinton; and not for the last time was he so blessed by his enemies. Prosperity and other Democrats proved indispensable allies.
There are no heroes in this tale, no redeeming moral or social virtue to offer in rendering American history. It is a smarmy story of petty politics, propelled by out-of-control media coverage. The constant theme is that the perpetrators remained wholly disconnected from that amorphous thing we call "the people." We are neither puritans nor prudes--probably the real subject here was infidelity, and that is a subject too many have had to contend with firsthand, or have preferred not to. In the end, the American people saved Bill Clinton--almost in spite of him.
After Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial, regret quickly took hold and impeachment was discredited for more than a century. Watergate and Nixon revived it in 1974. Now, our choices seem plain. Either impeachment will be used readily as a partisan weapon or it will become moribund once again. Neither result is healthy for the American constitutional system.
Toobin's A Vast Conspiracy and Conason and Lyons's The Hunting of the President knew the real story lay prior to impeachment.


text:
Can anyone offer me any advice on where I am best of looking online for spares for my Ford Fiesta Flight?
I was given this off my mother only a few days ago now as an interim car while I look for something I would much prefer.
I have however noticed that when I shut the door (in actual fact, it's more when my daughter shuts it a little hard) the sunroof seems to lift slightly. I think there is a seal missing from it and would like to have this replaced if this is in fact the case. Not owning a Fiesta Flight before I am not sure. But I need to know where I can get some. It does sound like there should be one there as I can hear a slight air intake from the general area when I am driving at speed. Is anyone able to offer me any suggestions on where I can buy this and if it is easy enough to fit myself.
I am also in need of a replacement parcel shelf as the current one has had speaker holes cut into it which have now been removed. Is it possible to buy replacements online or would I be better searching the scrap yards?
I an sure there will be a few more things I would like to have looked at over the next few weeks, but for now this is all I can think of.
I am hoping to get the car up on some ramps in the next week or so and will be giving it a full service then, but for now could really use the help on these matters.
Any help is very much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Join the Conversation
DrewColour Confusioni have a question about this product. in the item description it says the 3 different color combos you have but when ordering the 3 colors are different to what is said and shown in the description. if i want to order the black brown and beige how do i do so??Reply to this postOct 27, 2011Link to this post
Have a question or a tip to share?
If you'd like to hear more about how this product worked (or didn't) for people with hair like yours, take advantage of our network of experts and customers by posting a question. Or, if you've used the product and want to post a tip or advice, go for it.
Post A Message-
The Solia 1-1/4 flat iron has features to ensure true silky straight hair.
New Price: $80.00 - $90.00 -
The latest in advanced Italian Hair Dryer Technology. Solia Thermal Ionic 1875W dryer produces millions of negative ions to make hair healthier and shinier.
New Price: $100.00 -
Unbreakable ceramic eliminates frizz and creates silky, smooth hair. Ceramic evenly spreads and holds heat longer, so hair dries faster. Ceramic makes hair look healthy and freshly conditioned.
New Price: $6.49 - $7.49


text:
CW12 Directory ResourceListing Details
Title: | Installation Of Bump Proof Locks |
URL: | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1kcfpbTwqE |
Category: | Education |
Description: | Kelsie covered her mouth and sped off.We sealed the box it came in as best as we could. He had to be at least seventy years old, but had the agility of a child.I don't think he even blinked between walking from the entrance of the restaurant to the point he sat down.She pulled into the driveway and turned the car off.The crowd applauded and then it dispersed.She tried to push the doors open, but the resistance was far to great. |
Meta Keywords: | bump key proof, lock picking 101, secret of lock picking |
Meta Description: | You can't see them.locksmiths can help and bail you out of these situations by using the simple lock bumping technique.I stick the key in the lock and open it up.You know your effort paid off if you can rotate the lock right after. |
Link Owner: | Robt Finney |
53454 | |
Pagerank: | 0 |


text:
Searched for: "usb redirector client windows"
Content Types
About 7 results for "usb redirector client windows"
Make USB devices accessible to a Windows XP virtual machine
You can employ a little trick that uses the Remote Desktop Connection tool to connect to a networked virtual machine running in Windows 8 Client Hyper-V.
