“I thought we were friends,” said the blindsided
Republican Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming
He was speaking of Liz
Cheney, who has decided her ambitions require her taking Enzi’s job.
When asked about
Cheney’s aspirations to the Senate, Enzi stated, “Well, she said that if I ran
she wasn’t going to run, but obviously that wasn’t correct.”
Chalk up another sap who
learned the hard way what friendship with a Cheney entails. It could be worse.
At least he wasn’t shot in the face like Harry Whittington. And he wasn't convicted of obstruction of justice, covering up Dick's "fair game" outing of a CIA operative, like Scooter Libby was.
The price of a Cheney's “friendship” can be steep.
At least he wasn’t shot in the face like Harry Whittington. And he wasn't convicted of obstruction of justice, covering up Dick's "fair game" outing of a CIA operative, like Scooter Libby was.
The price of a Cheney's “friendship” can be steep.
Ever the “compassionate
conservative”, Liz explains, “I think Sen. Enzi may be confused.” Or perhaps,
as she’s also suggested, he’s “too old”.
Well maybe, Liz, since Reagan was the same age as Enzi when he was elected president.
Well maybe, Liz, since Reagan was the same age as Enzi when he was elected president.
I’m afraid the
conclusions are narrowed to three possibilities:
1. Liz Cheney is a treacherous
liar.
2. Senator Enzi is
“confused”.
3. The Republicans are
both liars and confused.
I’m guessing the blame
falls on the poor Senator, because as we all know, Cheneys never lie.
Posts
105 comments:
I am baffled why Democrats are suddenly so concerned with Mike Enzi's political career.
Why do you care? All I can think of, is that you believe Dick is Satan incarnate and anyone even related to him MUST PAY.
Also, I think Democrats are terrified by gay Republicans, even more so than they are terrified by black Republicans.
Oh I guess it is Mary Chaney who is gay, and Liz is not.
Ah well, shows how much I care about the progeny of Dick Cheney. My question still stands... why do you care? Why care enough about Dick Cheney to know by heart the names and sexual orientations of his children.
Its a little stalker creepy really.
Democrats are terrified of being democrats. Most of them have been feeding at the same corporate trough as republicans.
a little stalker creepy really
Yet you know the same about Hillary Clinton... creepy. LOL!
Absurd, hypocritical projection aside, Spawn of Evil is often continuation of evil.
You know damn well the Big Dick is responsible for the permanent war/police state as much as anyone. Ask him about PRISM. Just a continuation of his way of thinking.
She worked in the Bush Administration, was a FOX(R) propagandist, and now wants to take a senate seat from a fellow Republican, who thought she was a friend.
Over and beyond these reasons to notice this privileged, arrogant authoritarian woman, is the fact she is carrying Daddy Dick's extremist, deceptive, and disastrous neocon virus.
No wonder your hero Rand Paul said of Enzi, “I’ve told him I’ll do anything I can to help him.”
free0352, I googled to find out who the gay daughter is. If you are going to throw out generalities about politics, at least get your facts straight. Misinformation like this just causes your other comments to be questioned as to accuracy.
The only Cheney news I want to hear is that he is in prison for his various crimes.
If you are going to throw out generalities about politics, at least get your facts straight
Go back and look at my 10:39 comment.
Dave,
The SPAWN OF EVIL. Wow, you really said that...
What I see, is you judge this person based on who her father was, not who she is.
What does that say about you?
What I see, is you judge this person based on who her father was, not who she is.
Then there's a problem with your vision. "What you see" says a lot about you.
I don't judge her sister at all.
If Liz Cheney is the "Spawn of the Devil," wouldn't that also make Mary Cheney also the Spawn of the Devil? After all, they have the same parents and we all know how you feel about Dick.
I can't speak intelligently as to what voting district Mary C. lives in... but what do you bet she'll be voting for her sister if she can?
But that brings up my other question, why are you suddenly so concerned with Mike Enzi's career?
Probably only because you hate the Cheney family. That's why. Just admit it Dave and cut the bullshit. Cheney is your boogie man and you hate anything tied to the man, including his children and likely his grandchildren.
You can't read very well, can you?
"Spawn of Evil is often continuation of evil."
Did I say always? No. But the view from the far Right bubble distorts reality, as evidenced so well by everything you say.
So it's bullshit for me to oppose Cheney because she's a neocon, but its OK for Rand Paul to oppose her for the same reason.
OK. More typical Right Wing double standards.
Your problem is you need to find something, anything, to personally attack me, instead of discussing the issue. This is also typical Right Wing behavior. Gotta demonize us "commie America-hating liberals". Gotta oppose voting rights and restrict the exercise of democracy. Gotta eliminate workers rights to bargaining for wages and working conditions. Gotta make America safe for corporate rule.
You just can't help it.
Now tell us why Rand Paul is wrong to oppose Lizzy? Go ahead, speak to the issues...for a change.
A very real possibility observed by Digby:
She's really running for president, guys
The truth here is that both parties are imperialist to some degree with a few weak naysayers on the fringes of their coalitions, traditional peaceniks on the left and Rand Paul libertarians on the right.
And while it's true that Cheney's foreign policy vision may not be particularly important in a Wyoming race, it's extremely important to her as a presidential (probably anti-Hillary) candidate. (Or perhaps a Vice-presidential candidate --- Daddy's proven that it can be the most powerful office in the land.) The point is that she's not running for the Senate, not really. This is her first step in running for national office. And when that happens I predict her foreign policy views, not Rand Paul's, will be a selling point among the Republicans. The Democratic Party will try valiantly to party like it's 2006 and pretend that she's beyond the pale but they will be hit in the face with kill lists, drone strikes and NSA surveillance, which the Dem standard bearer will undoubtedly be defending as a sign that he or she is as hardcore as any Republican. Should be a lot of fun.
As I noted: "Democrats are terrified of being democrats."
OK for Rand Paul to oppose her for the same reason.
What specific policy decision do you have an issue with? You haven't mentioned one. Not one.
Just who her dad is.
I don't care for Barack Obama, but it isn't because of who his father is. I mention very specific things he's done in government I find to be bad policy based on my own judgement.
The most you mentioned here about Liz Cheney is some GOP party gossip. Really? That's what you care about?
Now run along and Google some of her policy positions to find a few you disagree with (I'm sure there are a few) so you can front that it was her policy stances all along and nothing to do with blanket hating a family.
Your problem is you need to find something, anything, to personally attack me
Well I hate to say it Dave, but people like you are the problem with America. Or more specifically, the policies your people support. Its destroying this country.
Doesn't make you evil anymore than a person who makes bad decisions with credit cards is evil. As in not EVIL, just... wrong, and possessing poor judgement. And because you're not evil, I don't hate you folks. You can't say the same. Its clear to me Dave, you think people who support free market economic policy and limited government are evil. That goes for Neo-Cons like Cheney who want to defend America. You aren't simply disagreeing with Dick, you're not saying "You know I want to defend America too, but I think your strategy is wrong." No, you're just like most liberal progressives. You've turned the man into Satan incarnate. You hate the man, his wife, his kids, and anyone who ever said anything nice about him.
So that deserves to be pointed out, and you can cry its a personal attack all you want. It's also the truth. Maybe you should look at yourself and assess if this politics thing is really about policy and what's good for the country in your heart or if it's really just your personal nihilistic-rage at someone you have an irrational hatred for.
Just say'n.
As for Rand Paul, I don't know why he opposes Liz Cheney. I also don't care.
We're talking about you Dave. I'm curious why you oppose it?
I’m flattered you care more about my opinion on Lizzy than Rand Paul’s.
“What specific policy?” Her neocon agenda. Wake up.
people like you are the problem with America.
You really just want to demonize, instead of discuss issues. Fine. It’s what you, and Liz, are all about.
Liberals are accused of being unaware of evil, and when we call out real evil, like starting a war based on lies, and the Right being WRONG, we get slammed for that. Double standards again.
As in not EVIL, just... wrong, and possessing poor judgement. And because you're not evil, I don't hate you folks.
Commendable notion, difficult as it is to believe there’s no hate in constantly demonizing someone.
Dick was WRONG. No WMD’s. No nuclear aluminum tubes, No “pretty well confirmed” Prague meeting of AG and Iraq. No Iraq helping AQ with poison gasses. All lies.
Being wrong is not evil. Lying is. Sending humans to their deaths in a war for political gain and crony profiteering is evil.
And you got the gall to call me wrong? How authoritarian of you. Nobody died because I was wrong about anything.
And more accusations: “you think people who support free market economic policy and limited government are evil.”
Funny how whenever you start a sentence with “you think” you are always wrong. Not evil. Wrong. Persisting with that line of false accusation and demonizing does approach evil, though. Or it’s just cult brainwashing at best.
I support Constitutional regulation of commerce and you accuse me of destroying America. I oppose a police state, and clearly support a limited government regarding our rights.
You apparently want a government subservient to corporate power. Be happy, then. You’re getting your wish. Wall Street is still writing regulations and legislation for their puppets.
See How Citigroup Wrote a Bill So It Could Get a Bailout
“Citigroup lobbyists drafted a bill to allow more risky dealings by taxpayer-backed banks and—what do you know?—the House financial services committee passed nearly identical legislation.”
And you want to blame ME for destroying America...
Once again. Wake up.
Liz is your kind of gal. Disagreeing with you two is tantamount to being terrorists destroying America.
“I think in fact what President Obama is doing is something that America’s enemies—the Taliban and Al Qaeda—have been unable to do, which is to decimate the fighting capability of this nation.”
Yeah, like the war in Iraq didn’t waste lives and money AND decimate the fighting capability of this nation. All while creating more enemies. The view from the bubble is amazingly opaque.
She and fellow neocon Bill Kristol started “Keep America Safe” , which for some mysterious reason had its website taken down recently. Hmm.
Keep America Safe (KAS) was founded in 2009 by two key figures in the hardline nationalist advocacy community, Elizabeth Cheney (daughter of Dick Cheney) andWilliam Kristol, editor of the neoconservative flagship journal the Weekly Standard. A key aim of the group appears to be to pressure the United States to remain in a state of constant military mobilization. The group’s 2009 mission statement bears all the hallmarks of neoconservative discourse. It issues a call to arms (“the United States remains a nation at war”); declares the country’s purported moral exceptionalism (America is “an unparalleled force for good in the world”); rebukes the “weakness” of liberals (the Barack Obama administration “is weakening the nation”); and articulates a “peace through strength” axiom (America must be “feared and respected by our enemies).
Her “Keep America Safe” youtube video practically tells us anyone assigned as defense counsel for terror suspects are terrorists.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. And put us in charge.
“Keep America Safe: Who Are The Al Qaeda Seven?”
The answer? DOJ attorneys assigned as defense counsel.
Seems to me destroying a right to criminal defense counsel is destroying what America is all about. The Cheneys and Obama seem to agree on a lot of this.
But you want to blame me. Like I say, you just can’t help yourself.
Try to clear away your relentless obsession with demonizing my character, and discuss issues.
Let’s see if you can do one post without accusing me of something seen only from the bubble.
Or is that asking too much?
Its funny and a bit astonishing because you have this big, long diatribe about Dick Cheney and all you can come up with about Liz is her "Neocon agenda."
Whatever that is.
Of course we know what a Neocon is... anyone to the right of Mao.
The Cheneys and Obama seem to agree on a lot of this.
I'm sure they do. That's because in the real world of rational thinking people, non-extremist thinking people can agree on some things, and disagree on others.
Not in Dave's world. Or should I say worldview?
Hell, even being the child of the hated "other" makes Liz the spawn of the devil.
As an atheist this is an interesting conversation, because it is very reminiscent of conversations I have had with Christian fundamentalists... or for that matter Muslim fundamentalists - who put their relatively extreme Christian political views in the context of good and evil. I think I know why its so familiar... because in those cases to include yours, I'm speaking with a fanatic. A person who isn't operating on logic, but on raw, emotional hatred. How do I debate your hatred? All I can logically do, is point out your illogic.
Try to clear away your relentless obsession with demonizing my character, and discuss issues.
By all means. What issues have you raised other than GOP party gossip? Your hatred of Dick Cheney? I agree, you hate him. There, I've addressed what you talked about in your post. My question was, why do you hate Liz Cheney which you very clearly do. She wasn't even in politics in 2003. And yet your volumus hatred spills over.
Do you really think this way? I'm astonished when you say things like -
Liberals are accused of being unaware of evil, and when we call out real evil, like starting a war based on lies
and to me, it sounds like you are suggesting that Dick Cheney is as bad, evil even... as Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. And then you question why I can't take statements like that seriously. It also strongly suggests, you are unaware of what evil really is. That might be why some Conservatives have accused you of that... it might just be true about you.
Still obsessed with me, I see. I try to give facts illustrating her neocon positions. YOU deny such a thing exists and yet share the same beliefs.
