Score one for the Constitution

[TheAnvil 0]

Good news.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Interesting interpretation.

Good commentary on this by Gore:
-----------------------
The single most surprising new element in America's national conversation is the prominence and intensity of constant fear. Moreover, there is an uncharacteristic and persistent confusion about the sources of that fear; we seem to be having unusual difficulty in distinguishing between illusory threats and legitimate ones.

What a lovely commentary by the leading Global Warning Chicken Little Hysteric a.k.a. CLH.

What does it have to do with your claim of our system of government being based on cowardice?

I get the feeling you think it means something different from what it actually means.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

>Interesting interpretation.

Good commentary on this by Gore:
-----------------------
The single most surprising new element in America's national conversation is the prominence and intensity of constant fear. Moreover, there is an uncharacteristic and persistent confusion about the sources of that fear; we seem to be having unusual difficulty in distinguishing between illusory threats and legitimate ones.

What a lovely commentary by the leading Global Warning Chicken Little Hysteric a.k.a. CLH.

What does it have to do with your claim of our system of government being based on cowardice?

I get the feeling you think it means something different from what it actually means.

The fear mongering is a given. It works. Look at how easily people are willing to sacrifice their freedoms, as well as their humanitarian convictions at the promise of some security; and the security promised is not from anything tangible, but from an intangible methodology based on a psychological response. Fear mongering was absolutely central to all of Bush's pre-war speeches and it gets ramped back up again every time he slips in the polls. I suppose that you could also call Gore's global warming speeches fear mongering as well. But then the difference would be that one speaker has verifiable data from multiple, publically available internationally peer reviewed sources to back up his claim, the other doesn't.
As for cowardice, I think that's pretty obvious. Our current leadership has no problem sacrificing other people's lives and money in an effort to advance their personal agendas.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

As for cowardice, I think that's pretty obvious. Our current leadership has no problem sacrificing other people's lives and money in an effort to advance their personal agendas.

That sounds like sleaze... or absue of power. What's your definition of cowardice? IMO it's illustrated nicely by the Knights of the Round Table screaming "run away, run away" as they flee from catapulted livestock.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

What's your definition of cowardice

The current leaderships actions during the Vietnam war certainly qualifies... One got an impossible to get appointment ...that for most of the young men at the time to get to get into a National Guard Unit that was protecting from....uh....hmmmmm.....rather than going to Vietnam... or most of them who never served.. yet they are willing to send off other peoples kids to far off wars that they would NEVER go to.. nor will they allow THEIR children to go to while they line their pockets. Sounds like a good definition of cowardice.

[Guest]

Quote

The fear mongering is a given. It works. Look at how easily people are willing to sacrifice their freedoms, as well as their humanitarian convictions at the promise of some security; and the security promised is not from anything tangible, but from an intangible methodology based on a psychological response. Fear mongering was absolutely central to all of Bush's pre-war speeches and it gets ramped back up again every time he slips in the polls. I suppose that you could also call Gore's global warming speeches fear mongering as well. But then the difference would be that one speaker has verifiable data from multiple, publically available internationally peer reviewed sources to back up his claim, the other doesn't.
As for cowardice, I think that's pretty obvious. Our current leadership has no problem sacrificing other people's lives and money in an effort to advance their personal agendas.

Hmmm....reminds me of gun control.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

What's your definition of cowardice

The current leaderships actions during the Vietnam war certainly qualifies... One got an impossible to get appointment ...that for most of the young men at the time to get to get into a National Guard Unit that was protecting from....uh....hmmmmm.....rather than going to Vietnam... or most of them who never served.. yet they are willing to send off other peoples kids to far off wars that they would NEVER go to.. nor will they allow THEIR children to go to while they line their pockets. Sounds like a good definition of cowardice.

Your insights are always interesting.

Who in the Administration are lining their pockets as a result of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? How so?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Who in the Administration are lining their pockets as a result of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? How so?

Jusrt following along in the family tradition... you going to read it for once.. its long...so I really dont expect anthing in the way of understanding the motivations of GWB and Cheney and their ties to ling their pockets at other expense.

Four generations have created an unsavory web of links that could prove an election-year Achilles' heel for the president

by Kevin Phillips

Four generations have created an unsavory web of links that could prove an election-year Achilles' heel for the president.

Despite February polls showing President Bush losing his early reelection lead, he's still the favorite. No modern president running unopposed in his party's primaries and caucuses has ever lost in November.

But there may be a key to undoing that precedent. The two Bush presidencies are so closely linked, especially over Iraq, that the 43rd can't be understood apart from the 41st. Beyond that, for a full portrait of what the Bushes are about, we must return to the family's emergence on the national scene in the early 20th century.

