I think they have ceiling fans now that suck up something like 99.8% of all particles in the air, including cigarette smoke.

Originally Posted by Linus

I think they have ceiling fans now that suck up something like 99.8% of all particles in the air, including cigarette smoke.

But doesn't the air sucked up disperse somewhere? Ceiling fans are quite open systems, unless the air is coralled to some filter, I don't know if that device that can remove particulates can be technically called a ceiling fan.

Is it an actual fan that just lifts air and cleans it? That's impressive then. It's like those commercials selling air filtration devices (like the ionic breeze) and they stick the thing in a smoky chamber and watch in real time as the space clears in a manner of minutes.

Originally Posted by Linus

I think they have ceiling fans now that suck up something like 99.8% of all particles in the air, including cigarette smoke.

But doesn't the air sucked up disperse somewhere? Ceiling fans are quite open systems, unless the air is coralled to some filter, I don't know if that device that can remove particulates can be technically called a ceiling fan.

Is it an actual fan that just lifts air and cleans it? That's impressive then. It's like those commercials selling air filtration devices (like the ionic breeze) and they stick the thing in a smoky chamber and watch in real time as the space clears in a manner of minutes.

Originally Posted by Andy '85

Originally Posted by Linus

I think they have ceiling fans now that suck up something like 99.8% of all particles in the air, including cigarette smoke.

But doesn't the air sucked up disperse somewhere? Ceiling fans are quite open systems, unless the air is coralled to some filter, I don't know if that device that can remove particulates can be technically called a ceiling fan.

Is it an actual fan that just lifts air and cleans it? That's impressive then. It's like those commercials selling air filtration devices (like the ionic breeze) and they stick the thing in a smoky chamber and watch in real time as the space clears in a manner of minutes.

Electrostatic filtration is old technology, but it's finaly gotten the public notice it deserves. It's been used by industry for decades. Smokestack scrubbers use this as part of their solution, as do many large building air filtratin systems.

Originally Posted by Andy '85

Originally Posted by Linus

I think they have ceiling fans now that suck up something like 99.8% of all particles in the air, including cigarette smoke.

But doesn't the air sucked up disperse somewhere? Ceiling fans are quite open systems, unless the air is coralled to some filter, I don't know if that device that can remove particulates can be technically called a ceiling fan.

Is it an actual fan that just lifts air and cleans it? That's impressive then. It's like those commercials selling air filtration devices (like the ionic breeze) and they stick the thing in a smoky chamber and watch in real time as the space clears in a manner of minutes.

Electrostatic filtration is old technology, but it's finaly gotten the public notice it deserves. It's been used by industry for decades. Smokestack scrubbers use this as part of their solution, as do many large building air filtratin systems.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by elilevin

They have done in Chicago what is happening in cities with smoking bans across the nation. This is not like prohibition. The Temperance weenies didn't want anybody to drink at all. Non-smokers just want to breath clean air. Smoking bans are not attempts to make society more moral. They are intended to protect the right to breathe of those with allergies and asthma.

I'm with you here. The first degree of change seems correct. A vice that may be harmful to the individuals practicing it is allowed, so long as others are not harmed.

I start to get a bit lost when I wonder if these smoking rooms should be allowed to serve food. If smoking bans include all restaurants, does this imply that while practicing one's vice, one cannot eat?

Not that there aren't other more dire difficulties facing our culture...

Obviously, having a Smoking Area immediately adjacent to a Non-Smoking Area, without even the minimal benefit of a buffer, was a pander to smokers and a bain to the rest of us. But making any accommodation illegal is merely the flip-side of the pander. I say, let smokers have facilties of their own (if they can make a go of them), and non-smokers can enter if they wish.

With so few smokers around these days, these clubs (or whatever they end-up being) should be few and far between. If they take-off, then so be it.

That would work for me, speaking as someone who's never had a cigarette in his life, but does enjoy the occasional fine hand-rolled cigar with a good single malt scotch. Fortunately, Washington State's ban on all indoor smoking doesn't apply across the river in Portland :-).

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by elilevin

They have done in Chicago what is happening in cities with smoking bans across the nation. This is not like prohibition. The Temperance weenies didn't want anybody to drink at all. Non-smokers just want to breath clean air. Smoking bans are not attempts to make society more moral. They are intended to protect the right to breathe of those with allergies and asthma.