You're right. A fanatic is a true believer. You are are Cheney's true believer.
I've addressed what you talked about in your post.
No, you have not. You have not addressed any detail of the Cheneys nor their neocon warmongering ideology, nor their hateful resentments for Obama the "terrorist who hates America".
I've given facts, true information, and you want to call it "GOP gossip"? So that's what those nukular aluminum tubes were after all. We went to war based on gossip, you say?
I told you lying is evil. Starting a war based on lies is evil.
You are the one with the utter lack of morality if you can't see the truth in this.
Your limited grasp of morality confuses calling out hatred and lies as being hatred and lies. It's the same Right Wing bubble characteristic as calling liberals racists for pointing out racism exists. You and Rush are the same in that way. It's called projection.
If you want to make this about you, I'm happy to offer more of my insight into the authoritarian Right Wing personality. The true believers of the far right are an interesting study. More people would be alive if we all had a better understanding of this fatal flaw in humanity.
Now, what about the issues? Your obsession with my personality is getting creepy.
The problem is Dave, you haven't brought up any issues. At least none to do with Liz Cheney. Oh you've said a lot about Dick Cheney I admit. So lets review this thread.
You posted you hate Liz Cheney because you read some GOP party gossip. And yes, that is what that is. I mean god forbid Mike Enzi be opposed in an election. I asked you why you care, given this is rather nothing. You then went on an unhinged tirade that was 99% about her father. Kulkuri and I were even confused about which of the Cheney kids this was for a minute, which I freely admit. The progeny of Dick Cheney really don't occupy a lot of my time - nor Kulkuri's for that matter. We both had to Google it to get the facts straight.
But you knew.
Now we can chalk that up to you being well informed. But it seems a bit more than that, given the "Spawn of the Devil," comments... not to mention equating her and Dick with Osama Bin Laden. I feel like Ron Burgundy saying "That escalated quickly!" Well... why? its obvious you've got a special place in your heart for the Cheney family, and it isn't a nice place.
And that is my point. For you, Dick isn't just a guy who got some things wrong like he is for me. You've read me right here on your blog take old Dick to task for the Patriot Act... and even accuse him of illegal arms sales to Iraq in the 80s. And yet after that I'm a Cheney "true believer?"
No, I'm just not so irrational in hatred that I not only hate the man, I hate his kids. Like you do.
You talk about projection and then... you proceed to go crazy doing it yourself. That's called hypocrisy.
This is where you and I differ. Lets take another famous kid... Chelsea Clinton. I know you don't like Bill Clinton either because he passed welfare reform and signed the Iraqi Liberation Act... but I highly doubt if Chelsea decided to last minute run against someone in New York you'd be on here freaking out, foaming at the mouth and calling her a demonic force for evil on par with Saddam Hussein. Even though Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war and her husband bombed that country three times.
I'm guessing that is because you don't have an irrational hatred of Bill Clinton. Even though Bill Clinton and wife Hillary and Dick Cheney's policies were nigh identical. Not to mention, Dick and Barack Obama's policy are nigh identical... at least when it comes to the War on Terrorism.
And you did at least say that as much, when you wrote Obama and Cheney have basically the same defense strategy. Ever wondered why? I bet you have, in fact I've read it. It has something to do with some tin foil hattery and corporations. Its utter nonsense. But you'd have to bend your mind in that twisted fashion to hold onto an irrational hatred for Dick Cheney. It couldn't be that Obama looked objectively at the situation and came to the same conclusion independently... no! IT WAS THE CORPORATIONS!
SO weak.
Lastly I'm accused of being authoritarian. Well, all I'll say in my defense... is I'm not the one judging a person simply because of who her father is.
I'm not the one judging a person simply because of who her father is.
Nor am I. I'd rant against Mary if that were true.
Now for context:
"...I try to give facts illustrating her neocon positions. YOU deny such a thing exists and yet share the same beliefs.
You're right. A fanatic is a true believer. You are are Cheney's true believer."
And this is correct. You believe everything Cheney said to get his war for political gain and crony profit.
Tubes will tell.
Free,
For fun, I compiled a list of accusations you spewed against me.
1. you judge this person based on who her father was, not who she is.
2.you hate the Cheney family.
3. What specific policy decision do you have an issue with? You haven't mentioned one.
4. people like you are the problem with America.
5.You've turned the man into Satan incarnate. You hate the man, his wife, his kids, and anyone who ever said anything nice about him.
6. all you can come up with about Liz is her "Neocon agenda." Whatever that is.
7. All I can logically do, is point out your illogic.
8. you are unaware of what evil really is.
9. My question was, why do you hate Liz Cheney which you very clearly do. She wasn't even in politics in 2003
10. No, I'm just not so irrational in hatred that I not only hate the man, I hate his kids. Like you do.
11. you haven't brought up any issues. At least none to do with Liz Cheney.
12. equating her and Dick with Osama Bin Laden.
13. You talk about projection and then... you proceed to go crazy doing it yourself.
Impressive list, eh? Not much in the way of reasonable discourse.
I don't recall saying I hate anybody. Your bubble view can only comprehend strong differences and judgment of lies as "hate". I don't hate anybody. Not even you, after all your ridiculous accusations. It's a negative emotion that drains energy and focus. I don’t even hate the psycopaths that have assaulted me.
Now, for contrast, let's list the facts you've presented.
1....., still looking...
...None so far....
Oh, wait, look above, I think I see one of your "facts".
“She wasn't even in politics in 2003”
Let’s look at her career as documented at Wikipedia :
Before attending law school, Cheney worked for the State Department for five years and the U.S. Agency for International Development between 1989 and 1993. After 1993, she took a job at Armitage Associates LLP, the consulting firm founded by Richard Armitage, then a former Defense Department official and Iran-Contra operative who later served as Deputy Secretary of State.
After graduating from law school, Cheney practiced law in the private sector (at the law firm of White & Case) and as an international law attorney and consultant at the International Finance Corporation, a member of the World Bank Group. She has also served as Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of State for Assistance to the former Soviet Union, and as a USAID officer in U.S. embassies in Budapest and Warsaw
In 2002, Cheney was appointed to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, a pre-existing vacant post with an "economic portfolio," which is a mandate to promote investment in the region.
I suppose if you don’t count the clear nepotism in her working in the Bush Administration, the corporate/government complex under Dick “Plame-gate” Armitage, or State Department as being “in politics”.
Now I’ll once again leave you some facts.
She is clearly “in politics” now, isn’t she? And her positions are clearly neocon radical Right Wing. (Bless her heart.)
I don't recall saying I hate anybody.
Now Dave, calling them satan does tend to be suggestive.
So yes Dave, I criticized you in what by your count is 13 different ways. I stand by that. My point, is that you have no point. Just an irrational hatred.
It's a negative emotion that drains energy and focus
Agreed, you should quit.
Oh and speaking of people who have assaulted you, or even more so people who have not - I certainly hope you don't judge them on the actions of their parents when writing tickets or infractions. This could be detrimental to order and discipline of the prisoners.
Oh, and thanks for admitting Liz Cheney wasn't in politics in 2003. Saying that because she was a government employee made her a politician is like saying because you're a government employee you're a politician.
She is clearly “in politics” now, isn’t she? And her positions are clearly neocon radical Right Wing
How should I know what her policies are? You haven't mentioned any yet. All you've mentioned was that she may have been mean to Mike Enzi.
Like. I. Give. A. Fuck.
Prior to this post, I didn't care who Liz Cheney was, or who Mike Enzi was.
I still can't figure out... why you do.
I’m OK with your disinterest in Republican politics. Your obsession with me is something else. Quite the character study.
My, it is interesting how fervently you react to a bit of satire. Only to a true believer fanatic is mockery of their authoritarian leader met with such outrage and personal accusations. This speaks more of you than me.
Now tell us Cheney never lied about the ''irrefutable evidence'' and show us those nukular aluminum tubes. Tell us about that Iraq/AQ meeting in Prague that was “pretty well confirmed”.
And you attack me for mocking that man? And you attack me for mocking that man’s power seeking daughter with the same mentality?
You may be an atheist, but you are a true believer, reacting like a cultist angered by someone mocking Republican cult leader Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
Mockery and satire can only be understood as hate by the authoritarian and cult mindset, apparently. You have a lot more in common with those religious fanatics than you comprehend. You desperately cling to Dick’s lies as the truth while falsely accusing me of “Judging a person simply because of who her father is.”
Yet interestingly, you have plenty of judgment for me, based on misinterpretation and lack of reading comprehension.
Need examples?
My point, is that you have no point”
One point is you miss the point. The Cheneys are warmongering neocons, and being their friends can result in quite negative consequences.
Quite deserving of satire, one would easily suppose. But not to a true believer.
I think we have something we can call “Dubya Derangement Syndrome”.
The derangement kicks in with:
Of course we know what a Neocon is... anyone to the right of Mao. and “GOP party gossip”
Whoa, there, Colonel. You’re spinning out of reality.
Another fitting example is your overreaction to one of my little descriptors of a man who lied to get his war for political gain and crony profit.
None dare call that evil in the authoritarian camp. Angry personal accusations are sure to follow.
I thought Spawn of Evil was perfectly fitting. Especially tempered by the other part you didn’t comprehend, “often continuation of evil”.
Reading comprehension was quickly displaced by derangement.
If Liz Cheney is the "Spawn of the Devil,"
And the derangement escalates to “calling them satan”
Note the unhinged person bringing up Satan and the Devil.
That would be you.
Yeah, last time I checked Satan and The Devil were the same thing. But I'm not a christian so maybe you can give me some insight I lack into people with weird faith beliefs. After all, you're the spiritual one... remember?
I find it a bit odd I must admit that you can equate Dick Cheney with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. And then... I mean this is laugh out loud material... actually complain that "Liberals are accused of being unaware of evil" Unaware might not be accurate. How about - woefully incapable of understanding what it is.
You're expecting me to take this post seriously. That's unreasonable. Its like taking something Alex Jones would say seriously. And that isn't an exaggeration, because a lot of what you are saying is stuff Alex Jones says also. Word to the wise guy, it looks just as silly when you say it as it does when Alex Jones says it. And when you say it, I'm going to take you as seriously as I do Infowars, which is of course not at all.
But I see some comparisons between you and Jones. The irrational hatred, the unhinged conspiracy theory, the expectation that wild and baseless assertions, coincidences and accusations should be treated as facts. The expectation that I should respect the ridiculous and the outrage when I don't. I don't waste time debating the absolutely impossible on your blog unless I'm using the particular comments of a post of yours as an example of how unhinged the left can be when I'm debating saner Democrats on other blogs. Jefferson alone is a goldmine of great examples of extremist thinking on the part of the left. Sure he and you folks are a handful of people, but sadly there are far too many of you on the left, and far too many of your counterparts on the right. And your illogic is indeed wasting a lot of time, money, and mucking up the political discourse in this country.
But by all means, keep going. Its a free country. You have an absolute right to hate Dick Cheney, and his daughter... for real reasons or the more rightly imagined tin foil hattery. You have a right to believe in things with no evidence. You have a right to abandon reason and judgement. I can't stop you and wouldn't want to. But if you are waiting for me to take your hate driven, extremist thinking with its hint of conspiracy theory seriously... keep waiting.
1: Liz wasn't in politics in 2003.
2: Dick Cheney had little influence on intelligence assessments of Iraq. When they were made, he was running Haliburtion. They were made during the Clinton administration, of which Dick Cheney had no part.
3: Dick didn't make any money off the war.
4: Your post wasn't even about Dick Cheney, yet you couldn't hold back a few hundred words of screed.
5: You prejudice your opinions with your irrational hatred.
6: I have no idea why you have this hatred.
7: I'm curious to find out why.
8: I'm starting to think you don't know why. I wonder if you were just influenced by far left extremism, and you obeyed its command to hate. Of this I am not certain.
9: I find it fascinating, because I find extremism fascinating, in all its forms.
10: To combat extremism, you must understand it. You give me a window into a mindset I otherwise would not be able to understand.
Free0352: "I'm speaking with a fanatic. A person who isn't operating on logic, but on raw, emotional hatred.".
Like your emotional hatred of the world of Islam?
(When, and where, did Dave express the words "hate" or "hatred"?)
"It has something to do with...corporations. Its utter nonsense. But you'd have to bend your mind in that twisted fashion to hold onto an irrational hatred for Dick Cheney. It couldn't be that Obama looked objectively at the situation and came to the same conclusion independently... no! IT WAS THE CORPORATIONS!"
It doesn't have to do with corporations...and money? Huh!...you could have fooled me.
"So yes Dave, I criticized you in what by your count is 13 different ways. I stand by that. My point, is that you have no point. Just an irrational hatred."
Again, like your irrational hatred of the world of Islam?
(Again, when did Dave express "hate" or "hatred"? I must have missed that. Please offer the exact quote, if you wouldn't mind.)