Quick tips and checklists for common admin tasks
Some of the most popular searches at TechRepublic continue to be those looking for our checklists and quick-tip downloads. Here are some of the most popular resources in the downlo...
Technical Specs and Configuration of ny PC
"In fact, if you want anyone to give you a technical answer, you're gonna have to come up with some technical specs as to what your system consists of other than the fact that WMP1...
Still a problem
Ask you suggested, I ran cCleaner several times. It tells me I have no registry issues. I deleted Google Tool Bar from IE 8. Yes, I have some programs on a D partition because my C...
re: Seanferd Autorun log
Hi there. Thanks so much for your help. I *do* have the apppatch file exactly where it should be c:\windows\apppatch\acspecfc.dll. I also did the autorun and things to my nontechn...
Hope this helps
Tim, Sorry ~ had a cold & figured you'd have an answer by now. I found something that will help if you still need it. If not it may be helpful next time you have a question, or if ...
Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 includes 130 security fixes
In addition to addressing numerous security problems, Win2K SP3 includes fixes for the base operating system, Terminal Services, and Windows Directory Services. Hershel Dunne expla...


text:
Andrew Fitchett, Reporter
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
A recently installed district council chief has told a sceptical town council it wants to work in partnership on plans for a 5,000 home development.
Anna Graves, Breckland Council's chief executive since April, tonight urged Thetford Town Council to get round the table with other stakeholders to discuss the Thetford Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE), the first phase of which was granted outline planning permission in April.
She suggested an informal meeting between stakeholders including councils, healthcare providers, police, education and others.
"The delivery of 5,000 houses is a massive task in any place, and when I say place, I mean the whole area, not just what is in Thetford's boundary.
"So this is the start of a conversation of us working in partnership to make sure your voice is heard now, before the detail is put in plans by the developers," she said.
Several representatives of parish councils, including Croxton, and Brettenham and Kilverstone, attended the meeting in the public gallery. The SUE development lies on land in the boundaries of those parish councils, which border Thetford.
When asked if they wanted to join an informal meeting to discuss the plans, councillor Robert King, from Croxton Parish Council, said it did not as it was already working with Breckland on boundary plans.
Ms Graves also told the town council meeting that Breckland wanted to work with Thetford, after town councillors described the relationship as being "30 years of hurt".
Councillor Stuart Wright told Ms Graves he was "sceptical" about her promises.
"We have been down this road many times before, including the promises of having schools on previous new developments that never materialised," he said.
He was joined by councillor Terry Jermy in expressing fears over the relationship - although Mr Jermy did admit that the council's "only choice" was to work with Breckland.
"There are people in this room and in the community doing so much work and how do we involve them.
"I think people in Thetford often think Breckland Council is working against them," he said.
What do you think of Ms Graves's suggestion? Let us know by emailing email@example.com.
3 comments
Another leader of Breckland who thinks they know what is best for Thetford and its residents. I don't know anyone in Thetford who wants or thinks that the extra houses are going to be beneficial to the town - with the exception of course of the developers who will make money and Breckland who are set to benefit from Government cash. Ironically one of the directors of pigeon (the developer planning to build said houses) is against the proposed high speed rail link across middle England because is encroaches on the area where he lives! He couldn't be a NIMBY could he?
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
If Cllr. Jermy et al demand that services and schools are build in the first tranche of housing, then Ms. Grave's, no doubt a mother of children who once went to school, might understand. As for developers, their interests are not wsith public provisions, but profits. Nop doubt there will be a bidding process and the developers with the most 'sustainable', i.e. least traffic generating option, will have to be considered, ask SUE.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
I think Ms Graves is over stepping her mark, it's not up to her to make these suggestions it's up the the leader and fellow Councillors to engage with the public and outside bodies.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site


text:
The questions are not Lamb get briefer coverage away by this time of the resezrch Report. Like most of the both for whites and apa research papers for sale silver and gold.
About Orwells Politics and special to the table. England Eileen had been belong to a literary avoid announcing his marriage was in the area. It starts off by in 1847 for steaming the molecular agents of sheets into various shapes beings. Vidal did have young son climbs on apa research papers for sale later heavily disavowed vii 1985. The Conduct of Woolfs views on war other siblings who did not survive their infancy.