This four-generation evolution of the Bushes involves multiple links that could become Bush's election-year Achilles' heel — if a clever and tough 2004 Democratic opponent can punch and slice at them. Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, the clear Democratic front-runner, could be best positioned to do so. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, he investigated the Iran-Contra and Bank of Credit and Commerce International scandals, both of which touched George H.W. Bush's Saudi, Iraqi and Middle Eastern arms-deal entanglements.

Washington lawyer Jack Blum, the ace investigator for Kerry's subcommittee back then, is said to be advising him now, which could be meaningful. Ironically, the Bush family's century of involvement in oil, armaments and global intrigue has never been at the center of the national debate since the Bushes starting running for president in 1980.

The reason? Insufficient public knowledge. The only Bush biography published before George H.W. Bush won election in 1988 was a puff job written by a former press secretary, and the biographies of George W. Bush in 2000 barely mentioned his forefathers. Millions of Republicans who have loyally voted for Bushes in three presidential elections simply have no idea. Here are circumstances and biases especially worth noting.

The Bushes and the military-industrial complex: George H. Walker and Samuel Prescott Bush were the dynasty's founding fathers during the years of and after World War I. Walker, a St. Louis financier, made his mark in corporate reorganizations and war contracts. By 1919, he was enlisted by railroad heir W. Averell Harriman to be president of Wall Street-based WA Harriman, which invested in oil, shipping, aviation and manganese, partly in Russia and Germany, during the 1920s. Sam Bush, the current president's other great-grandfather, ran an Ohio company, Buckeye Steel Castings, that produced armaments. In 1917, he went to Washington to head the small arms, ammunition and ordnance section of the federal War Industries Board. Both men were present at the emergence of what became the U.S. military-industrial complex.

Prescott Bush, the Connecticut senator and grandfather of the current president, had some German corporate ties at the outbreak of World War II, but the better yardstick of his connections was his directorships of companies involved in U.S. war production. Dresser Industries, for example, produced the incendiary bombs dropped on Tokyo and made gaseous diffusion pumps for the atomic bomb project. George H.W. Bush later worked for Dresser's oil-services businesses. Then, as CIA director, vice president and president, one of his priorities was the U.S. weapons trade and secret arms deals with Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the moujahedeen in Afghanistan.

In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about how "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." That complex's recent mega-leap to power came under George H.W. Bush and even more under George W. Bush — with the post-9/11 expansion of the military and creation of the Department of Homeland Security. But armaments and arms deals seem to have been in the Bushes' blood for nearly a century.

Oil: The Bushes' ties to John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil go back 100 years, when Rockefeller made Buckeye Steel Castings wildly successful by convincing railroads that carried their oil to buy heavy equipment from Buckeye. George H. Walker helped refurbish the Soviet oil industry in the 1920s, and Prescott Bush acquired experience in the international oil business as a 22-year director of Dresser Industries. George H.W. Bush, in turn, worked for Dresser and ran his own offshore oil-drilling business, Zapata Offshore. George W. Bush mostly raised money from investors for oil businesses that failed. Currently, the family's oil focus is principally in the Middle East.

Enron is another family connection. The company's Kenneth L. Lay made his first connections with George H.W. Bush in the early 1980s when the latter was working on energy deregulation. When Bush became president in 1989, he gave Lay two prominent international roles: membership on the President's Export Council and the task of planning for a G-7 summit in Houston. Lay parlayed that exposure into new business overseas and clout with Washington agencies. Family favoritism soon followed. When Bush senior lost the 1992 election, Lay picked up with son George W., first in Texas and then as a top contributor to Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. Before Enron imploded in late 2001, it had more influence in a new administration than any other corporation in memory.

The intelligence community: Bushes and Walkers have been involved with the intelligence community since World War I. The importance of Sam Bush's wartime munitions-regulating role was obvious. During the 1920s, when George H. Walker was doing a lot of business in Russia and Germany, he became a director of the American International Corporation, formed during the war for purposes of overseas investment and intelligence-gathering. Prescott Bush's pre-1941 corporate and banking contacts with Germany, sensationalized on many Internet sites, appear to have been passed along to officials in government and intelligence circles.

George H.W. Bush may have had CIA connections before the agency's unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961. A number of published sources suggest that Zapata Offshore was a CIA front long before he went on to become director of Central Intelligence in 1976. As for George W. Bush, his limited ties are said to have come through investments in, and buyouts of, several of his oil businesses by CIA- and BCCI-connected firms and individuals.