I'm with you here. The first degree of change seems correct. A vice that may be harmful to the individuals practicing it is allowed, so long as others are not harmed.

I start to get a bit lost when I wonder if these smoking rooms should be allowed to serve food. If smoking bans include all restaurants, does this imply that while practicing one's vice, one cannot eat?

Not that there aren't other more dire difficulties facing our culture...

Obviously, having a Smoking Area immediately adjacent to a Non-Smoking Area, without even the minimal benefit of a buffer, was a pander to smokers and a bain to the rest of us. But making any accommodation illegal is merely the flip-side of the pander. I say, let smokers have facilties of their own (if they can make a go of them), and non-smokers can enter if they wish.

With so few smokers around these days, these clubs (or whatever they end-up being) should be few and far between. If they take-off, then so be it.

That would work for me, speaking as someone who's never had a cigarette in his life, but does enjoy the occasional fine hand-rolled cigar with a good single malt scotch. Fortunately, Washington State's ban on all indoor smoking doesn't apply across the river in Portland :-).

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I don't think intelligence is the problem.

Indeed. He seems to have many "issues". There was the conflict with his father over FDR, there's the drinking, the Onan.com, perhaps a real estate court case gone bad, the hateful Jesus, his unrequited feelings for Mr. Saari . . .

Need I go on?

If I were a Christian, I would take pity. But said adjective is quite a responsibility, even if some don't understand that. It's one I have not chosen to take on at this time.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I don't think intelligence is the problem.

Indeed. He seems to have many "issues". There was the conflict with his father over FDR, there's the drinking, the Onan.com, perhaps a real estate court case gone bad, the hateful Jesus, his unrequited feelings for Mr. Saari . . .

Need I go on?

If I were a Christian, I would take pity. But said adjective is quite a responsibility, even if some don't understand that. It's one I have not chosen to take on at this time.

Oh my god, they killed capitalism!!! You communist bastard!!!!! :wink:

For discussion purposes only

Mayor of Flint, Michigan wants city-run assembly plant
Jan 20 10:18 AM US/Eastern

As yet another auto plant prepares to shut is doors, the mayor of Flint, Michigan has come up with a radical - and possibly illegal - plan: a city-run assembly plant.

The aim is to bring much-needed jobs to a town that has sunken even further into despair in the 15 years since film maker Michael Moore documented the first round of plant closures by General Motors in his award-winning "Roger and Me".

Boarded-up houses and businesses darken the city's streets. Abandoned lots are choked with weeds and trash. Schools are crumbling. The bright lights of a downtown revitalization program serve merely to highlight the city's empty streets.

It is a scene that is playing out in industrial towns across the nation as manufacturing jobs are shipped to cheaper labor markets overseas. Next week, the despair will spread to more towns when Ford Motor Company announces a slew of plant closures.

But the Flint Mayor Donald Williamson is hopeful.

In his first two years in office he managed to wrest the city from state control by erasing a massive deficit. He's paved the roads and managed to get a fresh slate of city councilors elected who back his sometimes controversial plans.

"We are going to do something different in this city that nobody else has done," Williamson said as he leaned across his wide desk in city hall.

"We will (build) our own manufacturing plants that the city funds," he said. "We are going to specialize in nothing but truck accessories."

There is plenty of factory space available and people who are used to working on the assembly line. And once the city proves the plants can make a profit, buyers are certain to come knocking, Williamson said.

It's not clear if the city would be allowed to run a for-profit enterprise, and many have questioned the rationality of the plan.

"It seems like the private sector ought to be the one developing plants and not the municipality," said Paul Keep, editor of the Flint Journal. "Is this going to take millions and millions of dollars from the Flint treasury?"

When pressed, Williamson refused to offer more details or even say when he plans on submitting his proposal to the city council.

But the fact that he's considering it highlights the desperate times Flint has fallen upon.

"Reality doesn't have a lot to do with what gets promised in Flint," said Albert Price, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan, in Flint.

"Desperate people will believe anything."

Flint has hosted some spectacular failures over the years as the city tried to reverse the tide of job losses, Price said.

There was Autoworld, the failed theme park that closed within six months and cost the city 100 million dollars. Then there was a bid to revitalize the downtown with a festival market place. And an attempt to draw tourists by having the city buy and renovate a downtown hotel.