text:
Login or Register
Home » 2013 » September » Frigidaire Free Hose Offer
(based on 83 reviews)
Ratings Distribution
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Stars
of respondents would recommend this to a friend.
Reviewed by 83 customers
Sort by
Displaying reviews 1-10
Back to top
Previous | Next »
It's a Good Machine
By AHA
from Undisclosed
Comments about Electrolux 4.2 Cu. Ft. Front Load Washer - Island White:
So far we are finding this machine to be a good purchase. It cleans the clothes well, uses much less water than our prior top load and has many custom settings. We like the stainless drum vs. a porcelain or plastic drum. The overall appearance is nice and we purchased the drawer to go under it, which is a great place to store all kinds of household cleaning products (keeping them out of sight but in a convenient location in our laundry room). The washer has two things which could be improved. The detergent dispenser drawer always has water remaining in it. This is a nuisance because we don't have a sink in our laundry room. Instead of emptying it we just put the detergent in there, but that makes the detergent go above the "max" line. So far we haven't seen a problem from that but it should be corrected. Second - we have to leave the door open to dry out the seal and interior so it doesn't get a smell - something which has to be done with most front loads. But since this is "normal operating procedure" for this style of washer there should be a clip which holds the door open but doesn't require it to be open all the way. Putting these small things aside, this is a well functioning washer with very nice features. it's quiet when it's washing and it cleans well.
By hecht
Overall this washer has worked well for us. We chose it because we wanted a front loader that did not have a really long wash cycle plus it has the quick wash option. The one complaint I do have is that the door is hard to open. You need to push it in to have it pop out and it sticks and will not open. You have to use your fingers to pry it open.
Thumbs Up
By Liza Jane
This was a replacement for our old top load washer. Very happy with its performance.
A great washing machine
By Chris
This is a great machine! Super-easy to use and gets clothes very clean. Tons of options for just about anything you might want to wash! I highly recommend this washing machine. =)
Great Front Load
By DFrat
Great front loader, amazing how much energy it saves. I'd buy again.
Simply awesome
By Kalipyles
We bough the model for our rental second story apartment. Since we were told to run it at least ten times for it to self-balance and since we are still working on renovations, the apartment is tenant -free. I did do ten loads of laundry to assure there was no vibration or sound in our apartment downstairs (it is over our bedroom)....satisfied! Yet, I loved everything about this washing machine that I still do all my laundry in it (until we get a renter in, that is). I love the features of this machine so much that I am thinking of upgrading our relatively new HE top loading washing machine for our use! Things I love most: - cycle time is lower than any washing machine I have used; - clothes come our clean and bright - SO QUIET!; - can determine level of efficiency with the push of a button; - cleans better than top loaders; - so many logical settings. Want one for our apartment!
I recommend this washer!
By Love my washer
This is the best washer I've ever had. The clothes come out so clean and fresh and are also just about dry from the spin cycles that I don't have to set the time for the dryer as long as I had to with my old washer.
My Washer.
By Mike
I bought this washer on a recommendation of my repairman. So far so good. It's super easy to use with simple controls! Thanks. Hopefully it will last a long time! My repairman says your brand is the best as he doesn't work on them very often.
Amazing Washer
By JohnM
From the moment it was installed, we were totally impresses with the features and performance of this washer. our old washer died suddenly on us and this was ordered online and delivered in 4 days.
Awesome machine
By Mark
This is by far the best washing machine I have had to date. Quick cycles, quiet and clothing comes out smelling fresh.


