Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / USA, Canada  % width 79


Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446  
21 May 2008 /  #1
Which of the three main candidates, Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama, vying for the Democratic Party nomination, and the presumed Republican hopeful, John McCain do you think will better serve the interests of the Polish-American community (US Polonia). Why do you think so?

Some say that most Polish Americans have made the transition into the middle class and do not perceive themselves as a separate electorate with specific needs. Others contend that there are issues of interest to many Polsh Americans which include:

• Immigration-law reform enabling Polish immigrants to obtain legal status – permanent residence or US citizenship;
• Ensuring more Federal Government appointments, including cabinet posts, for Polish Americans;
• Vigorous prosecution of anti-Polonism through the creation of a special Polish anti-defamation unit at the US State Department similar to that which now monitors anti-Semitism world.wide;

• Support for basic family values, including pro-life principles, the traditonal family headed by married heterosexual parents, religious upbringing and high standards of public morality;
• More student, academic and cultural exchange programs with Poland;
• Increased American military aid for Poland in exchange for its agreement to host parts of the US anti-missile shield on Polish territory.
• Increasing business opportunities for Polish companies in the United States;
• Making good on the F-16 offset program, whereby the US pledged to promote investments in Poland in exchange for Poland’s purchase of F-16 jet fighter planes;

• Inclusion of Poland in the visa-waiver program, enabling Poles to visit the US without having to apply for an American visa; the US is now the only NATO country that still discriminates Poles in this way.
Kaczor Duck 2 | 95  
21 May 2008 /  #2
John Mccain,
he is for guest worker program that will document workers (illegals). He is a moderate, and has the experience to get it done. I dont care for him as my republican nominee, I am much more conservative, but Barak is all about himself and his greatness, and Hillary will not make nomination. barak is only interested in getting his own agenda thru which has involved calling anyone racist if they disagree with him, one thing I can not and have deplored is a candidate always pushing the race card. He hurt hiimself with his comments about religion and gun owners and is loosing alot of blue collar workers who are hard working and are religious and like their guns. Really John mccain, though is not my preference is the only choice for Poland. I have written his campain about this issue. George Bush started this missle defense, so john will see it thru.
JohnP - | 210  
22 May 2008 /  #3
+1 KD;
I really don't like ANY of the candidates all that much. If backed against a wall and forced to choose between the 3, I would rate them McCain, Clinton, and Obama, in that order, with McCain and Clinton being quite similar in my opinion. All of them are just saying what they think will get them elected. Once in power, as we all know with all politicians, things change.

While the U.S. has Chicago, which some account as having more Poles than any city in Poland herself with the exception of perhaps Warsaw...I do think the visa waiver issue needs to be looked at closer for Poland.

I can't ever remember anyone I know going on a mission with Mexican troops at their sides, after all...I CAN remember POLISH troops with us, and it is something I think should not be forgotten.

Unfortunately, when politicians here make promises about "citizenship" and all those other promises...they are pandering typically to the illegal immigrants who have swarmed in by the millions at the US borders, and are even illegally voting in some areas not requiring identification. Not Poles and others who have overstayed visas. Not enough of them voting I guess.

Doesn't make it right. Right now, with the set up and political bias of our media, a real leader wouldn't make it two steps in a U.S. election, IMHO. And if he did, he or she wouldn't get much coverage.

John P.
plk123 8 | 4,148  
22 May 2008 /  #4
i think mccain isbad for everybody right now.
i don't think BO will be elected.
so leaves us with HC. hmm.. she needs a backroom miracle to move on. things aren't looking good.

i think america is going to have to look inward for a while to recover from shrubco's 8 years.

- i am against any kind of amnesties and such. you brake the law, no reward for that for you. illegal has a meaning and it's pretty simple one too. NO.

- these next two go together, more gov posts for 'poles' would mean that there were 'poles' for those posts. poles haven't traditionally taken up politics in great numbers here so, no. same thing about anti-polonia thing.. there isn't really any anti-polish discrimination going on so i think you're looking to stir sh.t up and that's unnecessary.

- some poles may be pro life and anti gay but many aren't. i am against any and all restrictions on personal freedoms so anyone trying to take my rights away wouldn't be getting my support. i'm all for family values but my values aren't necessarily the same as everyone else's so, NO again, government isn't in the business to police morality. that's done in countries like iran, ksa, libya, -stans...