"Flint is in a desperate condition but it has little to do with Flint in particular," Price said. "Flint has lost more industrial jobs than most cities had."

Flint has always been a GM town and its fortunes have risen and fallen along with those of its main employer.

The northern Michigan town's population peaked in the 1950s at 200,000. But as GM's payroll shrank from 80,000 to its current level of less than 10,000 (including those employed at its former subsidiary, the now bankrupt parts supplier Delphi), so too did Flint.

The 2000 census pegged the population at less than 125,000 and it has declined even further since then as parents flee crumbling schools whose walls are lined with mould.

In November, GM said it would be closing another plant and there are rumors that Delphi will soon lay off thousands more employees. Unemployment in the town is already nearly three times the national average.

"There's a lot of people with a lot of plans and I hope they all work," said Keep of the Flint Journal. "Michigan's economy is broken with all this loss of manufacturing.

"It's a period of adjustment and I don't think we really have a clear idea as to what Michigan will be like. It's unsettling to people."

Oh my god, they killed capitalism!!! You communist bastard!!!!! :wink:

For discussion purposes only

Mayor of Flint, Michigan wants city-run assembly plant
Jan 20 10:18 AM US/Eastern

As yet another auto plant prepares to shut is doors, the mayor of Flint, Michigan has come up with a radical - and possibly illegal - plan: a city-run assembly plant.

The aim is to bring much-needed jobs to a town that has sunken even further into despair in the 15 years since film maker Michael Moore documented the first round of plant closures by General Motors in his award-winning "Roger and Me".

Boarded-up houses and businesses darken the city's streets. Abandoned lots are choked with weeds and trash. Schools are crumbling. The bright lights of a downtown revitalization program serve merely to highlight the city's empty streets.

It is a scene that is playing out in industrial towns across the nation as manufacturing jobs are shipped to cheaper labor markets overseas. Next week, the despair will spread to more towns when Ford Motor Company announces a slew of plant closures.

But the Flint Mayor Donald Williamson is hopeful.

In his first two years in office he managed to wrest the city from state control by erasing a massive deficit. He's paved the roads and managed to get a fresh slate of city councilors elected who back his sometimes controversial plans.

"We are going to do something different in this city that nobody else has done," Williamson said as he leaned across his wide desk in city hall.

"We will (build) our own manufacturing plants that the city funds," he said. "We are going to specialize in nothing but truck accessories."

There is plenty of factory space available and people who are used to working on the assembly line. And once the city proves the plants can make a profit, buyers are certain to come knocking, Williamson said.

It's not clear if the city would be allowed to run a for-profit enterprise, and many have questioned the rationality of the plan.

"It seems like the private sector ought to be the one developing plants and not the municipality," said Paul Keep, editor of the Flint Journal. "Is this going to take millions and millions of dollars from the Flint treasury?"

When pressed, Williamson refused to offer more details or even say when he plans on submitting his proposal to the city council.

But the fact that he's considering it highlights the desperate times Flint has fallen upon.

"Reality doesn't have a lot to do with what gets promised in Flint," said Albert Price, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan, in Flint.

"Desperate people will believe anything."

Flint has hosted some spectacular failures over the years as the city tried to reverse the tide of job losses, Price said.

There was Autoworld, the failed theme park that closed within six months and cost the city 100 million dollars. Then there was a bid to revitalize the downtown with a festival market place. And an attempt to draw tourists by having the city buy and renovate a downtown hotel.

"Flint is in a desperate condition but it has little to do with Flint in particular," Price said. "Flint has lost more industrial jobs than most cities had."

Flint has always been a GM town and its fortunes have risen and fallen along with those of its main employer.

The northern Michigan town's population peaked in the 1950s at 200,000. But as GM's payroll shrank from 80,000 to its current level of less than 10,000 (including those employed at its former subsidiary, the now bankrupt parts supplier Delphi), so too did Flint.

The 2000 census pegged the population at less than 125,000 and it has declined even further since then as parents flee crumbling schools whose walls are lined with mould.

In November, GM said it would be closing another plant and there are rumors that Delphi will soon lay off thousands more employees. Unemployment in the town is already nearly three times the national average.

"There's a lot of people with a lot of plans and I hope they all work," said Keep of the Flint Journal. "Michigan's economy is broken with all this loss of manufacturing.