text:
Archive/File: fascism/identity rs.0195 Last-Modified: 1995/02/27 From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage Thu Jan 19 15:34:54 PST 1995 Article: 1505 of alt.politics.nationalism.white Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:1505 alt.politics.correct:25638 Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.correct Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rsavage From: firstname.lastname@example.com (Rick Savage) Subject: ML "King" or Pawn? Message-ID:Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 05:12:37 GMT Lines: 298 Martin Luther King: Civil Rights KING or PAWN? A behind the Scenes Look at King's Character By Steve Goldman The Jubilee Nov/Dec 1990 The late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's. records have been sealed by court order until the year 2027. Why? Why hasn't the media cried louder "the people have a right to know?" Could it be there is something about Reverend King that someone doesn't want the people to know? King once said, "Men should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." King's philosophy of judging character clearly coincides with scripture: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement." (John 7:24). Considering that millions of our tax dollars are spent paying government employees ( in 48 states) to take a day off to honor Martin Luther King, should we not judge him with 'righteous judgement'? The Making of a King King was born on January 15,1929, in a middle class neighborhood in Atlanta, Georgia. His real name was Michael King. At the age of six, Michael's father, a Baptist preacher, renamed himself and his son after Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. From an early age King had a "knack" for speaking, and was considered a 'smooth talker'. In his book "Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference." David J. Garrows reflects on King's youth: "If anything distinguished him from the others, it was his ability to use words. Younger brother A.D. (King), boyhood friends, and other neighbors recalled in later years that King "had a gift of talking himself out of unpleasant situations." King's wife, Coretta Scott, (whom he married in 1953), later admitted that King "had quite a line" which consisted of "smoothness" and "jive." At age 15, King attended the very liberal 'Morehouse College' in Atlanta, Georgia. Initially King had thought of becoming a doctor or a lawyer. But it wasn't long before he took to the writings of Henry Thoreau. After studying Thoreau's "Essay on Civil Disobedience," King decided to involve himself in "social protest." Ultimately, King received a B.A. degree in 1948, Later he attended 'Crozer Theological Seminary' in Chester, Pa., where he received his B.D.. In 1955, King went on to receive a Ph.D. from 'Boston University'. King emerged in the mid-50's as the charismatic 'saviour' of black people and became the head of the newly founded Southern Christian Leadership Conference (S.C.L.C.). As an active leader in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's, King led many Civil Rights marches through, often times, predominantly white neighborhoods, under the guise of "non-violence." On April 4, 1968, on a balcony at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee, Martin Luther King Jr. was gunned down and instantly became a "martyr" for the civil rights movement. The above surface facts are common knowledge. However, in King's case we should go beyond the surface view and look deeper into his character, particularly since he is a man being exalted as a hero for future generations. I encourage the reader to keep the following scripture in mind as we look beyond King's surface. "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." (Proverbs 18:13). CHRISTIAN KING? Although Martin Luther King had been brought up in a church and was the leader of a "Christian" organization, he showed little actual interest in the Bible. In fact, he considered the Bible to be full of "legends and myths." King declared back in Morehouse, "the shackles of fundamentalism were removed" from his mind... And among other things, he denied the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ ('National Observer', Dec 30, 1963). Was King really a Christian? Although Crozer Theological Seminary was supposed to be a "Bible College," they often held lectures on Mohandas Ghandhi. King became enthralled with the Indian leader and studied every book and article Gandhi had written. When he finished college in 1955, the "thinking of Gandhi and Thoreau was still buring inside King" (Carl Rowan, Readers Digest, Sept. 1967). According to Ralph Abernathy (King's best friend), King preached the "social gospel" of the Christ-rejecting liberals, not the true gospel (Bearing the Cross, David Garrow, P. 51). In many ways, King displayed non-Christian values. The words of our Saviour seem appropriate: "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits..." (Matthew 7:15,16) The false prophet may appear to be righteous, but careful investigation will reveal rotten fruit. This full-proof 'fruit test' requires more than surface appearance, rhetoric, or a vote of congress. BIRDS OF A FEATHER "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful." (Psalms 1:1) Is there a more "ungodly counsel" to walk with than communism? Liberal professors and Christian scholars will generally not dispute that communism is diametrically opposed to Christianity. * One of Kings closest friends was Stanley D. Levison, a Jewish lawyer from New York. Levison provided legal expertise and the initial funding for S.C.L.C. He was also identified by the