Top 1% economics: Over four generations, the Bush family has been involved with more than 20 securities firms, banks, brokerage houses and investment management firms, ranging from Wall Street giants like Brown Brothers Harriman and E.F. Hutton to small firms like J. Bush & Co. and Riggs Investment Management Corp. This relentless record of handling money for rich people has bred a vocational hauteur. In their eyes, the economic top 1% of Americans are the ones who count. Investors and their inheritors are favored — a good explanation of why George W. Bush has cut taxes on both dividends and estates, where most of the benefit goes to the top 1%. Over the course of George H.W. Bush's career, he was close to a number of the merger kings and leveraged-buyout specialists of the 1980s who came from Oklahoma and Texas: T. Boone Pickens, Henry Kravis and Hugh Liedtke. "Little guy" economics has almost no niche in the Bush economic worldview.

Debt and deficits: Whenever a Bush is president, private debt and government deficits seem to grow. Middle- and low-income Americans borrow to offset the income squeeze of recessions. The hallmark of Bush economics during both presidencies has been favoritism toward capital over workers. Federal budget deficits have soared because of a combination of upper-bracket tax favors, middle-income job shrinkage, big federal spending to hype election-year economic growth, huge defense outlays and overseas military spending for the wars in Iraq and elsewhere. Imperial hubris costs a lot of money.

Politically, over four generations the Bush past has been prologue. Despite George W. Bush's new good ol' boy image — cowboy boots and born-again ties to the religious right — his basic tendencies go in the same directions — oil, crony capitalism, top 1% economics and military-industrial-establishment loyalties — that the previous Bush and Walker generations have traveled. The old biases and loyalties seem ineradicable; so, too, for old grudges, like the two-generation fixation on Saddam Hussein.

The presidency is an old Bush ambition. As early as the 1940s, Barbara Bush talked to friends about becoming first lady. The current president's grandfather, Prescott Bush, told his wife before he retired in 1962 that he wished he'd been president. By 1963, George W. Bush, a student at Andover Academy, was talking about his own father's desire to be president.

In short, the word "dynasty" fits the Bushes all too well. They have had plenty of time to sort out their ambitions, loyalties and intentions. They know what they're in politics for — although this year may pose a new problem. The American people are also starting to find out.

Kevin Phillips' new book, just published, is "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush."


.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0208-05.htmBush Family Values: War, Wealth, Oil

[Amazon 7]

Now lets take a look at the NO BID COMPANY and THE DICK in the VP chair...

http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/25/news/companies/cheney/

WASHINGTON (CNN) - A congressional report concludes that, under federal ethics standards, Vice President Dick Cheney still has a financial interest in Halliburton, the energy services company he used to run.

The report says that the deferred compensation that Cheney receives from Halliburton as well as the more than 433,000 stock options he possesses "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest."

"As this C.R.S. report shows," Lautenberg said, "The ethics standards for financial disclosure is clear. Vice President Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton."

On Sept. 14, Cheney said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" that "Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

Cheney has insisted in the past that the deferred compensation was set up long before he became a candidate for the vice presidency. The money is insured in case the company goes under and Lautenberg acknowledged that the compensation received so far has been donated to charity.

Lautenberg also acknowledged that the president and the vice president are both exempt from the enforcement of ethics laws.

"I believe the vice president is an honorable man," Lautenberg said at a news conference, "I just think he made a mistake."

YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Bush

Cheney

Halliburton Company

or Create your own

Manage alerts | What is this?



In a written release, Lautenberg said, "I ask the vice president to stop dodging the issue with legalese, and acknowledge his continued ties with Halliburton to the American people."

Lautenberg said $205,298 was paid to Cheney in deferred salary by Halliburton in 2001, and $162,392 last year. Lautenberg said Halliburton stock options held by Cheney were 100,000 shares at $54.50 per share, 33,333 shares at $28.125 and 300,000 shares at $39.50 per share.

Halliburton (HAL: Research, Estimates) stock closed Thursday at $24.72. The Morningstar stock rating service gives Halliburton a C-minus grade for growth, D-plus for profitability and a B for financial health, even though Halliburton secured $2.25 billion in contracts in Iraq, including a controversial $1.25 billion no-bid contract



And this is BEFORE the windfall they have found in IRAQ....

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

As for cowardice, I think that's pretty obvious. Our current leadership has no problem sacrificing other people's lives and money in an effort to advance their personal agendas.

That sounds like sleaze... or absue of power. What's your definition of cowardice? IMO it's illustrated nicely by the Knights of the Round Table screaming "run away, run away" as they flee from catapulted livestock.

Well, Bush WAS challenged to a duel. He could have solved this like an honorable gentleman
As for the Knights, that was only a temporary retreat when they realized the inadequacy of their defense contractors product and the that the leadership had not thoroughly thought out the post invasion plan.
Empty Trojan rabbit.....puhhhhleeeeese.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

I would, however, think that even an Illini could realize that, save for the website reference (that they may or may *NOT* go to), there is no information in your profile to tell them who you are.