"I find it fascinating, because I find extremism fascinating, in all its forms."
Which explains a lot about your enchantment with yourself, wouldn't you say?
Gee, so much to comment and mock you about, but not enough time...
JG,
Good to hear from another "extremist", as would anyone be who disagrees with Free, calls Cheney a liar, and knows corporate money corrupts our politics.
Man, how crazy is that, eh? Talk about conspiracy nuts.
Too bad we're not sane moderates like the John Birchers and the narcissistic Ayn Randroids.
As far as I see, hate, or obsession with tagging it on someone, is coming from only one direction around here.
But mixed with the dark visions of hate we see the light of a deep abiding faith:
Dick Cheney had little influence on intelligence assessments of Iraq.
And:
Dick didn't make any money off the war.
My goodness, only an extremist would doubt these articles of faith.
Never mind that little Pentagon unit created by Cheney henchmen and fellow neocons Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.
The Office of Special Plans (OSP) “stovepiped” selected unvetted “intelligence” from September 2002 to June 2003.
(CIA) officer Larry C. Johnson said the OSP was "dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace. [The OSP] lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam. It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated."
Balderdash! Never happened.
And we have even more “hate” from the liberal corporate media:
Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain
A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney's denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton.
Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% from 2004 to 2005
Dick says he “severed all ties” to Halliburton, yet magically promises to give his profits to charity.
See, all we need is a little faith....because as we all know, Cheneys never lie.
You're ignoring the fact Dave, that Cheney and George Bush and yes, the vast majority of Congress were operating off the intelligence picture put out not only by the CIA but several allied intelligence agencies for over 10 years.
Nobody was going to take anything counter to that narrative seriously. BTW, their assessments ended up being wrong as well. You seldom mention that they were not accurate either.
But you don't stop there, you start connecting dots that don't connect. You go from Cheney and the Bush administration simply choosing to side with the more established narrative coming out of CIA in the wake of the worst attacks on American soil since 1812, to "Lies" and "Conspiracy."
And that reveals your extremism. That's what Alex Jones does, and for that matter what the man in the link I provided does in his own way about the things he chooses to be extreme about.
As for me, when it comes to personal freedom, or individual rights or economic freedom someone like you on the hard left might find that extreme. I don't care. I think defense of liberty is no vice.
You are aware Dave, what stock options are.
Stock Option: In finance, an option is a contract which gives the buyer (the owner) the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an underlying asset or instrument at a specified strike price on or before a specified date.
Cheney didn't own any Halliburton stock, he had the option to buy it at a set price. He didn't buy any. You can't find any article where Cheney sold any Halliburtion stock after 1999 because it doesn't exist. Yes he has the option to buy Halliburton stock cheaply, that's a pretty standard deal for a former CEO. But he hasn't done it, and you can't find one source that says he has. Otherwise, you would have posted it by now.
Free0352: "If you mean radical Islam, the kind that advocates the destruction and enslavement or the entire western world, then yes I hate that. Why wouldn't you hate this [video attached]?"
I think the guy's only "radical" notions were about women. Otherwise, he was pretty spot-on -- especially his statement, "If there wasn't a state of Israel, there wouldn't have been a 9/11." No truer truth can be said.
He also said the United States needs to "clean up its act". He's right on the money about this, wouldn't you say?
Interesting...all this from a former Jew. So, what's so radical about what he said? I've read more loathing and hateful vitriol from your comments over the last couple of years -- not to mention outright lies. This guy never mentioned a word about killing; you, however, have vividly described your desire to kill and maim followers of Islam on several occasions on this very blog, not to mention Bradley Manning...and even me.
So, who's really the hateful radical? (All fingers are pointing right at you, tool-boy.)
Oh, I'm going to ask you again because you must have overlooked my question...twice. When did Dave express "hate" or "hatred"? Please offer the exact quote, if you wouldn't mind. I can't find it anywhere.
Otherwise, he was pretty spot-on
Do you also mean the part where he say's the Soldiers of Allah will take over the whole world, or the part where he say's he wants all the lands of Mohammad back. You do realize that includes places like Spain and Greece, and the Balkans right? Not to mention, he justifies the killing of thousands of innocent people because of what? I tiny country? The US needs to clean up its act by covering up its women?
No thanks.
As for Dave's hate, its on this blog, that is where.
According to financial disclosure forms, Halliburton paid Cheney $205,298 in 2001; $262,392 in 2002; $278,437 in 2003; and $294,852 in 2004.
Of course my original point was war for "Political gain and crony profit". Free needed to change the point so he could argue. What else is new?
So what's a piddling million bucks in conflict of interest and war profiteering?
Especially for a guy who never lied.
Jeff
Nevertheless, I'm positive his statement "clean up your act" had a much broader context,
I think its pretty obvious he's talking about Sharia law and converting America to Islam. Ref his comments about laws and constitutions that can change, vs Sharia law which according to him at least cannot. I think its pretty obvious what he's talking about - certainly Richard Dawkins got it right, and he's hardly a Right Wing Neo Con... or by your definition is he?
Dave,
So I googled how much money did Haliburton pay Cheney in 2001?
From the research that started with that, it seems Cheney got 34 million dollars when he left Haliburton in 1999. Certainly a lot of money, but not unheard of for a departing CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, and when he was paid Cheney was not a government official in any capacity. Beyond that, I could find no credible source that Cheney got a dime post 1999, at least from that search.
So I kept digging.
My next search was How much did Dick Chaney make off Haliburton stock options?
From reviewing the top five hits, I determined Cheney's last check from Haliburtion was for 800,000 in a cash out of his benefits package - mostly the equity in his corporate life insurance policy. He did receive the 800k after he was elected VP, but not before he took office, and the deal was arranged back when he quit Halliburtion.
So my final search, was How much money did Cheney make off the war in Iraq.
What I got, was a bunch of sites blasting conspiracy theories. None of them were credible.
So by looking for myself, I determined Cheney got a nice payout upon leaving Halliburtion and today has the option to buy stock from Halliburton dirt cheap... but he hasn't.
That makes him in your book... as EVIL as Osama Bin Laden... You even called his kid the spawn of the Devil, which of course makes Cheney THE Devil.
Why, because he could if he wanted buy lucrative stock and yet chosen not to?
Dave Dubya: "Free needed to change the point so he could argue. What else is new?"
Nothing. Nothing at all.
"So what's a piddling million bucks in conflict of interest and war profiteering?"
For Free0352, and others like him who see no conflict of interest when it comes to corporate power controlling the reins of government - or subverting our democratic processes - there's none at all. Like all bribery and extortion, they just see it as "free speech".
They can't discern the concept of "corruption" - similarly, as a sociopath doesn't recognize the difference between right and wrong. It apparently never even occurs to them.
Free0352: "I think its pretty obvious he's talking about Sharia law and converting America to Islam."
Oh, so you're another one of those, eh, worried about "Sharia law"?
That's hilarious!
I hardly think that's possible. Is that what you lay away at night worrying about?
I can't stop laughing...
Free,
I made it easy for you. Go back to the sentence, "Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% from 2004 to 2005".
There's a link right there for you to see Halliburton paid Cheney $205,298 in 2001; $262,392 in 2002; $278,437 in 2003; and $294,852 in 2004.
Now for my favorite new conspiracy theory:
You even called his kid the spawn of the Devil
Show us please.
"One sees more devils than vast hell can hold. That is the madman." - Shakespeare
Jeff
Oh, so you're another one of those, eh, worried about "Sharia law"?
No, most Muslims would laugh at that idea as well. But there are some Muslims out there who are very angry with America for not converting. They blew up the world trade center... oh oops, I forgot you think that was Dick Cheney too.
Think the Boston bombers of late.
The conversion of America to Sharia law is laughable. The willingness of extremists to blow themselves up toward the goal of world-wide Muslim dominance is sadly very real. They literally do it every day, and the damage they do is very real.
Dave,
So I googled Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% from 2004 to 2005 and got?
MSNBC? Nope. CNN? Nope. A major print magazine or paper? Nope. Even an article from Fox (R) -I know putting the R in makes you happey- refuting a claim? Nope.
I got this.
Rawstory, the Democratic Underground, and Project Censored is not a source. Its like if I sourced Project For A New American Century.
In short you've got two things. Jack, and shit.
Show us please.
Oh exact words were Spawn of Evil. My bad. I mean hey, that's sooooooooooooo different. I knew what you meant. Its clear. Dick Cheney represents EVIL in your mind. To the point that not only is he evil... but so are his children. So is his family. He's your boogie man, your satan. The object of your rage. He's the totem of your hate. To leftists Cheney is Dracula, Darth Vader and the Devil. He's been compared to all of them by liberals over the years. To me he's a fat guy from a state nobody cares about.
Like all bribery and extortion, they just see it as "free speech".
Well, before I'm going to take that claim seriously, I'm going to have to see some evidence.
And it had better come from a neutral party who doesn't equate Dick with Darth Vader.
How much money dave, has cheney made off his stock option contract?
Answer? 0
Free0352: "They blew up the world trade center... oh oops, I forgot you think that was Dick Cheney too."
Good! You finally admit that the buildings were blown up! But you've got a critical part of it incorrect...it wasn't Muslims who did it.
As far as Dick Cheney. He didn't set the explosives or wire the building, either, but undoubtedly he knew it was going to happen.
"Well, before I'm going to take that claim seriously, I'm going to have to see some evidence [that corporate power controls the reins of government and subverts our democratic processes]."
The evidence is called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission -- along with all the previous Supreme Court decisions that granted personhood to corporations.
How much evidence do you need?
Its like if I sourced Project For A New American Century.
Cheney's neocon club? You're a true believer.
OK, from the New York Times, home of Cheney WMD parrot Judith Miller:
Mr. Cheney’s financial disclosure statements
Mr. Cheney’s financial disclosure statements from 2001, 2002 and 2003 show that since becoming vice president-elect, he has received $1,997,525 from the company:
But then again, my point you chose to twist was, "war for political gain and crony profit". That stands as true as ever. Nothing you can argue can disprove that.
And we all know political gain translates into profit in the corporate government complex.
A little Halliburton history illustrates how the corporatocracy works. And Cheney is all over it.
Cheney, as Secretary of Defense, commissioned Halliburton to do a classified study concerning replacing the U.S. military's logistics by work done by private companies. Halliburton says, yes, a company can do the work. In August 1992, with essentially no bidding, Halliburton is selected by the US Army Corps of Engineers to do all work needed to support the military for the next five years!
Thereafter, Halliburton (or its subsidiary KBR) and its military logistics business escalated rapidly. In the ten years thereafter revenues totaled $2.5 billion.
Not that any of this was my original point you twisted. For the umpteenth time, my point you chose to twist was, "war for political gain and crony profit".
You must own a straw man factory.
JG,
We can show examples all day and Free will be utterly blind to corporate influence and corruption of government.
No example is better than Cheney, but Wall Street is doing a "heck of a job" too.
the New York Times reported on the front page that Citigroup drafted most of a House bill that would allow banks to engage in risky trades backed by a potential taxpayer-funded bailout.
Banks’ Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills
In a sign of Wall Street’s resurgent influence in Washington, Citigroup’s recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House committee’s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word. (Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural.)
Way to go, Puppets of Wall Street. We know who you really represent. We know who really owns the Senate and especially the GOP ruled House.
Jeff.
You are aware we are talking about Dick Cheney, that the Supreme Court made that decision on the Citizens Untied case, not the Vice President, and that Joe Biden was vice President when it was made. Right? I ask for evidence Dick Cheney made money off the Iraq war, and you rapidly change the subject. That's telling. I've been waiting for a long time now for you to post language from the Citizens United opinion you have objections to. I've yet to hear anything. That's also telling. It tells me you haven't read it.
As for you being a birther, or ops truther (same thing really) I already know.
Dave,
Cheney's neocon club? You're a true believer
I never said those were my views. They are into nation building. I'm not. My notion of how to fight a war is considerably more violent. Were I President, we wouldn't be having many problems out of say - Afghanistan - because most of the Afghans would be dead.
Now dave, don't you know what a deferred payment is? Cheney made that money in 1999, and they wrote the check in installments as part of his benefits package. That was all disclosed when he got elected and investigated out the ass. The last check Chaney cashed from Haliburtion was in 1999, the last payment rendered was for services between 94-1999. That is legal. DIck is allowed deferred payment, as he's allowed to get paid between 1998-1999. The reason he got the deferred payment, was because he couldn't take the money from the company while on the campaign trail because he was following the campaign finance law you're complaining the SCOTUS overturned.
As for government no-bid contracts, name me one US based company who could do the work the Army wanted done? You can't. There wasn't one. Halliburton, or more specifically Kellog Brown and Root which is owned by Halliburton is the only company then or now that meets that need. That is evidence by the fact that when under pressure they asked for bidders, almost nobody did and none could meet all the contract needs the government needed. But by all means, if not KBR who should have got the contracts?
war for political gain and crony profit
What profit? Your own article says as much.
