BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 20 May 11 - 07:56 AM

Update:

He's out on bail but he isn't going anywhere. He's confined to his home wearing a ankle transmitter under 24-hour guard.

And he has to pay for it: $200,000 a month.

Like everybody else who gets a guard and a transmitter.

Oh, you say, but what if my budget won't cover that next time I'm arrested on similar charges and considered a flight risk?

Then no bail for you in New York State.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: kendall
Date: 20 May 11 - 12:15 PM

I would sooner suspect the president of France. It would be a good way to get this guy out of the running because polls say he would beat the present president.
I'd also wonder how much Sarcosy paid the woman to frame him. His reputation as a sexual predator will hang him with a jury.

When anyone is arrested for any serious crime in the USA, they are taken directly to jail with no thought of allowing them to freshen up for the cameras.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 20 May 11 - 12:22 PM

Kendall said ... "they are taken directly to jail with no thought of allowing them to freshen up for the cameras"

The news networks and paper rags love this kind of stuff, makes for great high drama news .... they know people love it, they know the public drools over it.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 May 11 - 12:22 PM

I bet there aren't many NY hotels without semen on the floor.

Particularly if there are "adult channels" on the cable TV.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 20 May 11 - 12:30 PM

... and I bet access to those 'adult channels' was free of charge, included in the exorbitant price of the room.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 20 May 11 - 12:42 PM

I don't know if he's guilty or not, but "not guilty" doesn't mean a frameup.

Conspiracy evidence, please.

Of course, since juries want evidence, and the conspirators manage never to leave any (or if they do, other conspirators and dupes "discredit" it) they always win.

So there's really no point in discussing it, unless you just like to keep boosting your blood pressure. Sorry...

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 May 11 - 02:33 PM

"Interviews and documents paint a picture of the fund [IMF] as an institution whose sexual norms and customs are markedly different from those of Washington, leaving its female employees vulnerable to harassment.
One IMF statement in their rule book says "Intimate personal relationships between supervisors and subordinates do not, in themselves, constitute harassment." Ms Reinhart, formerly IMF's Deputy Director for reaserch... "That sets the stagem I think, for more risk-taking."
New York Times, May 19, 2011, "At I.M.F., Men on Prowl and Women on Guard."

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 May 11 - 03:16 PM

Motel 6 still has rates by the minute and a discount if you don't get the sheets messed up...........


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 May 11 - 03:35 PM

Yeah, pub talk. Why am I not surprised? By that, or by the sudden appearance of the usual suspects?

Here is an article that covers this kind of behavior by people, particularly men, in powerful positions. Very much to the point.

Psychopaths in powerful positions

And it's not just politicians. Note the behavior of a number of prominent athletes and what they seem to think are their "rights" to have anything (or anyone) they want just because they get paid a lot for being adept at running around a field or arena and butting heads with other guys of their ilk.

Or the poster child for this kind of behavior, actor (!??) Charlie Sheen. He claims that he's different from other men, hence he has extraordinary rights. He tells us that he has "Adonis DNA and tiger's blood." And he demands $1,500,000 per episode for his playing himself (a selfish, lecherous good-for-nothing who will jump anything in a skirt) in the half-hour comedy show, Two and a Half Men.

I personally think the "Half Man" of the title is not Jake the kid, but HIM.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 May 11 - 03:41 PM

Good to know, Spaw!
(None in western Canada)

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 May 11 - 04:04 PM

"He's either guilty or he's not... If he's guilty, and convicted...
If he's guilty but escapes punishment... Neither result would involve a conspiracy"

I note that Lighter leaves out the other two possible outcomes, that he is not guilty, and is acquitted, or that he is not guilty and convicted.

However in fact, regardless of the outcome of the trial, Strauss-Kahn's role as IMF head and as presidential candidate (generally expected to beat Sarkozy) is finished.

That doesn't of course mean that there has to have been a conspiracy, just that, if there has been a conspiracy, it will have succeeded whatever happens in the trial.

The fact that there are some daft conspiracy theories about should never be mask the reality that an awful lot of things that happen in public life do involve attempts to distort the truth. After all, whenever more than one people seek to distort the truth, that is a conspiracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 May 11 - 09:32 PM

Somewhat interesting how the non-Americans on Mudcat seem to be much more open to conspiracy theories in general than US posters do.

