[FDRfollower]

Hi all. I just got a first hand report from an ACLU meeting featuring Rep. Ed Markey, held in Faneuil Hall in Boston.

The panel was about the issue of the administrations lies about national security and the spying, and so forth.

What stood out though, were the questions from the audience.

The first one was from a woman who demanded Markey lead an impeachment of the "Fascist" administration, which Markey avoided, saying that'll happen in Nov.

The next was from an old man who said he was a history professor who had escaped the Nazis when young and remembers how fascism grew in Germany and he saw the same signs around him. That people are asleep and we have to wake them up. That people in power use torture, and say that they are "above the law." He stated that this cannot happen here, we must stop this happening. He got a standing ovation. Markey looked very uncomfortable and went to the next question.

Who happened to be a woman from the Soviet Union, and she spoke very passionately about the gulag system she had fled in the USSR and that it was being set up in America with people being arrested without charges, without evidence, taken to unknown locations, and not given a trial. This was dictatorship which we had to stop, which also got a big response.

My friend said that Rep. Markey was very scared about saying the "F" word.

[snowdog]

well Dahhhhhhhhh! what would you think the ACLU would do when they have
a chance to bash GWB? of course they will get applause! They (the ACLU)
are fighting hard for the rights of convicted child molesters.

[FDRfollower]

Your response, confirms my earlier post about your knee jerk pavlovian reactions. Your nickname just makes it more ironical.:)

I guessed by putting ACLU in, that you would say as much.
You defend a president who let Enron rape California.

If you read the post, my emphasis, was on the German and Russian refugees, who lived through brutal regimes, and can see it happening here, and wanted the congressman to grow some balls and tell the truth, and fight! I myself had a friend who escaped Nazi Germany, only to move back to Germany a couple of years ago because the administration scared the crap out of her. She could see what was going on.

[sweetpea]

Your response, confirms my earlier post about your knee jerk pavlovian reactions. Your nickname just makes it more ironical.:)

I guessed by putting ACLU in, that you would say as much.
You defend a president who let Enron rape California.

If you read the post, my emphasis, was on the German and Russian refugees, who lived through brutal regimes, and can see it happening here, and wanted the congressman to grow some balls and tell the truth, and fight! I myself had a friend who escaped Nazi Germany, only to move back to Germany a couple of years ago because the administration scared the crap out of her. She could see what was going on.
---
Did Snowdog defend Bill Clinton?

Enron was doing their deeds while President clinton was in office .... the Co. officers were tried while Pres. Bush was in office.

So please tell me who Snowdog was defending.....anxiously awaiting your answer.

[FDRfollower]

---
Enron was doing their deeds while President clinton was in office .... the Co. officers were tried while Pres. Bush was in office.


No, the looting started in 2001, the shutting down of power generators, manipulating the market, etc. Gov. Davis went to the Bush administration and they said "drop dead". I should know, I was campaigning for Davis and the state legislature to re-regulate the electric system.

The free market SUCKS!!!

[FDRfollower]

So please tell me who Snowdog was defending.....anxiously awaiting your answer.

:eek: Oyeah! Oyeah! Please rise! The trial of Snowdog is now in session. Judge Haus presiding.

JH: Mr. Snowdog, please aproach the bench. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

SD: (being the red blooded, flag waving, all-american he is) Yes, so help me GOD.

JH: Mr. Snowdog, in the period of 2001, President Bush and Cheney defended Enrons right to steal billions from California and F*%# Grandma Millie over really good. Did you or did you not support Bush' position?

SD:

[sweetpea]

when I referred to enrons deeds I was referring ot their financial scandal.

However, concerning California and blaming Bush-Cheney on that sate's stupid deregulation (kinda but we wanna freeze prices and make those evil energy companies [Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Electric ] pay) laws is patently absurd.

Bottome line is CA enacted half-assed energy policies and laws and paid the price. Wholesale prices went up on a free market and these mean, evil energy companies were forbidden to raise their prices....ergo they curtailed output.

You keep telling yourselves that the Pres. of the US is to blame for this and try to sell that to voters,.....and keep losing elections.

[FDRfollower]

when I referred to enrons deeds I was referring ot their financial scandal.

However, concerning California and blaming Bush-Cheney on that sate's stupid deregulation (kinda but we wanna freeze prices and make those evil energy companies [Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Electric ] pay) laws is patently absurd.

Bottome line is CA enacted half-assed energy policies and laws and paid the price. Wholesale prices went up on a free market and these mean, evil energy companies were forbidden to raise their prices....ergo they curtailed output.

You keep telling yourselves that the Pres. of the US is to blame for this and try to sell that to voters,.....and keep losing elections.

Well, let's see. I know that Gov. Davis went to Washington DC to ask the administration for help, and the administration said "F___ YOU!"

Fact: I do know that Bush got up around $600,000 in campaign contributions from "Kenny Boy".

Fact: During the Wilson governership, Enron wrote the deregulation laws that were passed unanimously by both parties following national deregulation.

Fact, Enron and the other "companies" were shutting power plants off and on in order to create a shortage.

Fact: there is NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET. That's a fairy tale. The fundamental principle of our nation is the GENERAL WELFARE, not "markets" Adam Smith is the biggest fraud in history. The same goes for Ricardo, Mill, Malthus, Quesnay, Samuelson, Marx, and every economist who's won a Nobel Prize in the last couple of decades.

[sweetpea]

Well, let's see. I know that Gov. Davis went to Washington DC to ask the administration for help, and the administration said "F___ YOU!"