The contracts did not prove to be as profitable as executives had hoped,
Truth is, KBR lost money most of the years it operated in Iraq.
But you won't let that get in the way of your extremist faith belief. I'm sure. You're entitled to your own opinion dave but not your own facts. And the fact is, Dick Cheney didn't make any money from Halliburton from 1999-Present and KBR and therefore Halliburtion made meager profits from the Iraq war. Once the overhead was calculated, they didn't break even or lose money but it wasn't that great for them.
We can show examples all day and Free will be utterly blind to corporate influence and corruption of government
It's funny you should mention that, because I agree with that statement. But Halliburton is the least of those worries. Now Goldman Sachs, CitiBank, Fanny and Frediie, GM, the medical insurance industry... oh sure. And as a Libertarian I find your answer for that astonishing. Your answer... to the question of the non-separation between government and state is... wait for it... giving these people not only more power but WAY MORE POWER. That is as I said; astonishing.
You would think the answer would be Libertarianism. Certainly the conclusion I came to. A small government you can drown in a bathtub isn't even worth corrupting because there is no money in it. But no... that is clearly not your conclusion. You've told us you think Dave, your words, that Obama is basically a Neo Con. And yet, you want to hand the man far, far more government power. That's either double think or illogic or both on a massive scale. Its utterly contradictory and inconsistent.
But I'm still at a loss, as to how any of this relates to Liz Cheney.
And the original point again....
war for political gain and crony profit
What profit?
Ok. Let's be, like, objective, instead of objectivist, just for this one minute.
The question: "What profit?"
The answer: "Crony profit".
That would be "Crony", not "Cheney" profit, just in case it's a vision problem as well as reading comprehension.
There.
Oh, and do tell us options have no value... and we can trust Dick's word.
And do tell us how running for VP on Halliburton's dime would not be a conflict of interest. Remember Dick had a history of making magic happen for Halliburton as Defense Secretary. This is what cronyism is.
This how corporatocracy works. Cheney was nothing but a corporate insider, advancing a corporate business agenda, from within our government. Happens all the time, really.
Ah, yes, you agree there's corporate influence, but cannot see that in the Big Dick? Or perhaps not in his Shrub puppet?
That's some mighty narrow vision; I think I was onto something back there about your vision.
But then again, a lot of us could smell the oil on these guys from the get go.
Maybe your olfactory senses are numbed too...
Now I'd like to help you focus on why this all has to do with Cheneys.
Ready?
They are in the title of the post.
Its a fair question Dave. If you're going to complain Halliburton got the contracts you should have some idea who else should get the contracts? What company did you have in mind?
You tell us how no-bid crony contracts and war pushed by an insider for crony profit reflect a "free market".
It's corporatocracy, a government of, by, and for the corporations.
NOT ONE IRAQI ATTACKED US ON 9-11. Now we owe trillions of dollars for that war for political gain and crony profit. Well SOME of us will pay. Cronies have the profits...and the tax cuts.
You tell us how no-bid crony contracts and war pushed by an insider for crony profit reflect a "free market".
Okay, we'll try again. WHAT COMPANY BESIDES KBR DID YOU THINK SHOULD HAVE GOT THE CONTRACTS FOR AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ, NOT TO MENTION THE TENS OF OTHER COUNTRIES THEY GOT CONTRACTS FOR?
Its a fair question. If Halliburton was shown favoritism, who then got the short end of that stick? Name one other company that can do what KBR does?
NOT ONE IRAQI ATTACKED US ON 9-11
Ture. But we had been in armed conflict with Iraq for over a decade prior to the invasion of Iraq. The first time we put boots on the ground there was 1991, and we had to bomb it what? I don't even remember how many times it was so many. KBR was providing logistical support to the US military going back to the early 90s. KBR and the military have a 20 year history together because there really isn't any other country that can do what KBR does that I know of. Because of that, I think taking bids on their contracts is an exercise in futility. But hey, if you know of one I don't know of, educate me. Who else can do what KBR does?
As for the war in Iraq being expensive. Of course it was. War is not a cheap endeavor.
Free0352: "You are aware we are talking about Dick Cheney..."
No, you weren't, actually. You kept wailing about how hateful Dave is, and then you changed subjects and started talking about Sharia Law, of all things.
You're always defecting or changing subjects when you feel cornered and it's convenient for you. You're pretty predictable.
"...that the Supreme Court made that decision on the Citizens Untied case..."
You asked for evidence that corporate power controls the reins of government and subverts our democratic processes. I gave it to you. Never did I imply Cheney was involved.
Don't you ever remember what you write? Must be the depleted uranium working on your brain.
"I ask for evidence Dick Cheney made money off the Iraq war, and you rapidly change the subject."
I never had a conversation with you regarding Cheney and his war profiteering. That was Dave. Remember?
(Oh, I'm sorry, you probably don't. Like I said, too much DU.)
"I've been waiting for a long time now for you to post language from the Citizens United opinion you have objections to."
I've been waiting even longer for you to comment about the seismic activity that was recorded on 9/11, indicating that explosions definitely occurred. It was the "white paper" that you always demanded. I provided it, but you never conceded. Why not? Is the truth too much to bear, tool-boy?
Regarding my objections to Citizens United, haven't I made that clear enough for you?
Corporations are not persons, therefore they do not have the constitutional rights of human persons.
How clear do I have to make this?
Free0352: "As for the war in Iraq being expensive. Of course it was. War is not a cheap endeavor."
Especially wars started purely for profit. They're manufactured wars, created for no reason other than making money. They're expensive for everyone except, of course, those who profit.
You said a mouthful, tool-boy.
By the way, thank you for admitting that the World Trade Towers "exploded". You're a step closer to realizing the truth.
If Halliburton was shown favoritism, who then got the short end of that stick?
We know Halliburton Dick, defense Secretary, did all he could to set them up. Later he even got them a good war for profit.
I'd say thousands of dead and maimed Americans, and their families, along with millions of Iraqis got the short end.
Now Jeff, I said SPECIFIC LANGUAGE in the opinion that you didn't like. I took the time to look it up for you. Go read it, and tell me specifically what you object to.
Until you do that, you're just talking out of your ass and regurgitating to me what someone else has told you or you have read.
I've been waiting even longer for you to comment about the seismic activity that was recorded on 9/11, indicating that explosions definitely occurred. It was the "white paper"
The 9-11 Commision report is the definitive report. That, and Al'Qaeda claiming responsibility. Fuck your white paper. If it was printed out here, I'd wipe my ass with it. Its less credible than toilet paper.
thank you for admitting that the World Trade Towers "exploded
Of course they exploded. I watched it happen live on TV. Thousands of gallons of jet fuel does that.
There was no explosives in the building you idiot. If you want to be the laughing stock of the left wing conspiracy club fine, but spare me your bullshit. You and Alex Jones can keep your retardation to yourselves. You're a punchline. Your extremism and paranoia while laughable, is annoying.
Dave
I'd say thousands of dead and maimed Americans, and their families, along with millions of Iraqis got the short end.
I don't think so. I was grateful for the KBR chowhalls, and thought the facilities management was about a hundred times better than when the milistary handled it. We ate better on the big FOBs with KBR chowhalls than we did back in garrison in the US, and our shit got built faster and with better quaality. KBR increased our quality of life about 100%. It was a huge moral booster to eat at the KBR dining facilities, take a hot shower with pretty much unlimited hot water at the KBR shower trailers, shit in a flush KBR toilet, and enjoy the KBR A/C in a KBR run R&R facility. Prior to KBR, we never had anything like that, least of all in a war zone. We grunts were terribly jealous of the pouges who got to live it up on the FOBs full time and enjoy that 24/7 while we (due to missions) had to basically live in holes in the ground or bombed out buildings. It sucked when guys like you made it so locals got more contracts. The quality of workmanship really dropped. And the KBR convoy civilians driving trucks sure did put their lives on the line for this country the same as any Soldier did, in fact more so than many Soldiers who never left the wire. I'd like to see KBR take over all the non-combat jobs of the military. They do a better job, cheaper.
But with all this stuff about Dick Cheney said, what does any of that have to do with Liz Cheney. Right or wrong, she didn't do any of it.
So far it seems all she did was piss off Mike Enzi, and I have to say. I don't care.
They (KBR)do a better job, cheaper.
Speaking of those on the short end, did anybody get a death count by electrocution in KBR showers?
Actually I'm very familiar with that case, and was a very minor part in one of those incidents. That was after local contractors (Iraqis) had to be subcontracted per the request of the DOD contracting authority. That wasn't a KBR decision, that was a DOD decision.
Not surprisingly when you have an Iraqi build your shower, you have problems.
But on the whole, they did a better job than the military did. Cheaper.
"Cheaper" than what? KBR contractors are paid more than soldiers.
"Cheaper" electrical work as in Iraqi laborers?
I suppose life itself is "cheaper" these days. Why didn't KBR check for the safety of their sub-contracted work?
No need.
As if they cared, eh? No bid contracts were theirs, despite over-billing and lack of quality control.
It's all part of the magic of unaccountable corporatocracy.
From the NY Times 2008:
American electricians who worked for KBR, the Houston-based defense contractor that is responsible for maintaining American bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, said they repeatedly warned company managers and military officials about unsafe electrical work, which was often performed by poorly trained Iraqis and Afghans paid just a few dollars a day.
One electrician warned his KBR bosses in his 2005 letter of resignation that unsafe electrical work was “a disaster waiting to happen.” Another said he witnessed an American soldier in Afghanistan receiving a potentially lethal shock. A third provided e-mail messages and other documents showing that he had complained to KBR and the government that logs were created to make it appear that nonexistent electrical safety systems were properly functioning.
Yeah, cheaper.
"Cheaper" than what? KBR contractors are paid more than soldiers
Sure. They're contractors, as in temporary work. Even if KBR works for 15 years its cheaper in the end. Dollar for dollar, entire military units are far more expensive than temporary contractors. The money left over can be spent on hiring actual warfighters instead of generator mechanics and cooks.
Why didn't KBR check for the safety of their sub-contracted work?
Because KBR didn't supervise them, the military contracting offices did per defense department order. Your own quote says so when it says
they repeatedly warned company managers and military officials about unsafe electrical work, which was often performed by poorly trained Iraqis and Afghans paid just a few dollars a day.
Those Iraqis BTW, weren't paid "just a few dollars a day." They were paid 150 dollars a day, which in that country is the equivalent of making about 80.00 an hour in this country. On top of that, Iraq has no sales or income tax.
The idea was we'd build up local economies by giving the locals work. When KBR did come back in, millions of tax payer dollars went into fixing the mistakes of third world laborers nobody wanted to hire in the first place. Of course you leave that part out. Of course some work out of the millions of jobs KBR did slipped through the cracks. Its hard to supervise work when you have to travel through a war to get to your job site and the supervisor sometimes gets blown up on the way. But by all means, lets stop the military from forcing KBR to hire third world laborers (who get paid nigh American wages no less) and get some Americans back in there doing the work. I'm sure KBR would love it.
My experience with KBR was almost 100% positive. With the military we'd have never had A/C, and if we did and it broke we'd wait weeks for a work order. With KBR, they were required to have it back up and running within four hours.
Thanks KBR.
I'm sure the AC was very nice.
Modern corporate warfare has comforts and advantages over the wars our guys went through in Guadalcanal, or Vietnam.
Nevertheless, those responsible for what amounted to negligent homicide got off without accountability, whether the blame falls on the GOP-run DOD or the GOP cronies at KBR.
That's alright, good money was made, and that's the point, right?
Well, unless you believe back in 2001 Iraqi insurgents or the Republican Guard and their fictitious al-Qaeda allies were preparing to invade our shores with their nukular aluminum tubes and chemical weapons, and unmanned drones.
But crony profiteers always win, for some reason. No matter who loses loved ones, or who dies, right?
What was it Ike said about the military industrial complex?
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. “ Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address January 17, 1961
If you're bitching about contractor money, KBR is the least of your money.
The Electric Boat Company and Newport News gobble up more useless projects like its nothing... and don't get me started on the joint strike fighter!
Free0352: "I said SPECIFIC LANGUAGE in the opinion that you didn't like. I took the time to look it up for you. Go read it, and tell me specifically what you object to."
Fuck your specific language demands. I reject the whole argument, precisely because it allows First Amendment rights for corporations. As Justice Stevens's dissenting opinion in Citizens United addresses, the Founders never intended to grant these rights to corporate associations. They were only, and specifically, granted to citizens of this country. Period. An excerpt follows:
In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.
What, "specifically" to you reject in this dissension (besides rationality, common sense...and democratic integrity)?
You're such a tool.
"The 9-11 Commision [sic] report is the definitive report."
It's also the definitive whitewash. The official "stamp of approval" certainly doesn't equate to the truth. If so, you should believe everything your government tells you. Do you?