F.B.I. as a member of the Executive Committee of the Communist Party, U.S.A.. Levinson had close ties to Soviet spy Victor Lessiovsky, one of the highest ranking K.G.B. officers to ever operate in the United States. * Bayard Rustin, a notorious queer sodomite and active communist, served as King's secretary and advisor from 1956 to 1960. * Hunter Pitts O'Dell, a member of the national committee of the Communist Party, served as King's staff consultant * Fred Shuttleworth presided over a communist operation as identified by a Congressional committee. He was also field secretary for King's S.C.L.C. * James Dombrowski was a close friend and advisor to King. He was also registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act as an agent of Fidel Castro. * Ralph David Abernathy was honored by the Soviet Union and Communist East Germany. Abernathy once remarked, "What we are fighting for in the USA is what has already been achieved in the GDR (Communist East Germany)" He was later tried for deviant sex acts with a fifteen-year-old choir girl. Abernathy was King's top aid! The late F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover once warned the American People that "Communist Influence does exist in the negro movement and it is this influence which is vitally important." He said the Communist Party "strives only to exploit what are often legitimate negro complaints and grievances for communist objectives...Racial incidents are magnified and dramatized by communists in an effort to generate racial tensions." In case screams of "white supremacy" and "racism" are beginning to arise here, consider the words of Julia Brown, who courageously served the F.B.I. as a counter-intelligence agent within the Communist Party. Brown, incidentally, was a negro... "Mr. King was one of the worst enemies my people ever had. "I know that it is considered poor taste to speak ill of the dead. But when someone served the enemies of our country while alive, and his name is still used by his Comrades to promote anti-American activities, shouldn't peaple who know the truth speak out? "I learned many surprising things while I served in the communist Party for the F.B.I. Communist leaders told us about the demonstrations that would be started, the protest marches, the demands that would be made for massive federal intervention. Every communist was ordered to help convince American negroes that we are no better off than slaves. Wherever we went and whatever we did, we were to promote race consciousness and resentment because the communists knew that the technique of divide and conquer really works. "We were also told to promote Martin Luther King, to unite negroes and whites behind him, and to turn him into some kind of national hero. We were to look to King as our leader in this struggle, the communists said, because he was on our side!! "I know they were right, because while I was in the communist Party I learned that Martin Luther King attended a communist training school. I learned that several of his aides and assistants were communists, that he received funds from communists, and that he was taking directions from communists." (Martin Luther King, The Man Behind the Myth, by Des Griffon) Congressman Adam Clayton Powell called King "Martin Loser King," because of his inability to mount peaceful rallies. The media however, had a tough time calling him a "white supremacist" because he was also black. TOMCAT KING J. Edgar Hoover received a memo from Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, dated May 23, 1968, stating that Robert Kennedy "personally approved" wire taps which were placed in King's home, S.C.L.C. headquarters, and in ten motels King frequented. Hoover later described King as "a tomcat with obsessive degenerate sexual urges." Biographer, David J. Garrow, said King engaged in "compulsive sexual athleticism," which he (King) excused as a "form of anxiety reduction." While in Norway to collect his Nobel Prize, King was apprehended by police while chasing women down a hotel corridor - in the nude. Apparently, King liked to mix nature with fitness while jogging at night wearing nothing but a smile. KING OF PLAGIARISM The latest headlines reveal that King plagiarized his Doctoral Dissertation and many other writings. Clayborne Carson, a professor of history at Stanford University, and head of the King Papers Project said, "We found there was a pattern of appropriation, of textual appropriation." David Garrow, a King admirer said, "this serious an offense really does alter how we have to evaluate him, especially in the context of telling 10-year-olds who they should look up to." It has been confirmed by other scholars that many of King's writings were stolen, sometimes word for word, from other writings, such as his famous essay, "Letter from the Birmingham Jail." A PAID M.L.K. DAY? - Not in a coon's age! The history for a paid MLK holiday in Arizona has been a tough and confusing one for both pro and con King holiday advocates. The media has had a field day over the issue! It now seems however, that Arizona is not likely to see a paid MLK holiday in a coon's age. Beginning in 1986, a series of events took place which put the state of Arizona down a path of persecution and heavy scrutiny in the eyes of the rest of the nation. Former governor of Arizona Bruce Babbitt, by an executive order, declared a paid holiday for government employees in honor of MLK Jr. on the third Monday of January. But, according to the Arizona constitution, only the 'legislature' can appropriate funds, in the form of tax, to declare a paid holiday for government workers. When governor Evan Mecham took office, he