I've read quite a bit on UK plots, e.g., the Gunpowder Plot, and about US plots, e.g. Watergate.   I wonder if UK history, being much longer than US history, therefore has much more scope for conspiracies, and this makes them seem more likely to Britons than to Americans.   It is also of note that conspiracy believers, at least on Mudcat, are lopsidedly left of center. Since the US is fingered often in these conspiracies, perhaps it's partly resentment of perceived US hegemony. It's painfully obvious that Leftists do in fact resent the US as the #1 exponent of capitalism.

This is the only charitable explanation ,for instance, for Richard's general attitude. His aggressive attacks on probably the most powerful black man in the world, starting with his expressed view---, as the world's unchallenged authority on what it means to be black-- that Obama is not black enough, otherwise clearly leave him wide open to the charge of "genteel" racism. No conspiracy here.   Just reading Richard's posts on other threads.



The leftist, anti-American-- or just boozy--theories have nothing to recommend them.
Look, it is pretty clear what has happened here. No woman in her right mind would put herself through what this maid will now have to face--both legally and in her own community. Therefore it is not something she made up.

It's the old story--as noted by other posters already:    abuse of power by a powerful man who fancied himself invulnerable---or who just didn't think.    After all, for his affair with another IMF staffer he got a slap on the wrist. The US was the venue for his crime.    End of US connection.

Sounds like the logical result of the little story we've had before on Mudcat:

Mother bathing her 3 year old boy.   He fondles his balls.

Boy: Mama, are these my brains?
Mother:   Not yet.


But it's certainly true we need more pubs in the US--the theories that come out of drinking are endlessly fascinating.

Just don't expect sense or logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 May 11 - 03:37 AM

Somewhat interesting how the non-Americans on Mudcat seem to be much more open to conspiracy theories in general than US posters do.

I'm not sure that is true but I suspect we (UK) tend to more cynical about or less trusting of "authority" in general. Perhaps (with a couple of notable exceptions here...) we are less likely to see "them" as "whiter than white" or "beyond suspicion".

anti-American

I think there is a fair amount of distrust in America and dislike of some of her foreign policies over here these days. If that's what you mean by "anti-American". I'm afraid I'm one.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: kendall
Date: 21 May 11 - 04:49 AM

I'm offended by the title of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 May 11 - 05:49 AM

So far as I can see, there's nothing in principle implausible about Strauss-Kahn being guilty, and there's nothing in principle implausible about this being a conspiracy either. It all depends on information we haven't as yet got.

What is less plausible is the assumption in the thread heading, and in the original post, that any conspiracy would be likely to be on the part of the American authorities. I agree with kendall in thinking the heading needs changing.
............
"...the non-Americans on Mudcat seem to be much more open to conspiracy theories in general than US posters do."

I'd see that as highly questionable. The daftest conspiracy theories seem to flourish in the USA, where polls seem to indicate that an extraordinarily high proportion of people believe, for example, that no one ever landed on the Moon, that their current president is a foreigner, or their last president was responsible for 9/11.

Perhaps Europeans are more liable to assume that as a matter of routine our leaders lie to us. After all, when the records come out a few years later it always seems to be revealed that they did.

Anyway, if Strauss-Kahn is a serial rapist, and this has been hushed up, that is a conspiracy theory too.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 21 May 11 - 07:17 AM

Now that I think of it, Kendall's right. Suddenly I'm offended.

But it's better than "More American Dirty Tricks."

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: bobad
Date: 21 May 11 - 08:08 AM

A thoughtful and insightful analysis of the affair, highlighting the culture gap between US and France written by former Canadian politician Keith Spicer, now living in Paris:

Culture wars across the Atlantic

"While media fire shots over U.S. 'puritanism' and French 'perversion,' little thought is given to Dominique Strauss-Kahn's alleged victim, writes Keith Spicer"

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 21 May 11 - 11:59 AM

Don Firth and Bobad --

Thanks for the links to those articles. Both are fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 May 11 - 08:05 PM

Berlusconiesque...
At least it wasn't the Americans being the dirty old man in this one!

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 11 - 07:14 AM

I hold to my assertion.   I am talking about Mudcat posters only--not the general population of the US or UK.