I didn't think so.
"That, and Al'Qaeda claiming responsibility."
No, it didn't. But agreeably, your government said it did. On the first day, if I recall.
"Fuck your white paper. If it was printed out here, I'd wipe my ass with it. Its less credible than toilet paper."
Not that I'd love to see your fat ass, but can you at least humor me and tell me you did just that?
Hey, Tool-Boy, you kept demanding a "white paper" and I delivered. Is there something else that you need, instead?
"Of course they exploded. I watched it happen live on TV. Thousands of gallons of jet fuel does that."
I call that a Freudian slip on your part. It's hilarious to watch you back-peddle, though.
No, Tool-Boy, jet fuel doesn't cause steel-reenforced concrete buildings to "explode". If that's the prosthetic leg you choose to stand on, what's your reasoning for Building 7 falling? That building was never hit by a plane, and it collapsed in complete free-fall -- just like the twin towers. Imagine that!
But, I'll concede that "explosions" -- with charges set at critical and designated points -- caused them to collapse. That's a certainty.
"Your extremism and paranoia while laughable, is annoying."
Your accusation is like the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not the one who sees "terrorists" behind every rock, and I'm certainly not the one who fears that Sharia Law is overtaking our country. That's you, Tool-Boy!
What, "specifically" to you reject in this dissension
The part where Citizens United was prevented from releasing its film, and the FEC abused its power.
That's what the dissenting opinion was talking about, and was for. And apparently so are you.
But having this debate with you is pointless. You haven't even read the opinion, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just repeating things you've googled. That's because I'm fairly certain you can't think for yourself.
Which makes you the tool of the left. Now be a good little trooper and google and repeat some more stuff someone else said.
That building was never hit by a plane
No, it was hit by a falling skyscraper. Live on national television. But that won't matter to the extremist in you. Your hatred will cloud your mind to all rational argument and your mind will once again blank out.
But then again, I doubt you've read the 9-11 Commission report either, and once again you're just repeating what other people said.
Free0352: "That's what the dissenting opinion was talking about, and was for."
No, the dissenting opinion takes a much broader look and examines the detrimental effect of how the "financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise[s] legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process", but you're, as usual, much too myopic in your viewpoint to be able to see this.
"But having this debate with you is pointless. You haven't even read the opinion..."
Oh, yes I have.
"...you have no idea what you're talking about."
I don't have any idea what you're talking about. That's because, as I've pointed out on several occasions, you don't. Incredibly, you fail to see the forest for the trees.
"Which makes you the tool of the left."
Which is another way of saying that I'm a proponent of individual rights...and thinking and rational human beings everywhere.
"No, it [Building 7] was hit by a falling skyscraper."
No, Building 7 sustained a bit of damage to one corner of the building due to fallen debris, certainly not even close to something which would cause it to destruct in free-fall from the center, out. You know this, and I know this.
"But that won't matter to the extremist in you."
Once again, you confuse and misuse terms in your desperate attempt to discredit the messenger because you can't dispute the message. Please, if you would, plug-in the term "rational" or "logical" in place of "extremist".
"Your hatred will cloud your mind to all rational argument and your mind will once again blank out."
Hatred?! Hatred of what? When did I express hatred, anywhere...or for anything? Please, once again, point out where I have expressed these words and I'll certainly make every effort to repent.
Could this be your own petty effort to project your own hatred, which you've expressed on this same blog, so many times, for people of Arabic origin or nationality?
"I doubt you've read the 9-11 Commission report either, and once again you're just repeating what other people said."
I've read it, and I was thoroughly amazed at its omissions. It didn't even mention the free-fall collapse of Building 7. Did you notice that? (Did you even know that?)
Yes, and I agree, I have repeated several inconsistencies that others have noted. Researchers do this all the time. Read any publication or scientific study and you'll find secondary sources cited throughout. Have you noticed this? It's a standard and well-established practice -- world-wide, as a matter of fact.
Were you aware of this?
Speaking of awareness, have you read the latest about this particular subject from Major General (Retired) Albert Stubblebine, III. He was the Commanding General, Intelligence and Security Command, from 1981 to 1984. He's taken the initiative and time to connect the dots. Maybe you should, too.
JG,
"Hate" seems to be the only concept that fits the radical Right frame of reference for disagreement.
This explains why liberals are frequently accused of hate by the Right. If we disagree, that means we "hate". Projection that reflects the accuser more than the accused.
I've gone over this before, but all they sense is "hate" when I offer this explanation. It's the same magical thinking that says a corporation is a person, even though it can't hate or have any emotion. But somehow they deserve more representation than human beings.
And why not, only liberals "hate". Remember when disagreeing with Bush was "hating America"? "Liberals hate America" has been their propaganda. They also claim only liberals are racists too. Just ask their spokesman, Rush. None dare disagree with Rush. Why, that would be like "hating" a conservative.
Quite a cult. And that is exactly what it is. Information and opinion from outside their belief bubble must be considered hostile and labeled as hate.
"financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise[s] legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process"
Great, now quote the specifics you have a problem with. I'm waiting.
Which is another way of saying that I'm a proponent of individual rights
Not free speech apparently.
As for your twooferism, its just like when you SHOW THE BIRTHER THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE it doesn't matter. I can show you over and over again the very glaring evidence. It won't matter. That fact is by definition, extremism - because your political opinions are not based in fact but on paranoid delusions.
Hatred?! Hatred of what?
The Republican Party, George Bush, and Dick Cheney, and the "neo cons."
Albert Stubblebine, III.
Who? Exactly.
Dave,
You said - "that fits the radical Right frame of reference for disagreement. "
So you agree with Jefferson that the 9-11 attacks were a conspiracy lead by George Bush and Dick Cheney?
"Liberals hate America" has been their propaganda.
From the Democratic Underground-
Well when they say stuff like this...
Liberals like socialism, and the more socialist America becomes the more they like it.
Quite a cult. And that is exactly what it is. Information and opinion from outside their belief bubble must be considered hostile and labeled as hate
So believing that 9-11 was planned and perpetrated by Al'Qaeda on the orders of Usama Bin Ladin is living in a though bubble? Really? Do you really think that Dave?
Its a simple question Dave, its yes or no - Was Usama Bin Laden responsible for 9-11 where on his orders 3000 American people were murdered, or was he not?
You said - "that fits the radical Right frame of reference for disagreement. "
So you agree with Jefferson that the 9-11 attacks were a conspiracy lead by George Bush and Dick Cheney?
What is the connection between the quote and your question? I'm in no position to say it was a Bush/Cheney conspiracy, or not. But it did work out politically favorably for them. No denying that.
"Liberals hate America" has been their propaganda.
From the Democratic Underground-
Liberals like socialism, and the more socialist America becomes the more they like it.
OK, then, Liberals love America. Although Corporatism is replacing what socialistic characteristics we have. Private prisons, efforts to suppress voter turnout, and a bought Congress and Senate tell us the direction we're headed.
So believing that 9-11 was planned and perpetrated by Al'Qaeda on the orders of Usama Bin Ladin is living in a though bubble? Really? Do you really think that Dave?
No. Did I say that somewhere?
Was Usama Bin Laden responsible for 9-11
Maybe partly. He would have had a lot of help regardless. But I have no way of knowing who helped. To be honest, I don't know. I do know that 9-11 was practically desired, and at least convenient, to the neocons' agenda. Was he convicted in a fair and open court of law? I don't think so. All I know is what the government's military and intelligence agencies and corporate media tell me.
If the 9-11 report had addressed WTC 7 and the Pentagon released videos of what hit it, there wouldn't be so much skepticism regarding the official government story.
You see, we were lied to by Bush and Cheney after 9-11, remember? Liars, and especially war-mongering liars, are often suspected for more than just lies.
Here's the truth.
Bush and bin-Laden both have a lot of innocent blood on their hands with Bush spilling the most.
And the world would be a better place had neither of them thought God was talking to them.
BTW, when you say things like this, this is why most people accuse you of hating America.
Ah, no. Not most people by any stretch. Only the Right Wing authoritarian personalities.
The truth is Bush launched a war based on lies. And if anyone is stupid enough to think telling the truth and not believing lies is "hating America" then that says more about their gullibility, hate, and ignorance than it does about the person speaking the truth.
By your own standard, he's only partially responsible for the crimes of Nazi Germany.
Ever hear of the Nuremberg Trials?
That's where the German authoritarian's pleaded, "But, I was just following orders". Good Germans, good soldiers, good authoritarians. Bad combination.
We wonder where your conscience would limit your actions if you thought you wouldn't be held accountable.
Ever hear of the Nuremberg Trials?
Yes. Hitler was never tried there, and they couldn't produce one document with Hitler's signature on it where he ordered the holocaust.
So by your standard, Hitler was not guilty.
Of course I don't think that and neither do you. I'm just the only one here who's intellectually honest. But by all means, please explain how the war in Afghanistan is based on Bush's lies?
please explain how the war in Afghanistan is based on Bush's lies?
I never made that claim. What was it you said about being "intellectually honest"?
All I said was I honestly don't know who all are responsible for 9-11. Did bin-Laden have something to do with it. I think so, but I cannot prove anything. All I know is what the government's military and intelligence agencies and corporate media tell me.
But we see you are not skeptical of of those sources.
But we see you are not skeptical of of those sources
You're forgetting who I am again. I've had plenty of conversations with members of Al'Qaeda, including some of the people who helped pull off 9-11. Of course you don't have that benefit, but really all the information is out there on the public record. You have to suspend a LOT of common sense to deviate from it.
Free0352: "You're forgetting who I am again."
And who is that? A modern-day tool of the elite who's totally infatuated with himself?
"I've had plenty of conversations with members of Al'Qaeda..."
Yeah, right...
"...including some of the people who helped pull off 9-11."
You better be careful, there -- you're incriminating yourself.
So, exactly, which role did you play? I mean, besides, being part of their propaganda arm?
"...but really all the information is out there on the public record."
Exactly, what information is that? What are you even talking about?
"You have to suspend a LOT of common sense to deviate from it."
Projecting, again, I see.
Hey, Tool Boy, I was gonna wait until this weekend to reply to what you wrote back to me, but when I saw your completely off-the-wall remarks to Dave Dubya, I couldn't wait!
You're absolutely hilarious! Have you considered a career in stand-up comedy? (Why do I even ask? You're probably going to claim you know "and have spoken to" all the great ones.) You're a fucking trip, dude.
Free0352: "Great, now quote the specifics you have a problem with. I'm waiting."
I thought I made it abundantly clear -- I'm against the totality of the outcome. The particulars don't really matter.
I'm also against the total idea of pedophilia. I don't have to recite exactly what specifics that I'm against for my aversion to the practice to have validity.
"Not free speech apparently."
I'm adamantly against free speech for corporate organizations, yes. These entities are not protected by the Bill of Rights. Please humor me by citing where in this document they are.
"The Republican Party, George Bush, and Dick Cheney, and the 'neo cons.'"
I have no hatred for them, although I hate their psychotic behavior, which, by the way, has caused the loss of tens of thousands of innocent lives, not to mention a "Great Recession" which is still hanging on.
"Who? Exactly [who is
Albert Stubblebine, III?]."
I mentioned, already, that he's a retired major general (U.S. Army). That's two stars, just in case you've never had the opportunity to see one while grunting around and harassing Iraqi and Afghan civilians.
Read the link I provided. Hey, he's one of your own.
Yeah, right...
Yes. Right. We did take prisoners during the war, many were members of Al'Qaeda. Do you think I never asked them - "Hey, why are you blowing shit up all the time? Just curious."
I was at camp Rino in afghanistan in 2001, I've seen up close at least half the guys currently in Gitmo. Even spoke with a few- several of whom speak great English.
you're incriminating yourself
Incriminating myself of what? Guarding prisoners? Thats a fairly standard job for a Marine. Especially one who was a Lance Corporal in 2001.
Exactly, what information is that?
Aaaaand here we go. You are just like your birther counterparts on the right. They claim the President is this african, muslim sleeper --manchurian candidate. When you SHOW THEM THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE you get "Oh that's a fake, you know, its all part of the conspiracy." You're exactly the same... just a different wack job conspiracy theory. They fucking published the 9-11 Commission report. We all saw the event happen. Go read it. Go watch it happen on youtube over again.
The particulars don't really matter.
The problem is those particulars violated the civil rights of filmmakers among others. Those particulars were an attack on first amendment rights. But I know, I know, your hatred of "corporate america" trumps the rights of political filmmakers to make movies. Anything that harms your leftist agenda must be trumped and silenced. Its a grand old traddion of the hard left.
I'm adamantly against free speech for corporate organizations, yes.
Should we free marketeers then be able to use election law to ban Michael Moore films then? After all, his films are put out by the company Mirimax, which is owned I believe by Disney - and Moore's films are CLEARLY political in nature.