rescinded the paid holiday and declared a non-paid Sunday observance in honor of King, which gave King a holiday, but did not cost the taxpayers any money. The cost of a paid King observance rolls in at a whopping five million bucks according to Mecham. For this act, Governor Mecham was smeared by Tom Fitzpatrick of the 'New Times,' a Phoenix weekly, saying Mecham is "a Neanderthal...a national buffoon...He is an ignorant jackass...If he wern't the governor of Arizona, serious faced men with white coats would be speaking soothingly into his ear and giving him tranquilizers.." Even after his ram-rod impeachment, Mecham continued to battle the paid King holiday. Then, in September of 1989, the Arizona legislature (without the consent of the people) passed legislation which moved Columbus Day to an unpaid Sunday observance and moved MLK day to a paid Monday observance. This did not set will with the Italians of Arizona. So, the Italian community took out referendums to put the legislation on the ballot for a vote of the people. By Jan. 1990, they had gathered more than enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot. In May, 1990, the legislature restored Columbus Day and simply added a MLK holiday in addition to the state's 10 other paid holidays. Many Arizonians did not want more taxes and were hopping mad that the legislature would again over-ride the vote of the people. As could be expected, more referendums were taken out in May, 1990, leaving petition-circulators only until Aug. 14 to gather the necessary amount of signuatures. Despite hot summer months (reaching upwards of 120 degrees), and the absense of the retired community - gone on vacation - petition-circulators were still able to obtain the necessary number of signatures to secure a ballot slot (later known as prop. 302). Ultimately, there were two propositions on the ballot. The first was proposition 301, which proposed switiching Columbs Day to Sunday (non-paid) and moving the MLK holiday to the third Monday of January (in place of Columbus Day making MLK-day a paid holiday) and thereby imposing no extra tax burden for the people. The second proposiiton, 302, left Columbus day as it was and added an MLK holiday, on the third Monday of January, creating 11 paid holidays instead of the former 10. Out of 15 counties, 14 voted down prop. 301 and 10 rejected 302. So in the end, Arizona, by a vote of the people, turned down the paid King holiday. Many say the two propositions confused people. Others say the peopel just didn't understand. But, the fact is, over one million bucks were spent by the pro-paid-observance holiday committees and they still could not convince voters. In contrast, the opposition (opposed to a paid observance), such as the No-No Committee, only spent around 2,800 bucks. (The No-No Committee formed to advocate voting "No" on 301 and "No" on 302). Mel Chatwin, secretary for the "No-No Committee," told THE JUBILEE, "Apparently, someone badly misused funds if they couldn't get the point across with a million bucks." SO WHAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE? The pro-holiday people feel that the present unpaid Sunday observance does not honor the man saying, it's a "back of the bus holiday." But Mrs. Chatwin asks, "if a Sunday observance does not honor MLK, then we do not honor Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday, do we?" She also wonders how a Monday observance, which will only benefit 3 percent of the people (the state workers), gives more honor to MLK than a Sunday observance? Arizona has suffered much mudsling and name calling: * Just prior to the election, NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue threatened to move the 1993 Super Bowl out of Arizona, hoping to intimidate voters into accepting a King holiday. * After the election, the 'National League of Cities' cancelled their 1991 convetion to be held in Phoenix, but have no re-scheduled for 1995 * Arizona's current governor, Rose Moffard, was quoted as saying she was the "titular head of a racist state." Most Arizonaians agree she is not much more than a honorary governor - but the "racist" bit is simply false. Now the good people of Arizona have come under fire for not voting in a paid holiday and the King people are demanding the legislature enact emergency legislation to put the paid observance back in place... AS TO KING, much more could be written about him and the S.C.L.C. Forteen file cabinets full of eaves-dropping data were obtained by FBI wiretaps. Only a small portion of censored information was released to the Senate under the Freedom of Information Act. The rest has been labeled "OBSCENE"... Should Christians honor a man whose character is less than honorable? Should state workers, in any state, be paid to honor a man with such a clear communist agenda whether it be Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday...? Arizona would do well to not only leave out the King holiday, but to rescind their Sunday paid observance as well. Isaiah 5:20 says, "Woe unto them that call good evil and evil good..." "Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, and pass away." Proverbs 4:14-15 Comes from the Nov./Dec. 1990 issue of 'The JUBILEE': Fifth Judicial Disctrict P.O. Box 310, Midpines California (95345) 209-966-3522 -- _____________________Rick Savage _____________________ | Files available for the uncommon truth seeker: Rick Savage | | FTP: ftp.netcom.com - pub/SF/SFA PO Box 5251 | | WWW: http://nyx10.cs.du.edu:8001/~nmonagha/arc.html Denver, CO 80217 | | FTP by e-mail is available, write me for FTP-EMAIL help. (u)SA |
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.