How many Mudcat posters have alleged no one landed on the Moon, Obama is a foreigner, etc?

But we have more than our share of gullible/crackpot posters---overwhelmingly left of center.


I'd say the premise of this thread is a shining example.    Any argument?

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 11 - 07:21 AM

By the way, sorry I didn't get to the thread again til now.   Had a dress rehearsal Saturday, then the concert (Kennedy Center Concert Hall) yesterday.   Scandinavian music.   


It is clear that on Mudcat the crackpot theorists are overwhelmingly left of center--and seem to also be mostly from the UK.

Admittedly the absence of Riginslinger and a few others helps the cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 23 May 11 - 07:25 AM

Does anyone remember the political thriller "Z" (1969)?

It has the classic line, "Always blame the U.S.A.! Even if you're wrong!"

Mmmmm! Popcorn!

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 11 - 07:30 AM

And "serial rapist".

Nobody here is alleging that.    And that phrase shows the poor reading skills we have grown to accept from leftists here.


And the implication that there must be a conspiracy somewhere in this topic.

After a while it gets a bit pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 May 11 - 08:13 AM

I suppose what seems absurd can depend on ones own position or beliefs Ron.

While I am in no way saying this incident involves dirty tricks or suggesting this is necessarily your position, I do find a position which asserts any nation or people in power ("they") are completely beyond using dodgy means to further own ends rather odd.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 May 11 - 08:41 AM

The implication of much press coverage is that there are good grounds for suggesting that this is the not the first time that Strauss-Kahn has been alleged to have at least attempted rape. I'm not sure how many times you have to commit a crime for the word "serial" to be appropriate.

"And the implication that there must be a conspiracy somewhere in this topic.

I haven't seen any posts in this thread claiming that a conspiracy to set up M Krauss-Kahn has been proved, or is even particularly probable, merely that such a possibility should not be dismissed out of hand. That is surely a reasonable position, in advance of rather more information than we currently have.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 May 11 - 08:42 AM

M Strauss-Kahn...

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 May 11 - 09:05 AM

Thank you, Janie.
Mary, raped at gunpoint and then stalked for years by her rapist's nutcase wife.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 23 May 11 - 09:10 AM

True, but the dodgier the method the riskier and more complicated it is, therefore harder to put into action successfully and more likely to be discovered. That makes it less likely to be used, except, perhaps, in a truly dire situation.

The "dirty tricks" made famous by Watergate were, in fact, discovered - to the ruination of the participants. And that was a relatively limited conspiracy. Other "dirty tricks" of the era were more like injurious practical jokes (stealing a political rival's letterhead for malicious purposes, etc.)

As for Chappaquiddick, glibly mentioned above, see Wikipedia. It lists the various contradictory conspiracy theories. The most obvious explanation is that there was no conspiracy either to kill Mary Jo or to destroy Ted. It was an accident. Unfortunately they happen frequently.

The annoying thing about threads like this is the assumption (by some) that if a conspiracy is conceivable (and when isn't it?), it was probably at work.

And the next step for many is to believe that "probably" means "quite certainly."

In public life and politics, somebody somewhere always profits big-time from somebody else's misfortune. That's life. It isn't enough to start speculating about conspiracies - unless that's just your idea of a good time.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 23 May 11 - 09:26 AM

I don't think there is anyone here who has posted to this thread who would disagree that rape is a horrific, violent crime. With that being said we must not let our emotions get the better of us and be haste in our judgment of the accused. Many innocent people have been incarcerated or even executed for rape crimes.

As I previously said let the man have his day in court, and hopefully hopefully justice will determine the truth.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: bobad
Date: 23 May 11 - 09:32 AM

"hopefully justice will determine the truth."

"Justice" can be purchased -- see OJ Simpson.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 23 May 11 - 09:37 AM

"hopefully justice will determine the truth."

miscarriage of justice ... see David Milgaard and Steven Truscott

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: bobad
Date: 23 May 11 - 09:43 AM

David Milgaard and Steven Truscott did not possess the financial means of DSK.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 23 May 11 - 09:47 AM

So ... what your saying bobad is that if an accused is wealthy they are in all probability guilty, or the accused will buy his innocent?