Fahrenheit 9-11 (a two hour commercial against GWB) was obviously designed to influence the 2004 election. Bowling for Columbine is clearly an anti gun rights, anti 2nd Amendment film. Gun control is a current topic and gun legislation is being considered. Is not Bowling for Columbine an attempt by Mirimax and giant corporation Disney (long with an anti gun agenda) an attempt to influence politics? Why should many if not all of Moore's films not be banned under your logic? Or at least Bowling for Columbine. After all, does not Disney have a far stronger and louder and most importantly richer voice than I have... or even the entire NRA? The annual budget for the NRA is a tiny fraction of Disney's yearly revenue. Why should not films put out by Disney that could be interpreted as having an anti-2nd Amendment theme not be banned, most of all BFC?
I mentioned, already, that he's a retired major general (U.S. Army). That's two stars
SO. WHAT. If being a general is such a big deal to you, do you have any idea how many generals... with a lot more than 2 stars... would find that guy a blithering idiot?
Try again killer. Two stars from a long retired general do not impress me.
JG,
Free likes to argue as if CU v FEC was only about movies. I've been through all this before. It's not just about the movies. I don't care so much about if or when any movie is shown. We both know that the decision was not limited to movies. The core issue is the greater application of corporate money in the election process. These are the ramifications Free avoids entirely.
Movies are not the same thing as direct campaign contributions, PAC's and lobbying. Movies are a corporate product, that may, or may not, have a political viewpoint. They are primarily what Rush falsely claims his show to be, "entertainment". There is no doubt Rush is pure political propaganda. And I don't propose that he shouldn't have the right to his hateful garbage.
The free market is bearing down on him as we speak. Sponsors are leaving in droves.
I don't know a single politician bought by a movie. Do You? Movies are the least concern to the big money boys rejoicing over the CU decision.
Free has admitted to corporate influence in government. He both supports and opposes it, so no matter what you say, he will disagree.
I think he's just ornery. But that's OK, it's part of what I like about his overall presentation. I admit to enjoying sarcasm, so attitude is fine. as long as logic and facts are used primarily.
And I would even add, I wholly support corporate right to speech in advertising their products. Along with legal representation in the court system, that is their business.
Our elections and government, however, is NOT their business.
Separation of business and government is as important as separation of religion and government. Freedom and democracy, let alone the mythical "free market", cannot thrive otherwise.
Free likes to argue as if CU v FEC was only about movies
Well I would think that the plaintiff in the case should be considered.
I've been through all this before. It's not just about the movies
Actually the whole case was about a movie put out by Citizens United that the FEC deemed to political to be released during election season.
That is literally what the case was about.
Movies are not the same thing as direct campaign contributions
Campaign contributions are still governed by election law.
And I don't propose that he shouldn't have the right to his hateful garbage.
Actually, if you support the defendant (FEC) in Citizens United... you do. Weather you realize it or not.
Free has admitted to corporate influence in government. He both supports and opposes it,
I don't support it. I simply suggest that if you don't like a candidate for any reason - like accepting certain donations - you can always not vote for them. If enough people don't vote for candidates who do certain things, they will likely stop doing them.
Separation of business and government is as important as separation of religion and government.
I agree wholeheartedly. But you can't crush Citizens United or Michael Moore's rights in the process. And that is what McCain Fiengold did - and that is why it was overturned.
So you think nothing but showing movies was effected by CU v FEC? Nothing at all about corporate person-hood and election spending?
And you say you read the decision?
Where's that "intellectual honesty" you mentioned?
I agree wholeheartedly. But you can't crush Citizens United or Michael Moore's rights in the process. And that is what McCain Fiengold did - and that is why it was overturned.
Heck with reading the SCOTUS opinion (which I did), did you read my comment?
Where's the intellectual honesty YOU MENTIONED.
You say you are for free speech, but seem more than happy to sacrifice Citizens United's free speech on the alter of anti-corporatism. BTW, I think I just made up a word to describe you, using the word progressives made up. Wow.
It seems as if nothing will stand in a progressive's way of attacking "corporate America," no matter whose rights get trampled on the way. It certainly doesn't matter to Jeff here, who casts off violations of speech rights as throw away "particulars." I will not do that. I take Constitutional Rights very seriously.
It would seem you share in his disregard for basic freedoms.
The simple choice of voting provides all the checks and balances needed in our electoral system. If you don't like a particular politician whose fans support him or her with soft money - don't vote for him.
Don't come crying to me, when people don't make the choices at the ballot box you wish they would make; seeking to convince me to silence the voices of those who influenced them to make that choice. Even if its a choice you or I disagree with, they have the right to chose. And people have the right to try and convince them. Your attempts at silencing will fall on deaf ears. That is intellectual honesty. You are the very definition of doublethink if you believe McCain Fiengold could exist alongside free political speech.
You cannot have free speech and McCain Fiengold. The two are mutually exclusive. Its black or white, either, or. One or the other.
If you're saying opposing corporate super person-hood and its corruption by its superior power of influence by "free speech money" is "attacking corporate America", then yes, that anti-democratic corporate America should be mercilessly attacked and put in its place. It restricts no man's rights.
Read this again: It restricts no man's rights. A corporation is neither a man, citizen nor person. It should not have rights superior to we the people. Corporate free speech is exercised in advertising, lobbying, and with representation in the courts. That is enough for a non-human entity. That is enough for a non-citizen. That is enough for a non-person.
If the Constitution says "We the corporations" then they would be entitled to such rights. In fact it says the opposite. It says government has a duty to regulate commerce, not serve the interests of corporations. Representation is apportioned according to the number of individuals in a district, not the size of its corporations. Well, that was supposed to be the idea, anyway.
The simple choice of voting provides all the checks and balances needed in our electoral system
Not on this planet. Yeah, we get to vote for one of two big money candidates. Look at where that got us.
You cannot have free speech and McCain Fiengold. The two are mutually exclusive. Its black or white, either, or. One or the other.
Absolutist as usual. You still don’t have the right to shout “fire” in a theater. Why? It is counter to the public interest and safety. Same thing with corporate corruption of government.
So you say individuals have more free speech AFTER McCain Feingold’s repealed? LOL! Not a bit. Less in fact. Corporations and Big Money have WAAAYY more “free speech” though, don’t they?
The more money is allowed as “free speech” for Banks and corporation to buy and bribe politicians, the less influence the public has. Period.
It’s called corruption.
At least one Democrat a few years back had the nerve to say what needed to be said.
"The banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis, that many of the banks created, are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place." – Senator Dick Durbin
And this is the Senate with the Democratic majority. Over in the House run by the Guardians Of Plutocracy we have:
Citigroup drafted most of a House bill that would allow banks to engage in risky trades backed by a potential taxpayer-funded bailout.
OK, you value corporate rights over individual rights. Fine. But don’t try to BS us that a non-wealthy individual has gained more of a right to free speech after CU.
And the consequences of that decision affect way more than showing frickin movies. Don’t you get that?
Let ‘em show the movies. Corporate media is more about propaganda than journalism anyway.
Corporate corruption of our government SHOULD be attacked. We need laws that differentiate between corporate and individual rights.
No election, or “free market” blather, will undo the damage.
it restricts no man's rights. A corporation is neither a man, citizen nor person.
It did Citizens United's. It restricted the employees of that company and the company's owners as well as all the people who wanted to watch the film.
How would you feel if your anti-George Bush blog posts had been restricted during the 2004 election, and the reason the FEC gave you was that since Blogger wasn't a person but a corporation - any electioneering communications (that was the legal term) would be delayed in being posted till after the election. Allowing it to be posted would mean a hefty fine for Blogger.
That is exactly analogous to what happened to many companies and people during the McCain Fiengold era.
I'm not sure if it was worse or better the law was applied by the FEC in an entirely haphazard and arbitrary way. Some suffered, those with "the connections" had no such worries about the FEC. That in and of itself when you're talking about political speech is incredibly dangerous.
Using your logic - the logic of McCain Fiengold - why then during this period of gun control debate could we not ban Disney's Bowling for Columbine? After all, according to you Disney and Mirimax are neither a citizen or a man and have no rights. So obviously baning this film would hurt no one and the film is obviously soft money for the anti gun lobby. Answer this simple question if you can - How is a Michael Moore film NOT soft money?
Yeah, we get to vote for one of two big money candidates. Look at where that got us.
You could write in anyone if you wanted and there are third party candidates all the time. As for why people don't, you can't silence people because you don't like how they voted or whom they convinced to vote that way Dave. Money does not equal a vote, it equals advertising. That often leads to votes, but it isn't the same thing. The whole idea in an election is to convince people to vote one way or another.
Absolutist as usual. You still don’t have the right to shout “fire” in a theater
How again is making a television commercial with soft money the same as crying fire in a theater? The two have nothing in common. Its not the same thing at all is it? You would put draconian limits on political speech, and then justify it with pulling a false fire alarm? How civil-libertarian of you? I wonder what else you could be talked into.
Fine. But don’t try to BS us that a non-wealthy individual has gained more of a right to free speech after CU.
A person's rights remain unchanged. Or correct me if I'm wrong; please explain which people were forced to shut up by the government in the wake of Citizen's United because of the repeal of McCain Fiengold.
The fact is, this very blog proves you wrong. You can potentially reach almost a billion people with it. Its not because of "Corporate America" people aren't reading Freedom Rants Dave.
Let ‘em show the movies
Actually had you left McCain Fiengold in place you would not Let 'em show the movies. Much the opposite.
You would be banning the movies.
Corporate media is more about propaganda than journalism anyway.
In your opinion (And often in mine). I say we let people make the decision for themselves what will sway them in elections. You do not seem to think so, and want to control the information (good or bad) they will hear. Believing yourself a civil libertarian and wanting to regulate and control political speech is doublethink.
Take Fahrenheit 9-11 for example. Using your logic, why wouldn't it be okay to ban this film, or at least have banned it during the 2004 election cycle when it came out? After all, it was obviously a ploy of Mirimax and Disney against GWB... basically a 2 hour commercial designed to swing an election. Clearly an application of soft money. If we are to outlaw soft money, how can it be allowed to be shown?
And if we aren't to ban it, what are we to ban? Which advertisements, films, commercials are soft money? The answer during McCain Fiengold was- whatever a particular regulator thought was soft money. Which is why the law was applied so disproportionately. And if laws are applied to some, and not others - isn't that the definition of fascism?
it restricts no man's rights. A corporation is neither a man, citizen nor person.
It did Citizens United's.
Your “it” is not the same as my original “it”. Read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote. Get your subjects of sentences correct before arguing.
If you're saying opposing corporate super person-hood and its corruption by its superior power of influence by "free speech money" is "attacking corporate America", then yes, that anti-democratic corporate America should be mercilessly attacked and put in its place. It restricts no man's rights.
The subject of “it” is “opposing corporate super person-hood and its corruption by its superior power of influence by "free speech money".
Not McCain-Feingold, get it?
As I said, no man’s rights are restricted. But the movie is a separate issue from corporate personhood and corporate election spending.
I understand the shortcomings of McCain-Feingold, it needs to be replaced by better and more specific language on corporate election spending. Again, I don’t care about when or what movie is shown. I have taken no position opposing any frickin movie. You can’t get that through your skull. The ruling didn’t just allow a movie, it overturned a law, leaving a void. Get that? The same has happened with the overturning of much of the Voting Rights Act.
Some suffered, those with "the connections" had no such worries about the FEC. That in and of itself when you're talking about political speech is incredibly dangerous.
Right. And “Connections” in elections, campaigns and government are measured by dollar signs, so that “political speech is incredibly dangerous”. Correct? Or is it magically different somehow?
I say we let people make the decision for themselves what will sway them in elections. You do not seem to think so, and want to control the information (good or bad) they will hear.
Me? I want to control the information? You gotta be kidding. Corporate media and government are already in partnership in information control. Where have you been?
Money is the third leg of the information system. Corporate media, government, and Big Money have a near monopoly on information control. “Fracking is good”, says the corporation. “Fracking provides jobs”, say the corporate media. “My water tap flammable”, says the guy without the “free speech” money.
You want corporate Big Money to have even more control. I want journalism and reporting for my information.
The definition of fascism would include corporate media, government, and Big Money having a monopoly on information control. We are already there. Nukular aluminum tubes and Al-Qaeda in Prague have shown us there’s no accountability with that trio of information control.
Limiting corporate information control would be the opposite of fascism. It would be a step closer to democracy and a free press.
Corporate free speech should be limited to legal representation, advertising their product, and lobbying. Our elections are none of their business. If it is their business and not ours, why not give the entire thing over to them? Oh, that’s right, we already have.
"The banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis, that many of the banks created, are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place." – Senator Dick Durbin
Citigroup drafted most of a House bill that would allow banks to engage in risky trades backed by a potential taxpayer-funded bailout.
Yeah, they need more “free speech” alright.