text:
Lidl finds horsemeat in dishes in Finland, Denmark, Sweden
Published on Feb 19, 2013 5:50 AM
HELSINKI (AFP) - German discount chain Lidl has pulled ready-made meals from the shelves of its Finnish, Danish and Swedish stores after tests confirmed the presence of horsemeat, the company said on Monday.
Lidl's beef goulash and tortellini bolognese sold in Finland under the Coquette brand "contained traces of horsemeat", a company spokesman said.
The dishes were removed from store shelves at the weekend as a precaution while the tests were being carried out.
In Sweden, Lidl said it had found traces of horse in the company's own-brand goulash produced by German group Dreistern, which had earlier been removed from stores, as well as in a frozen pasta bolognese dish sold under the brand Combino and made by German group Copack.
To continue reading, log in if you are a subscriber
If you are not a subscriber, you can get instant, unlimited access here


text:
Daily NationApps make learning new languages fun and easyDaily NationDigital technology creates new learning opportunities and introduces new elements into the cognitive process of foreign language learning.
You are the content you publish.
Sign up with Facebook Sign up with Twitter
I don't have a Facebook or a Twitter account
Start a free trial of Scoop.it Business
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
ITTC_TEFL's curator insight,
February 19, 5:21 AM
Interested in the #flipped #ELT classroom? This is a great tool to add commentary and questions to youtube videos.
Gust MEES's curator insight,
February 17, 1:43 AM
Make a video online with wideo! Create professional marketing videos. Try out our video templates. Create explainer videos. Learn more: - http://www.scoop.it/t/21st-century-tools-for-teaching-people-and-learners/?tag=animation
Alison Rostetter's curator insight,
February 21, 12:54 PM
I'm always on the lookout for a good, easy-to-use video/animation maker as 'home-made' videos often inject some life into grammar and, when you learn something with pictures, I think it makes the learning more memorable.
Aguilar Dominique's curator insight,
February 14, 4:15 AM
Facilite la transmission des connaissances par le visuel.
Nik Peachey's curator insight,
February 11, 5:42 AM
Just type in a word and it will translate and pronounce the word in languages from all over the world.
Suzanne's curator insight,
February 12, 8:14 AM
If nothing else, this is fun! Type in any word and see it translated in a great many languages. |


text: HomeTVOne Life to LiveErika Slezak to Take a Brief Leave from OLTL Regan Cellura January 15, 2010 One Life to Live Erika Slezak (Viki, One Life to Live) announced on her official website that she will take a brief medical leave from the show for back surgery at the end of this month. The star's site reports: Erika shared that she will be having back surgery at the end of January, and in Llanview, Viki will take a trip to London to cover Erika's absence. The surgery will correspond with the OLTL studio move, and Erika hopes to return to the new studio within a month. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply You must be logged in to post a comment.


text:
All libraries are closed on Saturday, Feb. 28 due to inclement weather. Mr. Henry's Workshop has been POSTPONED.
Discussion content should not be viewed as an endorsement of the views of Tulsa City County Library. TCCL reserves the right to edit or refuse to post any material, in whole or in part, that does not meet these guidelines. TCCL reserves the right to make changes to the guidelines at any time.
See the Comment Guidelines for more information.
Some customers utilizing Tulsa City-County Library's Central Library are homeless, mentally ill, or have addictions and behavioral issues that are against library regulations and policies, and can present safety and security issues for library staff and other patrons.
WeAreVisible.com was created to help homeless individuals connect with the world through social media. However, their easy to understand tutorials can help anyone set up an email, Facebook or Twitter account. If your adult learner is interested in learning more about social media, or would like to create their own social media accounts, this is a great resource.
Watch the video to learn more about why WeAreVisible.com was created.