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: bobad
Date: 23 May 11 - 09:54 AM

"what your saying bobad is that if an accused is wealthy they are in all probability guilty"

Huh....how the hell do you get that?

What I am saying is that if Truscott and Milgaard were able to afford a high powered legal team you can bet your bottom dollar that they would have never been falsely convicted.

And I am also saying, as was told to me by a lawyer, "justice" costs money.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 23 May 11 - 10:13 AM

no ... what you said is "justice can be purchased"

That itself indicates wealth can make one immune from all charges of guilt in a court of law. I don't necessarily buy that ... the public loves to see the wealthy and high profile individuals put on trial and yes, many cannot buy their way out of justice.

OJ was an example of a Hollywood extravaganza ... sick showcase in itself.

In regards to Milgaard and Truscott ... who knows ... both cases were in small communities where the public was charged with emotion and the subsequent demand for quick resolution and severe verdict applied. In that emotional haste 2 innocent people were charged, and incarcerated. If the accussed were wealthy and brought to court I'm sure they too would have been been sent to jail.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 May 11 - 10:39 AM

"Justice" can be purchased -- see OJ Simpson.

You mean he paid the trainee police scientist to casually carry his DNA sample around in a lab coat pocket all day and paid the prosecution to use a racist and lying policeman on the stand.

Simpson may have got off but from what I've read, IF he did, I'd say it was through incompetence on the prosecution's side rather than through Simpson's wealth.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 23 May 11 - 10:48 AM

I don't think OJ "purchased justice" in the sense you mean.

He had great lawyers, true, whom the average slob could not have afforded.

He also got lucky with disorganized prosecutors and a judge who allowed too much court-room foolishness.   

But even they wouldn't have been enough to acquit him without jurors who kept thinking, "Wait a minute! It's OJ! OJ good! Cops bad!" They might well have acquitted him even if he'd had one run-of-the-mill attorney.

His money certainly didn't protect him in the civil trial, with a different jury, which by fining him millions essentially declared his guilt.

But he never had to pay those millions! Unfortunately true. But that was because of smart money management and California's laws protecting retirement funds and so on, not through any shady doings,

And right now OJ's in prison.

At any rate, it doesn't makes sense to credit OJ's wealth as the cause of his original acquittal. It didn't hurt, but by itself - with a different cast of cvharacters - it probably wouldn't have saved him.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 May 11 - 10:55 AM

But even they wouldn't have been enough to acquit him without jurors who kept thinking, "Wait a minute! It's OJ! OJ good! Cops bad!"

I don't know about that. Personally think I'd find the evidence too unreliable to find guilty on rather than thinking that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 23 May 11 - 11:32 AM

"He had great lawyers, true, whom the average slob could not have afforded.

He also got lucky with disorganized prosecutors and a judge who allowed too much court-room foolishness."

exactly ... I agree .... the whole thing was a debacle.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 May 11 - 12:13 PM

Guilty on a criminal charge means that the jury decides that there is a reasonable doubt. Guilty in a civil court means that the jury decides the defendant probably did it.

There is no contradiction between the two verdicts on OJ. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a much higher level of proof than "probable". If you are on a jury and you just think the chances are the defendant did it you ought to vote "not guilty".

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 May 11 - 03:38 PM

The DSK controversy brings into focus women's rights. Women are often abused by politicians such as Schwarzegropenegger, John Edwards (yes Elizabeth was abused by this cheating), David Vitter (he abused his wife by making her stand with him while he admitted his cheating publicly) and the notorious Jack the Zipper (Jack Kennedy), Bill Clinton and LBJ.

I'm not clear on whether Julian Assange was a victim of political pressure or that he did violate women. I don't trust the story about his misdeeds in Sweden because the issue is so politically loaded.

This is the problem that politicians have, they do violate women's rights and as a result it is assumed they are probably guilty. The problem is that many Americans and men from other cultures tend to look the other way when these issues come up.

In some Islamic cultures, women are abused if they are raped.

This is a serious offense and should not be whitewashed. I hope the DSK has his time in court and this will be resolved with due process in the American way of jurisprudence.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 11 - 09:47 PM

"should not be dismissed"

As long as sense and logic are not required.


And for an amazing number of our posters left of center, logic and sense are indeed not required.


Please recall the title of the thread.    A hypothesis is raised which is not graced by one shred of evidence.