A new book discusses this topic:
Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex Is Destroying America, by John Nichols and Bob McChesney.
Your “it” is not the same as my original “it”
I don't care what you meant, I care what actually was. You can have your own opinions but not your own facts.
Not McCain-Feingold, get it?
McCain Feingold is what I'm talking about - get it?
But the movie is a separate issue from corporate personhood and corporate election spending.
No its not. Not any more than Michael Moore is separate from Mirimax and Disney. Not anymore than you and Blogger are separate. Not any more separate than Limbaugh and whatever company distributes his radio show are separate. Corporations are a vehicle for free speech. If not for Intel, microsoft, blogger and a host of others, you wouldn't even be able to read this. Corporations aren't a person. They are a group of people. If I banned the Rachel Maddow show and then said I wasn't - I was only going after MSNBC and not an individual... well that's just stupid doublethink.
it needs to be replaced by better and more specific language on corporate election spending
I challenge you to do that without shredding someone or some group's right to free speech. There is no way. Your intentions may be gold, but your execution will be fascist. There already is a perfectly good mechanism to counter lobbying. Its called voting for the other guy. Don't cry to me (again) if the voters simply don't see it your way and now you want to silence those who've convinced them.
I have taken no position opposing any frickin movie.
Yes YOU HAVE. If you do not agree with the SOCOTUS ruling in Citizens United you are taking a position opposing the frickin movie. The whole damn lawsuit was about if Citizens United could release the film Hillary The Movie. Had not the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the damn plaintiff the film Hillary The Movie would have been BANNED.
Get that through your head.
I understand the shortcomings of McCain-Feingold
No, apparently McF is fucking alchemy to you. Do you not understand that had the SCOTUS not struck down McF the FEC would have the power to ban films for a period of time, news programs and advertisements if THEY (the FEC) determined the content was an electioneering communication I.E. had a political message that in any way supported any candidate. That is not free speech, and to think it is, is doublethink.
And “Connections” in elections, campaigns and government are measured by dollar signs
That's right. And those with money and power were using the FEC (namely Hillary Clinton) to get films banned critical of them while promoting things they felt helped them out. Even more reason to for the SCOTUS to strike down McCain Feingold as it did nothing but support incumbent politicians.
Me? I want to control the information? You gotta be kidding
Yes. YOU. Clearly you want that. I'm not saying the actual job, but you want someone to do it, and I'm sure you want that someone to be just like you. And to regulate in such a way as to destroy those you do not politically agree with. That or more likely, you're a dupe for the professional left. I don't know which. Jefferson kinda said it for both of you when he wrote-
I made it abundantly clear -- I'm against the totality of the outcome. The particulars don't really matter.
And when you wrote-
Limiting corporate information control would be the opposite of fascism. It would be a step closer to democracy and a free press.
The problem with that view is that those "particulars" aren't some nameless file in a folder in a clerk's office somewhere attached to a bank account. They are people. Real living people who you and Jeff would arbitrarily crush. Out of one side of your mouth you say you want a free press and out of the other side you argue that the FEC.... the GOVERNMENT should be regulating political speech. Let me tell you, if the government regulates it and can ban things, that isn't "free." That's "controlled."
why not give the entire thing over to them?
Why have government regulate speech ever at all in any way? That would be total freedom. You're advocating a little elite in Washington tell us who and who can't make a film or a commercial or take an ad out in the paper. That's what McCain Feingold was ... not whatever pipe dream you wish it was. I don't care what your intentions are, I care about the results. And the results were unconstitutional - and yet you still argue of the unconstitutional law and then claim you want free speech.
Doublethink.
your execution will be fascist.
Not at all. Fascism employs control of information by the government/corporate media complex.
How about you show us a fascist state that was brought about by keeping corporations out of elections?
You cannot.
EVERY fascist state employs control of information by the government/ media complex.
I'd say a political party that is suppressing voter turnout is far more fascist than a hypothetical one excluding corporations from elections. Especially since that same party closely tied to the same corporations' interests are the ones imposing additional restrictions on voter turnout.
There's your fascism. There's your corruption.
Suppressing democracy is the essence of fascism. Excluding corporate money from elections is the opposite. It leaves us greater democracy, and a clearer voice of the electorate.
Again, no man would suffer any loss of freedom. Only corporations.
A corporation is not a man, and not a citizen. Let the CEO's have the same rights as the rest of us instead of more. He can vote, write his congressman, and write letters to the editor, the same as we can.
Giving that man more power than the majority of Americans is a hallmark of fascism, or at the minimum, corruption.
And corruption is corruption, not "free speech". It is dangerous to democracy and our republic.
Now go watch that movie. I accept the decision, it is done. But we need to correct our election laws in favor of, and not counter to, democracy.
if the government regulates it and can ban things, that isn't "free."
Men are supposed to be free. The Constitution says we need to regulate commerce. See the difference?
Why should a foreign owned corporation have more right to speech in our elections than we the people?
Why have government regulate speech ever at all in any way? That would be total freedom.
You mean total freedom to threaten the president, libel and slander, and shout fire in a theatre?
"Total freedom" is anarchy and a Randroid pipe dream. I don't advocate the regulation of any man's political speech. Men have rights. Artificial constructs of men should not, especially when "money is free speech".
You're advocating a little elite in Washington tell us who and who can't make a film or a commercial or take an ad out in the paper.
No, I'm not. I already told you what rights they should have to advertising, promoting their products and to even lobby. That's already more power of speech and political access than citizens have. I would even let them show any movie they want.
And you really think that's fascism? And restricting voter registration and access to polls is not???
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
Once again, rules are for the little people, not the authoritarians Big Dick and Liz Cheney.
U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Lynne Cheney posted a $220 bond in Ninth Circuit Court in Teton County on Monday on a charge of making a false statement to procure a fishing license.
Not at all. Fascism employs control of information by the government/corporate media complex.
That is precisely what McCain Feingold was.
How about you show us a fascist state that was brought about by keeping corporations out of elections?
Show me a communist dictatorship or fascist dictatorship that didn't do exactly that.
Hell, the Nazis even worked to censor American films, never mind German ones.
EVERY fascist state employs control of information by the government/ media complex
So that should tell you something about yourself when you are arguing for McCain Feingold, which employed control over information, what they called electioneering communications.
Let the CEO's have the same rights as the rest of us instead of more.
They don't have more. You can make a movie too. You can make an advertisement critical of whomever you want too. And you certainly won't make yourself more free by shutting a guy like Alan Peterson (the director of Hillary The Movie) up.
"Excluding corporate money from elections is the opposite. It leaves us greater democracy,"
and
"But we need to correct our election laws in favor of, and not counter to, democracy."
Democracy is voting. Please explain how soft money prevents anyone from voting. You're not talking about Democracy at all. You're angry when people spend their own money to convince people to vote a given way. That isn't the same thing at all, is it? That has nothing to do with voting and everything to do with controlling people and information. LOL... and you say I'm the authoritarian one!
A corporation is not a man,
No its not a man, its men. Simply an organization of people.
And you'd like to silence them... clearly.
Elizabeth Lynne Cheney posted a $220 bond in Ninth Circuit Court in Teton County on Monday on a charge of making a false statement to procure a fishing license.
Somebody call the SWAT team! This is more serious than the limburgh kidnapping! Definitive proof she's a genocidal maniac / sarcasm.
And if she is somehow "more equal" why is she getting charged and need to post bond?
Whatever.
Show me a communist dictatorship or fascist dictatorship that didn't do exactly that.
What they did was provide cheap/slave labor to corporations. No minimum wage is just what they like. Commies, fascists, and certain corporatist libertarians also share this ideal.
How about you show us a fascist state that was brought about by keeping corporations out of elections?
"Let the CEO's have the same rights as the rest of us instead of more."
They don't have more.(right of free speech)
If money is free speech, then they have more. And through their corporation, more again. That add up to you?
Authoritarians hate the very idea of equality, under law, in representation, and everywhere. They believe they are better than others and entitled to more. Oh, yes.
Democracy is voting.
Oh, really? Like in the Soviet Union? Like a choice between Corporate Lackey (R) and Corporate Lackey (D)?
Voting is an essential part of democracy, which is why the Right is suppressing it.
Democracy is government of, by and for the people, not government of by and for Big Money.
Make sense?
"A corporation is not a man,"
No its not a man, its men.
So is the mob. A corporation is money. That is how it is measured, even.
Liz needs to learn she needs higher office for legal immunity, like her Dad.
It's the arrogant attitude, in case you haven't noticed.
And you'd like to silence them... clearly.
By saying I agree to their right to advertising, legal representation in courts, and to lobby?
Is that how I'd like to silence them?
As I mentioned, Why not just give it all to them? The ideology of the radical Right will not settle for anything less that corporate neo-feudalism. Rule by Divine Right of Wealth. We're on our way there.
If money is free speech, then they have more. And through their corporation, more again. That add up to you?
Sure. Because money isn't free speech. Speech is free speech. You could spend a billion dollars on a newspaper... but if it sucks no one will read it. Conversely you can be a little known radio personality and 20 years later you're Rush Limbaugh and you've got a few million ditto heads hanging on your every word.
Its not that you and I lack funds Dave, its just we aren't that entertaining.
Authoritarians hate the very idea of equality, under law, in representation, and everywhere
Under law its fine. Everywhere else, its up to you. People aren't equal Dave. Some are going to do better at things than others, and hobbling the performers for the benefit of the masses isn't freedom.
Oh, really? Like in the Soviet Union?
Hahaha, you really think they had elections in the Soviet Union? Wow. They had show elections, just like they had show trials.
Voting is an essential part of democracy, which is why the Right is suppressing it.
Yes, because we all know showing an ID to buy a beer or a pack of cigarettes is common sense, but showing an ID to vote is fascism. Progressives hate voter ID laws because it will make fixing elections that much harder.
Democracy is government of, by and for the people, not government of by and for Big Money
No. Government is government, which is why the people who shortly after saying "Of, by, and for the people" wrote the Constitution to put it on a very short leash.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
~ George Washington
A corporation is money
Noooo money is money. A corporation is a group of people who share economic risk and legal accountability. And if you don't think they are accountable for breaking the law, go ask Bernie Maddow how jail is.
By saying I agree to their right to advertising, legal representation in courts, and to lobby?
Then you can't possibly be against the SCOTUS' decision on Citizens United. There, I decided. You aren't a sociopath control freak, you're just a dupe of the professional left spouting what they tell you to.
You're not doing such a good job at it...
go ask Bernie Maddow how jail is
Whoops, meant to say Bernie MADOFF
Free0352: "Its [sic] not that you and I lack funds Dave, its just we aren't that entertaining."
Actually, you're very entertaining. Dave is also, although in a scholarly and logical and humanistic way. But you...you're purely amusement for Dave's readers.
As the ancient Roman satirist, Juvenal, recognized: Panem et circenses. You personify what's pervasive in American society today. It's narcissism to a fault. Soon you'll recognize the fault to be your own.
"...you really think they had elections in the Soviet Union? Wow. They had show elections, just like they had show trials."
You think ours aren't?!?
"A corporation is a group of people who share economic risk and legal accountability. And if you don't think they are accountable for breaking the law, go ask Bernie Maddow how jail is."
Yes, go ask Goldman Sachs and all the other derivative creators about accountability, and how their shenanigans brought down the economic system in '08. Yeah! Go ask 'em about risk...and accountability.
Hint: They didn't have any.
One final thought since we're talking about Dick Cheney. Isn't it ironic that Dickie-boy outed one of our own, which obviously must have threatened national security in some form or fashion. (At least it must have threatened Valerie Plame's security, I would think.) Yet, he walks a free man.
Next, you have a soldier who gets thirty years in prison (after suffering torturous conditions awaiting a "show trial") for whistle-blowing and exposing...what?
Yes, Dick Cheney is probably (and more likely, "undoubtedly") a treasonous war criminal and should have been tried long ago.
Hoo boy. Time for some history lessons again, we see.
you're just a dupe of the professional left spouting what they tell you to.
This coming from a “Hitler was a socialist” dittohead is a joke. In fact, Hitler treated socialists the same as communists, Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals. Off to the camps.
And it was the aristocrat Bismarck, not Hitler, who started a universal health program in Germany.
Hitler was a fascist. “National Socialism” was what he called his brand of fascism. “Good Germans” of the time, and dupes to this day, believe him. North Korea claims to be a “Democratic Republic”, too. Are they?
Imagine the fanatical brain of a Right Wing/Wrong Headed person who believes Hitler and Bernie Sanders have the same ideology. Thank you for the view of such a brain.
"They, the Left ...the Democrats, the traitorous branch of 'moderate' Conservatives, the Communists, the Marxists and the Socialists, all tools of the Jews. They all hate us because we do not say to the Rich, 'give to the Poor people'! But instead, We say, 'German people, help yourselves!'" – Adolph Hitler
Sounds like a Randroid Koch libertarian.