"It's a period of adjustment and I don't think we really have a clear idea as to what Michigan will be like. It's unsettling to people."

Social trust among peers is beginning to rebuild in America.

“A PERSON LIKE ME” NOW MOST CREDIBLE SPOKESPERSON FOR COMPANIES; TRUST IN EMPLOYEES SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN IN CEOS, EDELMAN TRUST BAROMETER FINDS

Survey Shows Microsoft as Most Trusted Global Company and Technology Most Trusted Sector; Television, Not Newspapers, Loses Ground to Internet as Trusted Source

January 23, 2006, New York — Global opinion leaders say their most credible source of information about a company is now “a person like me,” which has risen dramatically to surpass doctors and academic experts for the first time, according to the seventh annual Edelman Trust Barometer, a survey of nearly 2,000 opinion leaders in 11 countries. In the U.S., trust in “a person like me” increased from 20% in 2003 to 68% today. Opinion leaders also consider rank-and-file employees more credible spokespersons than corporate CEOs (42% vs. 28% in the U.S.).

The Edelman Trust Barometer found Microsoft Corporation the most trusted global company, followed by iconic companies in their home markets, including Toyota in Japan, Haier in China, Samsung in South Korea, and Petrobras in Brazil.

“We have reached an important juncture, where the lack of trust in established institutions and figures of authority has motivated people to trust their peers as the best sources of information about a company,” said Richard Edelman, president and CEO, Edelman. “Companies need to move away from sole reliance on top-down messages delivered to elites toward fostering peer-to-peer dialogue among consumers and employees, activating a company’s most credible advocates.”

This year’s survey assesses the impact on trust of a company’s national origin, industry sector, behaviors and communications policies. Key findings, which are being presented this week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, include:
# Opinion leaders in Europe apply a significant “trust discount” for major U.S. brands, such as Coca-Cola (U.S.= 65% vs. Europe= 41%); McDonalds (51% vs. 30%); P&G (70% vs. 44%); and UPS (84% vs. 53%). There is no “trust discount” for non-American global brands operating in the U.S. or any other market (e.g. Sony = 74% in Japan, and 79% in the U.S.), with the exception of Japanese brands in China.

# Western based companies continue to make big strides in winning trust in the Chinese market. Big gainers this year included Citigroup, Procter & Gamble, Shell, Unilever and UPS, all now rated trustworthy by more than 75% of Chinese respondents, and up from under 50% two years ago.

# German and Canadian companies are highly regarded by more than 70% of opinion leaders in every market surveyed. Less than 40% of opinion leaders expressed trust in global companies headquartered in emerging markets such as China and India, as well as in Korea. Such companies face particular trust deficits when seeking to buy companies in overseas markets.

# Companies in the technology and retail sectors are the most trusted, while energy and media-entertainment are the least-trusted industries. Pharmaceutical concerns face considerable skepticism in the U.S. and Germany, while financial firms fare much better in the U.S. and Asia than in Europe.

# Television is the big loser in media trustworthiness with the rise of the Internet. When asked where they turn first for trustworthy information, 29% of respondents in the U.S. still cite TV first, down from 39% three years ago. The Internet is now cited by 19%, up from 10% in 2003. The same trend is evident in the U.K., where television has declined from 42% to 33% as respondents’ first choice, while the Internet has risen from 5% to 15%. Newspapers, which are often thought to be the most serious casualty of the Internet wave, show rankings essentially unchanged in most markets at approximately 20%. Newspapers remain the first trusted medium of choice for respondents in France, Germany, Japan, Brazil, Korea, and Italy.

# “Articles in business magazines” is the most credible source of information about a company (US = 66%, Canada = 53%; Brazil = 75% Europe = 60%), followed closely by “friends and family,” which has grown very strongly in the U.S. (‘03=35% vs. ’06=58%); Brazil (‘04=66 vs. ‘06=73%) and Canada (‘05=43% vs. ‘06=58%).

# Trust has important bottom-line consequences. In most markets, more than 80% say they would refuse to buy goods or services from a company they do not trust, and more than 70% will “criticize them to people they know,” with one-third sharing their opinions and experiences of a distrusted company on the Web.