- the rest big YES except for the last one.
- visa waiver should be looked and analyzed from time to time but i like the way it is now. there is a reason why there isn't a waiver programme in place and once those issues are overcome then i have no reason to believe that the waiver program would be instituted. those issues aren't really created by america although US could be more sympathetic but it's not in US' best interests right now to do that. have to understand that too.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389  
24 May 2008 /  #5

What are you crazy?...Poland is not Israel...none of these things will happen...What does Barrack Obama know about Poland or Polish-Americans?...he probably knows that Poles make kielbasa...He does live in Chicago...Hillary?...she knows a bit more,

since she is from Chicago, too, and her father used to do some 'work' for former Congressman Dan Rostenkowski...McCain?...c'mon now!...he thinks a 'Pole' is something you look at to see how your campaign is going.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446  
25 May 2008 /  #6
John P. could you get in touch by email pelase:
Crow 160 | 10,261  
25 May 2008 /  #7
let me warn my Polish sisters and brothers

USA isn`t democratic state
southern 75 | 7,096  
25 May 2008 /  #8
Mc Cain is Bush no.2.He will not make for Poland more than his precessor.Hillary may protect the rights of women in Poland if she manages to find it on map.

Obama,well maybe if he comes to Poland incognito may hear some sweet words.
So everyone is the same according to polish interests.(till Brzezynski goes for president).
Crow 160 | 10,261  
27 May 2008 /  #9
i have two very interesting articles in case with incoming USA ellections and candidates

American Poles and all Americans of Slavic origin, please read it and think twice before you vote on ellections! Thanks in the name of pregnant woman and babies of Serbia that were killed by NATO...


Into the Bosnian Quagmire
By Justin Raimondo

part one:

part two:

a fragments from text...

This is an excerpt from a pamphlet published in 1996, Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans. We republish it now, in successive installments, because the rise of Barack Obama as the putative Democratic presidential candidate augurs the rise of a new liberal internationalism - the very same sort of policy that led us to bomb Belgrade,...

This was deemed a "humanitarian intervention": we were told that the Serbs were "ethnically cleansing" the Kosovars from their own territory, and that tens of thousands had been slaughtered. As is the case with other more recent military actions, it all turned out to be a crock: the tens of thousands dead shrunk to a few thousand, including victims from both sides in what was, after all, a civil war.

celinski 31 | 1,258  
27 May 2008 /  #10
This is the first time that I can say, my vote is still in the air. Like most everyone else I want whats best for the country and yet we really don't have the best of choices.
janekb - | 57  
27 May 2008 /  #11
Did you ever had any. Two entrenched "parties", one needs a magnifying glass to distinguish between them. The whole American electoral system, is a dumbed down personality contest played on the TV. Would it be a simple test (literacy) required there would be no voters. Two franchises highjacked the system from the begining, political system as designed by Madison is set up to protect ownership. Education system (from the grade schools to top universties) serves to train workers not thinkers. Despite that there are exceptionally gifted people (Chomsky, and to the lesser exend Nader) nobody knows they exist. The only rational solution is to ignore it, participation only legitimizes this sham.

All of the sudden the medical coverage became the discussed issue, the reason is that it became too expensive for emloyers to provide coverage they promised to their workers (and retarees) when tines were good. Now the big guys decided that it would be to their advantage to share the cost with the rest of the population. The present top moron and his cronies purposely drain treasury so even the most basic social programs are being eliminated.

On the top of it Iraq quagmire no matter who wins no way out of it. Welcome to the new word, when there were Soviets everything was simple. Big business would not dare to invest anywhere else for threat of rebellion and possible nationalization of assets. Now it is safe to go anywhere, now US workers are competing with the whole world, expect wages to match skills worldwide.