Nazism, Fascism, Communism - at their hearts they're all the same thing..
And is wasn’t providing safety nets, voter rights, and health care, was it? No, they are all for crushing unions and suppressing democracy in service to the exclusive interests of their elite class. Let’s add the American radical Right and Republican Party to that list.
Nazism, Fascism, Communism and radical Right American Republicanism are all in direct opposition to labor unions and democracy.
Fritz Thyssen, Alfried Krupp and other military industrial capitalists supported the Nazis suppression of worker rights and leftist politics. Henry Ford and Prescott Bush were fans and supporters too. Crony capitalism existed under Hitler, just like here.
But Nazism was neither capitalism nor socialism. It was fascism.
Just the facts, son.
Nobody practices socialism, because it has a 100% failure rate.
What planet are you on? Socialism is a broad concept. To the narrow mind, it is identical to communism. I’d say Social Security and Medicare are socialistic. You probably do too. Ask the elderly and disabled who need Social Security to keep them out of poverty if that’s a “100% failure rate”. Ask the poor and underemployed if healthcare from Medicare is “100% failure rate”.
Because money isn't free speech
The Buckley v Valeo and CU v FEC decisions say it is.
showing an ID to buy a beer or a pack of cigarettes is common sense, but showing an ID to vote is fascism. Progressives hate voter ID laws because it will make fixing elections that much harder.
I can buy beer without an ID. Voting is a right, or used to be. Fixing elections? You mean like Diebold (R)? No. the only reason the Right is restricting voter registration and poll access is they win by having less voter turnout. Thus their war on democracy. Anyone thinking there’s a higher noble reason for their actions is just another duped dittohead.
the people who shortly after saying "Of, by, and for the people" wrote the Constitution to put it on a very short leash.
One more history lesson. You have it backwards. The Constitution came before the Gettysburg Address.
One more time:
"The banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis, that many of the banks created, are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place." – Senator Dick Durbin
Citigroup drafted most of a House bill that would allow banks to engage in risky trades backed by a potential taxpayer-funded bailout.
Is this “free speech”, or corruption?
So much for Republican Conservatism in Germany under National SOCIALISM...Yeah, and so much for Bernie Sanders' Democratic Republic of Korea.
German Health Insurance Law of 1883. This law provided low cost or no cost insurance to the lower middle class. It was the ObamaCare of its day.
Ah, so Bismarck was a socialist like Obama? And is Obama a socialist like Hitler? Or is Bernie Sanders a socialist like Stalin?
Any government run public program is a socialized program. From cops to firemen, from the military to Social Security. Socialism is government service to the public. Socialized public service is not the same as a socialized economy. We don't have a system of worker ownership of production. We have been doing quite well with that mix of socialism and capitalism. Well, until capitalism proved to be a failure when under-regulated. This is a good example why our socialist Constitution provides for the regulation of commerce.
You see the threat of big evil absolute of communism where it is not. The radical right wants to destroy government's Constitutional obligation to regulate commerce and promote the general welfare.
Ah, so Bismarck was a socialist like Obama?
No. Back in the old 1800s it was common for Kings... or Kaisers, or the powers behind them (Bismark) to shower the masses with their generosity. In a monarchy, people depend for every waking need on the aristocracy. Just like Saudi Arabia today. Or Detroit.
From Websters- Socialism
1: various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2:
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
You don't have to tell me what socialism is Dave, there is a dictionary for that. And no, you may not have #3, or what comes after.
There are communists who support the collectivisation of this country. They've just rebranded. They're called progressives.
Free0352: "In a monarchy, people depend for every waking need on the aristocracy. Just like Saudi Arabia today. Or Detroit."
Detroit's a monarchy?!?
"There are communists who support the collectivisation of this country. They've just rebranded. They're called progressives."
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of COLLECTIVISM
1: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity
Any of several types of social organization that ascribe central importance to the groups to which individuals belong (e.g., state, nation, ethnic group, or social class). It may be contrasted with individualism. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the first modern philosopher to discuss it (1762). Karl Marx was its most forceful proponent in the 19th century. Communism, fascism, and socialism may all be termed collectivist systems. See also communitarianism; kibbutz; moshav. [bold emphasis my own]
Sounds more like the collectivism of corporate power, to me, so let's add corporate organizations to those examples above. I don't see any signs, at all, of communist collectivism in this country. No signs at all. However, the repugnant odor of fascism is certainly in the air. As a matter of fact, the stench is overwhelming.
Sorry, Tool Boy, the danger isn't communism taking over the reins of power. It never was.
Go to jail. Do not collect $200.
I have a question for Free0352:
Do you receive a government pension as a benefit of your service in the U.S. military?
Socialism as ideology is rigid but is very flexible in reality. Same with Capitalism.
I've always thought we need regulated commerce. Is that socialism? I've agreed that government should provide for the general welfare. Is the Constitution a manifesto of socialism?
No. But these are clearly socialistic. Any nation that is exclusive of capitalistic or socialistic systems would not function.
But we have rigid ideologues who can't see this simple reality.
Socialism and capitalism are in theory rigid and exclusive systems, but very flexible in practice.
Fascism is very rigid in both theory and practice, yet capitalistic and socialistic aspects endure under it. Democracy is crushed, though.
This is exemplified by the corporate/government nexus we have that is tightening its grip as we speak. What we see growing in the US is antagonism for democracy. We have corporations and government eager for war, building a surveillance state and militarizing police departments.
Democracy, voter registration, and poll access are being restricted, not the right to private property.
There’s a Forbes article called “Is Obama a Socialist?” (To them, of course Obama is a socialist)
A comment that follows makes a good point.
Obama does not advocate for the elimination of private property so he is not a socialist.
Conservatives do not do themselves any favors labeling everyone they don’t like “socialists”. The ordinary American has largely come to think of “socialism” as “A government that helps people” and “capitalism” is “A government that does not help people”, which is fundamentally incorrect but the inevitable result the conservative attack upon any who advocates for the government helping the ordinary citizen being labeled a “socialist”.
Sound familiar?
Americans are caught in an ideological war between two extremes where only one exists in reality. We don’t have a socialist economy or a socialist government. There’s no movement to abolish private property. We do have crony, cutthroat and corrupt capitalism waging a war on democracy; and from within the government.
The fictitious “socialist” goal of no private property is being attacked by a real foe that wants to accumulate ALL property and wealth.
This is the real threat and danger of unregulated capitalism. The only cure is a socialized system of balance with regulation of commerce. And I don’t mean corporate socialism where we keep bailing out the failed capitalists.
Now what are we going to do about banks writing their own legislation and regulations? Let the “free market” decide, vote for the next candidate in their pocket, or regulate the bastards?
Giving banks the privilege of personhood and citizenship, allowing them to use bribery as “free speech” is the recipe for more disaster.
I suggest we let the Constitution guide us. All we need is a law that says, regarding elections, a corporation is not a person, and not entitled to the rights of we the people. Same with unions. As we agree, a corporation is a group of men, a collective bound by their shared interest in profit productivity.
So not one living soul would have his rights restricted. Some fat cats will bitch because their privilege of having their collective right to political speech rights will be gone. Their individual rights will be the same as yours, mine and every person.
Who was it who said:
“At the root of all their conceptual switches, there lies another, more fundamental one: the switch of the concept of rights from the individual to the collective—which means: the replacement of “The Rights of Man” by “The Rights of Mob.”
Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression “individual rights” is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today’s intellectual chaos). But the expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms.
Yes, that was none other than Ayn Rand.
This is what equality means. This is what democracy needs. Rights are individual, or not at all.
Jeff,
Detroit's a monarchy?!?
More like an oligarchy. In the Kwami Kilpatric days, definitely a fiefdom.
Do you receive a government pension as a benefit of your service in the U.S. military?
Sure do, as a result of a signed contract for services rendered. I never said all government or even all government services are bad. I'm not an anarchist. I'm for giving other essential government workers a compensation package as well. If you can't see the moderation between a small government who pays its employees and a socialist state - that lack of moderate vision defines extremism. You can always spot the extremist, its either absolute black or white. The suggestion here, it that I'm a hypocrite for taking my pension. No, I'm not. Hypocrisy would be me taking welfare. I don't begrudge a compensation package for services rendered. I begrudge a compensation package for no services rendered. Dave here is a prison guard. I think thats an absolutely necessary function of government and I obviously had no problem with him being paid for his work. I worked very hard for the American people for a long time, and I got paid for it. That's fine. What is asinine, is people who never worked a day getting a better deal.
Dave,
As I said, I'm not an anarchist, I don't mind some regulation of commerce. Just not at the expense of individual rights. The rights of the individual trump the rights of the people.
Democracy, voter registration, and poll access are being restricted,
Why would we not want to restrict voter registration to the dead, illegal immigrants, the mentally incompetent, felons etc? I think its racist to insinuate black grandmothers can't figure out how to get a 16.00 state ID card and register to vote on time. I think they are plenty smart and can figure it out just fine.
We don’t have a socialist economy or a socialist government.
Nope, we have a mixed economy. And a President pushing for a full socialist one... and failing mostly at it. Mixed economies are the worst of both worlds, and are unsustainable.
Same with unions.
But unions are a group of people. They deserve protection like anyone else. Like any other group, like a corporation or a faith. You seem to think I'd jump at the chance to hamper the rights of unions.
On that you are wrong.
Free0352: "Sure do, as a result of a signed contract for services rendered. I never said all government or even all government services are bad."
Well, good! So this obviously means you're on board with Social Security. There's nothing different between your "contract" and those of social security recipients. You provided services; Social Security recipients paid into a trust.
"Hypocrisy would be me taking welfare."
You make too much of a deal about "welfare". It's a drop in the bucket compared to so many other sieves, such as the defense and "security" apparatus.
"I worked very hard for the American people for a long time, and I got paid for it."
And I've worked very hard for the betterment of my family and society, paid my taxes (both income and FICA), and when the time comes expect a return on what I've paid in.
"But unions are a group of people. They deserve protection like anyone else."
And those individual members have those Constitutional protections (well...until the Patriot Act and NDAA, anyway), but their organizations, like corporations, shouldn't be allowed to have them also.
I think its racist to insinuate black grandmothers can't figure out how to get a 16.00 state ID card and register to vote on time. I think they are plenty smart and can figure it out just fine.
I agree. They can figure it out.
Some of them can even take their car to whatever place they need to go. But some don't have a car. Some couldn't drive due to age and disability. Some don't have access to drivers. And many, many, more are not even grandmothers.
Republicans have calculated that additional restrictions on registration and access to polls weeds out mostly voters they don't want voting. How could anybody with a lick of sense not see that?
If voter impersonation was that serious and pervasive, they'd have a case. They don't have that case.
They have vote suppression in mind. Some have openly admitted it.
You're free to be their "true believer". There are always enough true believers who think Republicans are out to make things better for anyone but themselves.
You won't be alone. They have duped millions.
we have a mixed economy. And a President pushing for a full socialist one
Yeah, there you go again, with the level of hysteria when you accused little old me of "attacking corporate America" for saying a corporation is not a citizen.
It is "attacking corporate America" for saying our public elections are none of their business. So I'm "attacking corporate America" for saying their money corrupts politicians and buys legislation, buys de-regulation, buys tax breaks, buys sweetheart deals to scoop up our tax dollars.
If speaking the truth is "attacking corporate America", I guess I am guilty. Somehow I don't see them mortally wounded by my "thought-crime" against all their wealth, power and corruption.
My whispers of free speech are no threat to the thunder of their "free speech money".
A corporation is not a person and not a citizen. Rights, and elections, are for persons and citizens.
How about we let corporations participate in elections...just as soon as they show us proof of citizenship, register to vote, and show us ID at the polls?
Sound fair?
Or am I "attacking corporate America" for asking of them the same thing that Republicans demand from the disabled?
Well, good! So this obviously means you're on board with Social Security
I don't think there is anything illegal about social security, I think its a bad deal. I think it should be a choice. I should be able to opt out if I want, and I very much do.
You provided services; Social Security recipients paid into a trust.
They paid in, but it didn't work. Social Security is deep in the red. I'm sorry, but not all investments pay off. And the truth is, if you tried to set up a private institution that operates like Social Security you would be indicted. You've been had, I'm sorry. I didn't do it to you. However, I see no reason why my generation or my kid's generation should be chained to the boomer generation and forced to finance their retirements at great expense.
As for the aspects of social security that are for the disabled, while I'd tighten restrictions on who is eligible, its a reasonable governmental expense on a pure welfare scale when it comes to those who cannot self support.
and when the time comes expect a return on what I've paid in.
If you trusted that guarantee, that's your bad. There is always risk.
but their organizations, like corporations, shouldn't be allowed to have them also.
People have to organize. You kill political speech that way. Both for unions and companies. You destroy the ability of working people to have a voice in government this way.
Post a Comment