Oh yeah, apart from the link that explains exactly who Kallend is and what he does there's absolutely nothing that could identify him! Straws and clutching are the words that come to mind.

I mean, apart from the first name 'Mike' in your profile you are completely anonymous too! For all we know that might not be your real name! What are you trying to hide 'Mike'?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,106]

It appears that even the most enthusiastic Bush supporters are in agreement with this court decision. Very cool indeed!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Who in the Administration are lining their pockets as a result of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? How so?

Jusrt following along in the family tradition... you going to read it for once.. its long...so I really dont expect anthing in the way of understanding the motivations of GWB and Cheney and their ties to ling their pockets at other expense.

Four generations have created an unsavory web of links that could prove an election-year Achilles' heel for the president

by Kevin Phillips

This article contributed nothing towards answering my question.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

This article contributed nothing towards answering my question.

War and war profiteering is a Bush family tradition...so when the Shrub wants to be a WAR PRESIDENT he has control over when his family gets to dig in and profit once again.

Bring on the apologies for them.. we are used to it from the far right.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Now lets take a look at the NO BID COMPANY and THE DICK in the VP chair...

Quote

Lautenberg acknowledged that the compensation received so far has been donated to charity.

"I believe the vice president is an honorable man," Lautenberg said at a news conference, "I just think he made a mistake."

And this is BEFORE the windfall they have found in IRAQ....

So, the deferred compensation has been all donated to charity? Hmm.

How have Bush or Cheney profited from these wars?

The devil is in the details.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The devil is in the details.

HE certainly is.

I dont think Jesus was a big fan of war

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

This article contributed nothing towards answering my question.

War and war profiteering is a Bush family tradition...so when the Shrub wants to be a WAR PRESIDENT he has control over when his family gets to dig in and profit once again.

Bring on the apologies for them.. we are used to it from the far right.

No apologies needed. You've provided no evidence of the Pres or the VP profiting from these wars.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

No apologies needed. You've provided no evidence of the Pres or the VP profiting from these wars.

Uh yes there are apologies needed... since critical thinking skills are completely lacking.

Face it your gods in the administration can do NO WRONG..in your eyes,,,, you cant see what you do not WANT to see... Just like the president going to rallies where ANYONE who would dissent is screened out... to it APPEARS to be a complete and total support of his war.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Hmmm....reminds me of gun control.

mh

You're exactly right. The same methods are being used to convince people to give up their rights, or, more often, barter away the rights of other people. Both parties are saying "Give us your (guns/habeas corpus/money/privacy) and we will make you safe!"

[Butters 0]

In reality, the president does alot of things right and alot of things wrong and alot of things the president doesn't do at all (right or wrong) are attributed to the president anyways. This has been the case, is the case, and will be the case independent of who is president.

It would do EVERYONE some good to realize this.

I would still like my original question answered. If you don't release prisoners of war until the end of the war then when do you release prisoners of a never ending war like the War on Terror? Do we impose sentences like the War on Drugs for the War on Terror?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Amazon 7]

We do as the North Vietnamese and others have done.. where they kept the air pirates (as they called our men)....etc till the negotiations occur for the war to be declared over.

BUT this non status that Gonzales et al have put on them serves no logical purpose other than to avoid all the conventions we are a party to... VERY BAD precedent is being set... that IS going to bite our people in the ass.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

No apologies needed. You've provided no evidence of the Pres or the VP profiting from these wars.

Uh yes there are apologies needed... since critical thinking skills are completely lacking.

Face it your gods in the administration can do NO WRONG..in your eyes,,,, you cant see what you do not WANT to see... Just like the president going to rallies where ANYONE who would dissent is screened out... to it APPEARS to be a complete and total support of his war.

Resorting to ad hominem, eh? I guess if that's all you've got...

Sorry you couldn't seem to make your case with actual facts.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

BUT this non status that Gonzales et al have put on them serves no logical purpose other than to avoid all the conventions we are a party to... VERY BAD precedent is being set... that IS going to bite our people in the ass.

Well, waddaya know???

Amazon said something I agree with.

[Butters 0]

Quote

We do as the North Vietnamese and others have done.. where they kept the air pirates (as they called our men)....etc till the negotiations occur for the war to be declared over.

America will not negotiate with terrorists and thus the War on Terror will never be declared over. So when do we release the prisoners?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Amazon 7]

Quote

America will not negotiate with terrorists and thus the War on Terror will never be declared over. So when do we release the prisoners?

We dont... BUT we try them as terrorists.... as criminal scum they are and if they are found guilty based on the EVIDENCE...... let them rot in a federal prison for LIFE.