You guys in the US should not be talking about elections but running away, some of you are fortunate to be able to claim Polish citizenship, although Poland is more and more like the US. New Zealand looks better.
plk123 8 | 4,148  
27 May 2008 /  #12
ignoring the system does not lead to change.
janekb - | 57  
28 May 2008 /  #13
With age I realized that there is a beauty in acceptance of stats quo and cowardice. I learned to carve myself a space and ignore the rest. I try to be helpful toward my friends and family. I try to be honest in my personal dealings. Expecting little from others assures that I am not often disapointed. I am not considered to be selfish but in essence I am.
plk123 8 | 4,148  
28 May 2008 /  #14
the man got your spirit janek. that is not good.
for yourself ok but the next generations is what we have to think of too. it can't be going down the hill, everyone has to speak up and work for the good things.

this is going to be an interesting election for sure. judging by last couple of elections we are probably screwed.
Crow 160 | 10,261  
2 Jun 2008 /  #15
Found something very disturbing... Next President of USA could be KLA (islamic terrorists) lover?

John McCain armed Kosovo Islamic terrorists

February 13, 2008
Source: Svet

"He did everything that we asked of him, including arming the KLA", said Albanian lobbyist Joe DioGuardi.


Albanian lobbyist Joe DioGuardi stands left of McCain

In April of that year, three weeks after the bombing commenced, he announced that the US is in danger of losing the war to the Serbian Army which has "antiquated machinery" and "absolutely no military air power", if massive strategic air attacks are not initiated. "Attacks on any infrastructure target must not be prevented. We all regret civilian losses, as well as our own, but they cannot be avoided," he said.

Zgubiony 15 | 1,554  
2 Jun 2008 /  #16
The chances of him being elected are slim.
Crow 160 | 10,261  
2 Jun 2008 /  #17
plk123 8 | 4,148  
2 Jun 2008 /  #18
The chances of him being elected are slim.

what? he'll beat BO hands down man. too much bigotry flying about. mark my words.
Franek 8 | 271  
2 Jun 2008 /  #19
As for me. I am staying home. There is not one of them that is fit to be President.
janekb - | 57  
2 Jun 2008 /  #20
what? he'll beat BO hands down man. too much bigotry flying about. mark my words.

You are very right, I am not American, but for what I know no red blooded Joe will vote for a black nor for a woman. Clinton, however gifted, if elected president will do her best to prove that she is tougher than any man, thats why she is still running while having no chance, and this in itself could be very dangerous would she be a president. The reason she still hangs in is to prepare for the next one proving how risilient and tough she is.

Unless McCain stops taking Prozac and blows up, he is your next.
Crow 160 | 10,261  
2 Jun 2008 /  #21
i am affraid of USA.
Babinich 1 | 455  
2 Jun 2008 /  #22
The chances of him being elected are slim.

I assume you're speaking of John McCain. If that is the case I wouldn't be too sure that Barak Obama is a shoe in.
Zgubiony 15 | 1,554  
3 Jun 2008 /  #23
Of course not, but people see GWB within McCain and that's a scary thought to most.

i am affraid of USA.

You should be ;)
randompal 7 | 306  
3 Jun 2008 /  #24
Of course not, but people see GWB within McCain and that's a scary thought to most.

Doesn't matter. The corporations in charge (military-industrial complex, banks, oil) have perfected their use of the media to the point that even you, yes YOU, will be in love with McCain by November. How else do you explain the media show in 2004, where Kerry, a decorated war vet, was made out to be some drug-crazed coward who wouldn't go near the front lines, and Bush - who is a certified draft dodger - ended up looking like a war hero. Hint: It's the television. Turn it off. Ignore it. And believe half of what you read in the papers. Remember what Goebbels said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes the truth."
Dice 15 | 452  
3 Jun 2008 /  #25
In a couple of hours, maybe even minutes, Obama will have the required amount of pledged delegates to seal the Democratic primary nomination. The question is now will Obama pick Hillary for VP? If he does, I hope his security will check and then double check every drink and food he eats for poison. Just in case, that's all.

i am affraid of USA.

You should be. We are coming for you, Crow.
LOL Just kidding.
But seriously, we're coming for you, Crow.

There we go. Hillary is conceding right now, check out your CNN. Or at least this is what Hillary's speech sounds like at the moment - you never know with Hillary :)

i am affraid of USA.

Seriously, we are coming for you, Crow.
JohnP - | 210  
3 Jun 2008 /  #27
I think many people are misled here. Again (got to love our networks here in the USA) they parade mediocre leaders, traitors, and/or blatant narcissists in front of the American people-men and women who we would not trust to run a large corporation if the stockholders are meant not to starve-then they tell us the choices are between a White man, a black/mix man, and a white woman.

