Thread: Bush 'deeply concerned' at Russia arrests

Originally Posted by Julie

And I agree with him. I really like McCain, and I'm disappointed he hasn't done better in the polls.

He says what he means, and means what he says, and he doesn't beat around the bush about it. I like that.

For the most part he's a stand up guy, but I think he has to work on his stance on imigration. IMO illegal imigrants should not have drivers licences, or any benifits for that matter. That said you Yanks really need to sort that mess out and I don't think McCain would do a much better job than the current administration in that reguard if he's willing to coddle illegals.

He's for "securing the borders first," which is very important.

But it is John McCain whose electability argument rings truest. And, in fact, McCain's point is the simplest to make to Republican primary voters: In poll after poll, he runs closer to Clinton than any GOP contender other than Giuliani, with whom he is approximately tied. The latest RCP Averages show Clinton leading McCain by 2.8 points, about the same as Giuliani's 2.5 point deficit. Thompson trails by 8.1 points, while Romney is 11 points back.

Pollsters say that is no accident, and if Republicans who head to the polls really do make electability a priority, then swallowing doubts about the maverick would give them the best shot at winning the White House.

McCain is Mr. Center. Conservatives do not necessarily like John McCain. But faced with the choice of McCain or Clinton, their decision becomes pretty easy.

McCain's Electability Argument - Yahoo! News

Originally Posted by Julie

And I agree with him. I really like McCain, and I'm disappointed he hasn't done better in the polls.

He says what he means, and means what he says, and he doesn't beat around the bush about it. I like that.

And he's just announced he thinks global warming is real and important. Yet ANOTHER reason I don't want him to be the nominee. As if I needed more.

-dale

Originally Posted by Feanor

He has restored the country? How?

The first: Putin has stopped to carry out the "recommendations" of IMF killed the Russian economy: he has not returned to the overestimated rouble exchange rate, and at it the roubles withdrawn under "recommendation" of IMF have returned to economy (remember barter? It therefrom).
The second All the basic taxes the uniform scale of surtax of 13 % is lowered, established. For foreigners coming to Russia it is a subject of envy. They should unfasten on 35-40 %.
The third National projects which already give feedback though it was expected only in 3-5 years.
The fourth State investments. A basis not raw economic growth. Earlier in Russia they "democratic" have been lowered to zero. And only in Russia. In the USA and the Europe nobody cancelled them. That is the rule " the state is badly ", a rule was only for Russia.
The fifth. The Russian army now feels itself absolutely differently, rather than 10 years ago.

And, at last, the sixth.
It is nothing Putin would be to spend of transformation if it did not manage to return the control over the stolen property. I mean raw branches.
Two curious facts:
1) after investigation of business of Khodorkovsky, all the oil-and-gas companies (private) began to pay in 3 times of more taxes to ton of the extracted oil (one thousand cube. Gas). Have covered a shop with offshores.
2) the state companies - "Gazprom" and "Rosneft" and before investigation of business of Khodorkovsky paid taxes to ton so much, how many private traders have started to pay only with fear.
3) and taxes are any more someone's pocket. It is the budget. From here and increase of salaries of state employees (especially pleases, that it has concerned militarians and teachers), and programs on accessible habitation, both funds of development, and other tasty and useful things.
And at last. The Most important. Khodorkovsky prepared for the company for sale. To mister to the Rothschild.
To explain, than all would end, if he has carried out conceived?
I explain: the price of oil would grow up to 80 USD. But we would not feel.

Excuse me for my English language

What National Projects have begun giving return already? (I'm assuming you mean the национальные проекты) And while state investment may be beneficial in certain areas of the economy, overall they have done little to improve living conditions or create a stable economic basis.

Originally Posted by Feanor

What National Projects have begun giving return already? (I'm assuming you mean the национальные проекты) And while state investment may be beneficial in certain areas of the economy, overall they have done little to improve living conditions or create a stable economic basis.

You think that for example credits to farmers on purchase of the new equipment have not improved their well-being? Or credits for construction of private houses? These credits are allocated within the limits of support of a Агро-industrial complex. Certainly all not so is good as speak, but I have eyes and I see a difference for these 3-4 years.

The answer to me on a question.
Here I am not strong supporter Putin and its parties. How to me to vote? Actually, except for KPRF and LDPR, we do not have more opposition which could though something to offer (the new economic and political program). As a rule candidates of type Kasparova, Limonova do not offer anything except for the slogan " Down with Putin!!! ", and candidates of type Yavlinskogo already were at authority, and all of us we remember to what it has resulted. Thus some of them are financed from abroad. Likely it is not necessary to speak as to them Russian concern.
Thus I have a choice between:
- A party " Uniform Russia (Edinaya Rossiya) " - having visible result of the work
- Parties KPRF and LDPR - having some offers
- Small parties not having anything except for empty chatter and unreal (and at times and fantastic) ) offers
From here result:
" Uniform Russia " - about 70 percent
KPRF and LDPR approximately on 15 percent everyone
The others no more than 1-2 percent

Originally Posted by Firral

You think that for example credits to farmers on purchase of the new equipment have not improved their well-being? Or credits for construction of private houses? These credits are allocated within the limits of support of a Агро-industrial complex. Certainly all not so is good as speak, but I have eyes and I see a difference for these 3-4 years.