Or do you really think that the idea of "American dirty tricks" should not be dismissed.

That sort of moral relativism is a perfect example of the leftist fuzzy thinking pilloried so effectively by some columnists in the WSJ--much as it pains me to agree with them sometimes.

It also serves to take the blame off the man who deserves it:   Mr. Strauss-Kahn.

And to trivialize the suffering of the maid.

But perhaps that's just fine by our illustrious posters on the Left.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 May 11 - 09:54 PM

It also serves to take the blame off the man who deserves it:   Mr. Strauss-Kahn.

I hadn't realized he'd been found guilty already

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 11 - 10:02 PM

if you care to finger somebody else, please do.

Or do you think the crime alleged by the maid did not take place?

Do you think she is lying?   Yes or no.


I have read that Mr Strauss-Kahn's lawyers are thinking of alleging the sex was consensual--as it probably was with the IMF staffer years earlier.   Sorry, in this case it's just not credible.

As I and others have noted it has all the field marks of a familiar pattern:   abuse of power by a powerful man,

If you don't think so, exactly why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 May 11 - 10:08 PM

"AP sources: DNA matches Strauss-Kahn in sex attack"

here

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 May 11 - 10:24 PM

if you care to finger somebody else, please do.

Why should I care to finger anyone?

Or do you think the crime alleged by the maid did not take place?

Like you say, it is an alleged crime. As such it may or may not have taken place.

Do you think she is lying?   Yes or no.

I don't know.

As I and others have noted it has all the field marks of a familiar pattern:   abuse of power by a powerful man,

If you don't think so, exactly why not?

What I don't think is that even if your observations are true, it does not prove guilt.

What I do know is.

I walked home from the pub one night and was arrested walking into town the following morning on suspicion of rape. A young girl had gone into police station that night claiming she had been attacked and raped by a strange. Part of my route was close to the location of the alleged assault.

I guy walking home after a few beers, I bet has all the hallmarks of some sexual assaults? I bet one could even build up my personality profile for a better fit?

Even though she confessed she had made the whole thing up and I was cleared completely, I'll tell you something else Ron. You know there is no smoke without fire is there?

No Ron. Unlike you, I am not prepared to deliver my own verdict of guilt on this. Apart from trying to keep an open mind on this case at the moment, I know only to well what it is like to be falsely accused to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 11 - 10:48 PM

Jon, did you see Bill's post?    I'm sorry you were arrested. I know there are times the police overreact, for instance. But this situation is vastly different from yours--as is becoming ever more clear.

And the thread topic is the connection of Mr. Strauss-Kahn with "American dirty tricks".    Do you perhaps think that American dirty tricks are also responsible for the alliance between the Tories and the Lib-Dems?   And for Tony Blair going along with GWB on Iraq? Etc. Just how paranoid are you--- and others on the Left--- of American power?



Mr. Strauss-Kahn had said that women were one of 3 factors which might keep him from defeating Sarkozy.   He should have cited his own urges.

Most people--including lots of Americans--are willing to accept that the French way of life might well include affairs.    But even the French draw the line at rape.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 May 11 - 10:51 PM

And the thread topic is the connection of Mr. Strauss-Kahn with "American dirty tricks".    Do you perhaps think that American dirty tricks are also responsible for the alliance between the Tories and the Lib-Dems?   And for Tony Blair going along with GWB on Iraq? Etc. Just how paranoid are you--- and others on the Left--- of American power?

You are asking some very strange questions Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 May 11 - 11:04 PM

But to attempt to answer anyway.

I think Tory Lib-Dem was purely our own doing. I voted Lib-Dem and was quite pleased when they were sharing power as I thought they would tame some of the Tory's ideas. I do feel very let down the way it's turned out but I'll probably still vote Lib-Dem next time as I neither fancy Labour or the Tories.

GWB and T Blair. I do believe that we will jump when America says so.

Subject: RE: BS: Strauss-Kahn. American dirty tricks?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 May 11 - 11:10 PM

I'll probably still vote Lib-Dem next time as I neither fancy Labour or the Tories.

That and I'd imagine unlike a number of other lib-dem voters who will probably return to either Lab or Tory, I still hope (probably in vain but...) to break away from the situation of only two parties in the running for first place.