The networks see only color or gender and are not concerned with substance. The people on the other hand, are starved for information and get little or nothing more than soundbites. Obama is for "change," while more and more disturbing affiliations turn up which seem a bit more than coincidental. Clinton(although she is apparently out of the run now for the top) is just as narcissistic as Obama is, and apparently was in shock that the nomination was not handed to her on a silver platter. Would she sell her soul AND her country to stay there? McCain has ridden the coattails of his survival of a terrible ordeal 30 years ago in areas which IMHO may or may not have anything to do with his potential quality as a president. Not to mention he has an uncomfortable record of "reaching across party lines" which makes people worry he is not who he is portrayed to be.

The Democratic party machine has whipped up a rock star-like frenzy for its potential candidates with little information on what their actual platform(s) would be, and the Republican party has missed the point altogether. Republican candidates of late seem (to me) to be distancing themselves from conservatives, forgetting that conservatives were the majority of who voted them in. This will be taken as a betrayal-as a candidate purporting to be supportive of one's values who after being elected does completely the opposite....well, just say a lot of former Republicans are now just calling themselves "conservatives," as the party has left them.

It has nothing to do with race, gender, or skin color, except with an extremely small minority, and everything to do with the fact the candidates are either mediocre, cannot be trusted, and or are potential time bombs.

Imagine being offered three different cars on a car lot. One of them has an engine that misses, the next doesn't have a steering wheel, and the last no brakes.

Based on the color, which would you choose?

Exactly the choice we are being given right now. I feel the people who should be running either are not or backed down to let the media-darling party hacks go for it.

Bush was bad enough. These three look just as bad, perhaps much worse.

We just want a candidate who, as president, will fight for us-rather than "magnanimously" bowing to the opposition's whim later. If involved in a lawsuit, or maybe a divorce or some other tough battle, would you like an attorney who soon after being hired, shows what a "great man" he is by giving half your things to the other side? NO!!! it is the same with presidential candidates, but they seem to forget this and get absorbed into their own greatness. Meanwhile, forgetting the regular people who got them there.

John P.
plk123 8 | 4,148  
3 Jun 2008 /  #28
It has nothing to do with race, gender, or skin color, except with an extremely small minority,

you're way wrong on that man. what other flag flies on the SC capital besides the palm tree one?

"Racial Resentment Index"

besides he's so left that it's not funny.

Based on the color, which would you choose?

hey, i agree with you but that doesn't mean that what you're saying is the way it is. imho of course
Crow 160 | 10,261  
4 Jun 2008 /  #29
Seriously, we are coming for you, Crow.

you were here two times already

first, on the end of WWII, USA aviation bombarderd Serbian civilian targets without no reason (we were on the same side/in alliance- against Nazis)

then, in 1999. many civilian died again.
southern 75 | 7,096  
4 Jun 2008 /  #30
three different cars on a car lot. One of them has an engine that misses, the next doesn't have a steering wheel, and the last no brakes.

Good comparison.
Engine that misses-Mc Cain
No steering wheel-Clinton
No brakes-Obama

Anyway my opinion is that Obama will win because he is better public speaker than the rest and he knows the techniques to win arguments.US population is now largely educated(70% have college degrees),so it is easy for Obama to appeal to them.

Of course the average american IQ is 99,so Obama with a higher IQ may pass as far too smart for president,elitist,arrogant etc,however since the IQ is lowered mainly by the black population(IQ 85) which supports Obama for racial reasons and the latin population(IQ 88) which also sees Obama with sympathy as a mixed,Obama can win the intellectual part of the white audience as well,that is whites with IQ over 110 are very likely to vote for him because he is intellectually more advanced than the other candidates without being so much intellectual that he loses the ground.He is the golden mediocricy of intellectual but he seems much more intellectual than the other candidates.

So they have no chance to beat him on debates.He will win all debates because he knows all kinds of arguments as law proffessor.

In order to beat Obama you would need sb like Sarkozy a more hardcore intellectual,european style.Now there is practically no counterbalance for him.

If he were white and said exactly the same things,he would never get the black or latino vote.He would seem as arrogant,elitist white.Now he gets them because he is coloured.

Archives - 2005-2009 / USA, Canada / POLISH AMERICANS AND THE 2008 US ELECTIONArchived