The answer to me on a question.
Here I am not strong supporter Putin and its parties. How to me to vote? Actually, except for KPRF and LDPR, we do not have more opposition which could though something to offer (the new economic and political program). As a rule candidates of type Kasparova, Limonova do not offer anything except for the slogan " Down with Putin!!! ", and candidates of type Yavlinskogo already were at authority, and all of us we remember to what it has resulted. Thus some of them are financed from abroad. Likely it is not necessary to speak as to them Russian concern.
Thus I have a choice between:
- A party " Uniform Russia (Edinaya Rossiya) " - having visible result of the work
- Parties KPRF and LDPR - having some offers
- Small parties not having anything except for empty chatter and unreal (and at times and fantastic) ) offers
From here result:
" Uniform Russia " - about 70 percent
KPRF and LDPR approximately on 15 percent everyone
The others no more than 1-2 percent

Good point. That is the real problem. There is no viable opposition platform. LDPR, with all it's clowning around, is really trying to beat United Russia at its own game and has the same platform in essence. CPRF is the party of reactionaries. Kasparov represents too few of the opposition parties to have any real chance.

Originally Posted by Feanor

Good point. That is the real problem. There is no viable opposition platform. LDPR, with all it's clowning around, is really trying to beat United Russia at its own game and has the same platform in essence. CPRF is the party of reactionaries. Kasparov represents too few of the opposition parties to have any real chance.

I hope that absence of strong opposition - the temporary phenomenon.
The matter is that for an exit from crisis of 90th years there was only one true way. Probably many small distinctions, but this way only one. It was chosen also by Putin (it is pleasant to me or not, but it it is the fact).
But the present opposition is too radical, it offers us or absolutely other ways (and it is uncertainty and instability), or in general only abuses a modern way.
In the future, I hope, to appear opposition which will consider " small distinctions " ways. Look at the USA. There two parties with different sights, but the political rate of the country remains practically constant decades.

Originally Posted by Firral

I hope that absence of strong opposition - the temporary phenomenon.
The matter is that for an exit from crisis of 90th years there was only one true way. Probably many small distinctions, but this way only one. It was chosen also by Putin (it is pleasant to me or not, but it it is the fact).
But the present opposition is too radical, it offers us or absolutely other ways (and it is uncertainty and instability), or in general only abuses a modern way.
In the future, I hope, to appear opposition which will consider " small distinctions " ways. Look at the USA. There two parties with different sights, but the political rate of the country remains practically constant decades.

I hope, I HOPE, that our democracy doesn't go the American direction of wedding corporate and governmental interests. American parties don't even represent two political movements. They represent two political machines for gaining votes neither of which really has much of a permanent platform.

Originally Posted by Feanor

I hope, I HOPE, that our democracy doesn't go the American direction of wedding corporate and governmental interests. American parties don't even represent two political movements. They represent two political machines for gaining votes neither of which really has much of a permanent platform.

Considering.....

The Glasnost Defence Foundation, a Russian NGO representing journalists under threat, claims that 130 journalists have been murdered in Russia since 1991. BBC April 2001

It is estimated that 21 journalists have been killed since Russian President Vladimir Putin came to power in March 2000. In the great majority of cases, no one has been convicted and sentenced for the murders.
World’s Press calls for Justice in Murder of Russian Journalists

You have bigger problems than corporate influences on government. When someone bashes Bush(US government), people laugh; when someone bashes Putin(Russian government), bodies start piling up.

Originally Posted by Kansas Bear

You have bigger problems than corporate influences on government. When someone bashes Bush(US government), people laugh; when someone bashes Putin(Russian government), bodies start piling up.

So true.

Originally Posted by Feanor

So true.

I doubt

The Glasnost Defence Foundation, a Russian NGO representing journalists under threat, claims that 130 journalists have been murdered in Russia since 1991. BBC April 2001

And why 150? Why not 300, or 500?
You know their surnames? How (because of what) they were lost?
You can trust this figure?
And how many journalists were lost in the USA since 1991? In fact 16 years have expired!!! The journalist always wishes to get to the bottom of true. They often become victims of criminal elements. You precisely know that they were lost for the political reasons.

It is estimated that 21 journalists have been killed since Russian President Vladimir Putin came to power in March 2000. In the great majority of cases, no one has been convicted and sentenced for the murders.

All as in point number 1.
Again a question: whether there is a connection of these death with Putin?

So Putin coming to power has seen a DECREASE in journalist deaths? 130 1991-2001, but only 21 during Putins years in power.

Originally Posted by Firral

I doubt

And why 150? Why not 300, or 500?
You know their surnames? How (because of what) they were lost?
You can trust this figure?
And how many journalists were lost in the USA since 1991? In fact 16 years have expired!!! The journalist always wishes to get to the bottom of true. They often become victims of criminal elements. You precisely know that they were lost for the political reasons.

All as in point number 1.
Again a question: whether there is a connection of these death with Putin?

Three journalists were murdered in 2006, bringing to 21 the number killed doing their job since President Vladimir Putin came to power in March 2000.

Reporters sans frontières -