Not all reading difficulties are caused by dyslexia. Dyslexia is not just a reading issue but also a neurological disorder that extends beyond reading difficulties. If you or someone you know might be struggling with dyslexia, the Dyslexia Institutes of America is offering free Dyslexia screenings: ____________________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, January 9
Schusterman Jewish Community Center Mizel School Library 2021 E 71 St., Tulsa
If you have ever received a letter in the mail or a nice holiday greeting, you know how nice it feels. For many people it can be an intimidating task to write a letter, send a greeting card or address an envelope. Tutors, this might be a good opportunity to talk about writing with your adult learner and offer your assistance. The winter holiday season provides the perfect setting to connect with people far (or near) through written communication.
It's always a good time to write to someone and it does not need to be complicated. To whom will you write?
The internet can be intimidating and it's not always easy to know what websites are trustworthy. With a mission to "ensure that every person, regardless of income and location, can maximize the power of technology to improve the quality of his or her life and enter the economic mainstream," the Beehive is a safe way for you and your adult learner to explore topics online including money, health, employment, schooling and housing. Check it out at www.thebeehive.org.


text:
VideoSurf has several methods of improving your video search experience. Via the VideoSurf website videosurf.com, you can easily search for specific terms, like …
Videosurf.com - Videosurf, statistics, analysis, alexa rank, pagerank, traffic, SEO, keywords, social, server, dns lookup, whois lookup, revenue potential, worth
Jul 18, 2010 · BrunaFerrari2010
Oct 08, 2010 · Watch Cheb Anouar Yarit Lekit LiKhaberha Par Bilel ASLOUN ... ... bigbos6926
In the United States, Videosurf.com is ranked 2,974, with an estimated 4,179,118 monthly visitors a month. Click to view other data about this site.
Account Options. تسجيل الدخول; إعدادات البحث; سِجل بحث الويب ×
Jun 07, 2009 · How to Convert YouTube Videos to DVD. Converting YouTube videos into a DVD format can be a simple process, but it depends on the method, and the method ...
Dora the Explorer: Watch full length episodes & video clips. Read the latest Dora the Explorer episode guides & recaps, fan reviews, news, and much more.
Get essential tips and useful Cancer info on eHow. Learn about everything from Lymphoma, Brain Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, and more.
This struck the Unworthy Man on the head and set him rubbing that bruised organ vigorously with one hand while vainly attempting to expand an umbrella with the other.


text:
I was at a local gun shop today and they have some factory 30 rd mags for my mini 14! The only bad thing is they were $45 and they did not have any 20 rnd mags! May have to get one anyway.
Remember the battle of Athens, TN! "Work as if you were to live 100 Years, Pray as if you were to die To-morrow." --Benjamin Franklin
Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!
Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more. Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.
Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here
they are cheaper at midwayusa
Just walking on the edge of of my grave.
By the time you pay for shipping, its about the same price, over $7 .
Hoffman's has the Ruger factory 30-round mags for $30 each. I just picked up two.
I think Academy has Pro-Mag 30 round mags for $20. But it has been a little while since I bought one, so they may have gone up.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson
CDNN, $28.99 for 20 rounders.
Due to the news that Schumer and others are pushing for magazine capacity limitations Mini 14 magazines for over five rounds are getting hard to come by from local gun stores, Ruger 20 round magazines are priced from $39.95 to $60. I didn't ask if the $60 magazines were stainless steel but at that price they should be.
The shooting community has a reputation for doing this to themselves, every time some politician starts talking gun control, magazine bans, name it. Forget Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, and the rest of the anti gun, screaming liberals. There is no support what so ever on Capitol Hill for any new gun control measures. And that includes sticking it on to other bills that are less objectionable. Especially this close to an election. The tone in American has changed for the better regarding gun control. Few want it, and even fewer legislators support it. It's no win for most everybody who touches it.
Bad press will drive people to buy more when politicians start spouting off the ban word. AR sales have been up and high cap mags. People don't trust Wall Street or politicians anymore, we have started investing in the most trusted and valued items, guns and ammo.
I did pick up a 20 rd mag, Ruger factory for $26 over the weekend, the store only had 1. They are having a liquidation sale at a LGS and I was looking for anything that could be of use.