# Trust in institutions overall is lowest in Germany and France, and highest in China, Brazil and the U.S. Business was trusted by only 33% of respondents in Germany, and only 28% in France, vs. 45% in Spain, 51% in Italy and 53% in the U.K. (Comparable figures for the U.S. and China are 49% and 56%, respectively.) Government is the least-trusted institution in Brazil, Spain, Germany, and South Korea, and remains low in the U.S. (38%), UK (33%), France (32%), and Canada (36%). It has increased in China (83%, up from 63% in ’05) and Japan (66%, up from 43% in ’05). Trust in media is low across all countries except for China (73%) and South Korea (49%).

# Trust in Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which have consistently been the most-trusted institution in Europe during the six years that the survey has been conducted, has steadily increased in the U.S. (‘01=36%, ’06=54%); and increased significantly in the last 12 months in Canada (’05=45%, ‘06=57%) and Japan (’05=43%, ’06=66%). Despite the survey asking for only trusted global companies, many respondents volunteered NGOs such as the Red Cross in France and the UK and Greenpeace in Germany were also frequently mentioned. NGOs are now the most-trusted institution in every market except Japan and Brazil. The widespread rise in trust of NGOs has now extended to Asia, especially in China, where ratings went from 36% to 60% in last 12 months.


“Trust is the key objective for global companies today because it underpins corporate reputation and gives them license to operate,” said Michael Deaver, Vice Chairman, Edelman. “To build trust, companies need to localize communications, be transparent, and engage multiple stakeholders continuously as advocates across a broad array of communications channels.

Originally Posted by The Rani

But my question for you is this .... is there anything that he could do that would ever make you NOT approve of him? Short of losing elections, of course. :wink:

If I may be excused for rudely answering a question not addressed to me...

I clearly recall at least a couple of occasions where Marc expressed disapproval of the president's and/or his party leadership's actions (but, more's the pity, I am far too lazy to dig up the cites for them...). At the same time, frequently explicitly, he poses the question, "Is the alternative any better?".

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by The Rani

But my question for you is this .... is there anything that he could do that would ever make you NOT approve of him? Short of losing elections, of course. :wink:

If I may be excused for rudely answering a question not addressed to me...

I clearly recall at least a couple of occasions where Marc expressed disapproval of the president's and/or his party leadership's actions (but, more's the pity, I am far too lazy to dig up the cites for them...). At the same time, frequently explicitly, he poses the question, "Is the alternative any better?".

I remember this too. He was not happy over a farm subsidy bill. He was also unhappy about No Child Left Behind. Marc, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this.

I thot I felt my ear twitch a bit. Ya'all are talkin' 'bout me! 8)

From mid-2002, to just before the Iraq War, I was livid with the Bush Administration. And I expressed my displeasure in these forums. NCLB didn't bother me all that much because it was one of the things Bush campaigned on in 2000. But the steel tariff bill (since repealed), the enlarging the Medicaid entitlement and other spending nonsense baffled me. But it was Bush signing the McCain/Feingold CFR bill that almost literally spun me out of the Bush camp.

Liberals, bless their hearts, made sure I was to remain a Bushlicker, however. Especially those posting these forums. The enemy of mine enemy is my friend, goes the saying. Liberalism is mine enemy. The Bush Administration, as evidenced by liberals near hysterical hatred of Bush, has still proven to be "the enemy of mine enemy" for many other reasons that a few spending bills.

After all, there are some things more important than money, eh? :wink:

Sheesh! 8)

On another forum-related topic, is anyone following the Enron trial? Lay and Skilling's attorneys could give lessons to Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. They gave ringing opening statements, but the first witnesses certainly make it sound like those jokers don't have one leg to stand on between them. I shall be interested to hear more.

David K '47

p.s. Anyone remember Samuel Insull?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

On another forum-related topic, is anyone following the Enron trial? Lay and Skilling's attorneys could give lessons to Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. They gave ringing opening statements, but the first witnesses certainly make it sound like those jokers don't have one leg to stand on between them. I shall be interested to hear more.

David K '47

p.s. Anyone remember Samuel Insull?

Yep. I will note that he lost his fortune, something that doesn't happen anymore.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

On another forum-related topic, is anyone following the Enron trial? Lay and Skilling's attorneys could give lessons to Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. They gave ringing opening statements, but the first witnesses certainly make it sound like those jokers don't have one leg to stand on between them. I shall be interested to hear more.

David K '47

p.s. Anyone remember Samuel Insull?

Maybe Lay needs to pay some African-American ministers to pray in the corner of the court room like Scrushy did at HealthSouth. I wish I were kidding! :shock:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I thot I felt my ear twitch a bit. Ya'all are talkin' 'bout me! 8)

From mid-2002, to just before the Iraq War, I was livid with the Bush Administration. And I expressed my displeasure in these forums. NCLB didn't bother me all that much because it was one of the things Bush campaigned on in 2000. But the steel tariff bill (since repealed), the enlarging the Medicaid entitlement and other spending nonsense baffled me. But it was Bush signing the McCain/Feingold CFR bill that almost literally spun me out of the Bush camp.

Liberals, bless their hearts, made sure I was to remain a Bushlicker, however. Especially those posting these forums. The enemy of mine enemy is my friend, goes the saying. Liberalism is mine enemy. The Bush Administration, as evidenced by liberals near hysterical hatred of Bush, has still proven to be "the enemy of mine enemy" for many other reasons that a few spending bills.

After all, there are some things more important than money, eh? :wink:

Hey, I'm a liberal and I was posting at these forums circa 2002, which is how I remember that you were ticked with Bush.

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I thot I felt my ear twitch a bit. Ya'all are talkin' 'bout me! 8)

From mid-2002, to just before the Iraq War, I was livid with the Bush Administration. And I expressed my displeasure in these forums. NCLB didn't bother me all that much because it was one of the things Bush campaigned on in 2000. But the steel tariff bill (since repealed), the enlarging the Medicaid entitlement and other spending nonsense baffled me. But it was Bush signing the McCain/Feingold CFR bill that almost literally spun me out of the Bush camp.

Liberals, bless their hearts, made sure I was to remain a Bushlicker, however. Especially those posting these forums. The enemy of mine enemy is my friend, goes the saying. Liberalism is mine enemy. The Bush Administration, as evidenced by liberals near hysterical hatred of Bush, has still proven to be "the enemy of mine enemy" for many other reasons that a few spending bills.

After all, there are some things more important than money, eh? :wink:

Hey, I'm a liberal and I was posting at these forums circa 2002, which is how I remember that you were ticked with Bush.

I suspect many conservatives are "ticked with Bush" even now, if only because he's blown the national budget out of the water. Many would jump at the chance to vote for a candidate from a different party... if they felt there was an alternative to the Republicans that was, in their eyes, credible.

Weren't there enough people ticked at Bush I to allow Ross Perot to get into the fray and split the vote? Would it be possible that another viable third party or independent candidtate could be in the mix for 2008, and if so, any idea at this point as to who that could be?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Weren't there enough people ticked at Bush I to allow Ross Perot to get into the fray and split the vote? Would it be possible that another viable third party or independent candidate could be in the mix for 2008, and if so, any idea at this point as to who that could be?

At this point, it is hard getting enthusiastic about one candidate in each major party, let alone coming up with a second candidate who could gather enough enthusiasm for a viable independent run.

It is plausible that the Republican establishment could push a crony capitalist canidate out of the current administration, and McCain might get disgusted enough to go independent. Still, he didn't do it last time around. I know of no reason to expect he'd do it next time.

There is always Nader on the progressive side, but after his last performance, I don't think he ought to bother.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Weren't there enough people ticked at Bush I to allow Ross Perot to get into the fray and split the vote? Would it be possible that another viable third party or independent candidate could be in the mix for 2008, and if so, any idea at this point as to who that could be?

At this point, it is hard getting enthusiastic about one candidate in each major party, let alone coming up with a second candidate who could gather enough enthusiasm for a viable independent run.

It's not a question of enthusiasm; it's a question of money. Nobody that doesn't have $100,000,000 in the bank right now has a chance of making enough of an independent run that the MSM will even notice him.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It is plausible that the Republican establishment could push a crony capitalist canidate out of the current administration, and McCain might get disgusted enough to go independent. Still, he didn't do it last time around. I know of no reason to expect he'd do it next time.

McCain is a loyal Republican. If he didn't leave the party after the abominable personal attacks in 2000, he won't leave it now. He'd also be older in 2008 than Reagan was in 1980. Nope, no Silent President, ever.

Can president order killing on US soil?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11180519/site/newsweek