Fact: I do know that Bush got up around $600,000 in campaign contributions from "Kenny Boy".

Fact: During the Wilson governership, Enron wrote the deregulation laws that were passed unanimously by both parties following national deregulation.

Fact, Enron and the other "companies" were shutting power plants off and on in order to create a shortage.

Fact: there is NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET. That's a fairy tale. The fundamental principle of our nation is the GENERAL WELFARE, not "markets" Adam Smith is the biggest fraud in history. The same goes for Ricardo, Mill, Malthus, Quesnay, Samuelson, Marx, and every economist who's won a Nobel Prize in the last couple of decades.


Your skewed take on the "facts" not with standing, your comment "GENERAL WELFARE" is the fundamental principle of our nation is very telling. I'm sure you believe it. However, you could not be more wrong.

Where should I begin????????

Let's keep it simple. Who defines this vague "general welfare"?

[FDRfollower]

Your skewed take on the "facts" not with standing, your comment "GENERAL WELFARE" is the fundamental principle of our nation is very telling. I'm sure you believe it. However, you could not be more wrong.

Where should I begin????????

Let's keep it simple. Who defines this vague "general welfare"?

How about our founding fathers. :laughing:

The Constitution of the United States

We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

further along, Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Then if you go back to the Declaration of Independence, the first grevance against the monarchy is:

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

You have heard of those before, The Constitution of the United States, and the Declaration of Independence, right? Maybe you've read them? Anything else in the Constitution or DofI you disagree with?

[sweetpea]

I'm with you on the Founding Fathers. Except the term fundamental principle deems it necessary to go backwards a little to; (well the fundamental principles).

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

Cherry picking certain pieces of the Constitutiona dn holding them up as the "fundamental principles" or our country aint gonna get it.

It's good to see, though, that you put some credence into the Constitution. What are your thoughts on the 2nd amendment.?

[FDRfollower]

I'm with you on the Founding Fathers. Except the term fundamental principle deems it necessary to go backwards a little to; (well the fundamental principles).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "
Cherry picking certain pieces of the Constitutiona dn holding them up as the "fundamental principles" or our country aint gonna get it.
It's good to see, though, that you put some credence into the Constitution. What are your thoughts on the 2nd amendment.?

Cherry picking is what the administration does, in finding any lying excuse to go to war with, like their upcoming war with Iran.

Do you know the reason for having the preamble? Without it, there IS NO REASON for government.

The only reason for having a second amendment is the common defense and general welfare. Guns don't make nations, ideas do. Shoot, there wouldn't be guns without ideas. Don't put the cart before the horse. You're cherry picking.

So, let me ask you. What is the purpose of our Nation?

[FDRfollower]

Hey SweetPea, since you're the lone defender of the administration, what say you about this?

Do you agree with Bush's statement that 'the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper'

Do you agree with Cheney/Bush's violation of article 4, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Do you agree with the Republican Party, and Cheney/Bush's violation of article 15, the right to vote.

[sweetpea]

Hey SweetPea, since you're the lone defender of the administration, what say you about this?

Do you agree with Bush's statement that 'the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper'
Didn't know he said that. You got a link or a quote or is it some Micahel Moore cut and paste?

Do you agree with Cheney/Bush's violation of article 4, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures?
--How about a little detail. Are you referring to Gitmo?

Do you agree with the Republican Party, and Cheney/Bush's violation of article 15, the right to vote.
Again. how about some detail. you referring to soldiers votes overseas being disqualified...(Oh wait, that would be Gore) could you tell me what case/person/instance you are talking about?
_______________________

[FDRfollower]

Didn't know he said that. You got a link or a quote or is it some Micahel Moore cut and paste?

Well sure, why would Rush or Shawn or Laura tell you that? They couldn't be pitbulls for the neo-cons if they was telling the truth!

But unless one can confirm a quote, true, I can't confirm that he said "Stop waving the Constitution in my face! It's just a worthless piece of paper!" as reported by a witness, when white house lawyers were arguing that spying on people is in violation of the constitution. But, it seems consistant with a guy who IS quoted as saying "Dictatorship would be easier", "The social security trust fund is a bunch of worthless IOU's", and believes in the Furuer principle.

Again. how about some detail. you referring to soldiers votes overseas being disqualified...(Oh wait, that would be Gore) could you tell me what case/person/instance you are talking about?

What a convenient memory loss! :binkybaby: Hey Haus, tell her about the democratic majority districts in Ohio who were denied voting machines, people who were sent letters directing them to other districts, calls threatening jail time if they voted, etc. It's called voter supression, and the 15th Amendment (led by Republican James G. Blaine) and 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed because of tactics like the Republicans used in 2004.

Oh, and to re-iterate my question a few posts back, "What is the purpose of our Nation?"

[sweetpea]

Didn't know he said that. You got a link or a quote or is it some Micahel Moore cut and paste?

Well sure, why would Rush or Shawn or Laura tell you that? They couldn't be pitbulls for the neo-cons if they was telling the truth!

But unless one can confirm a quote, true, I can't confirm that he said "Stop waving the Constitution in my face! It's just a worthless piece of paper!" as reported by a witness, when white house lawyers were arguing that spying on people is in violation of the constitution. But, it seems consistant with a guy who IS quoted as saying "Dictatorship would be easier", "The social security trust fund is a bunch of worthless IOU's", and believes in the Furuer principle.
------So does this mean there is no quote and that you are grossly generalizing? Or do you have a quote? My point being you ask the question as if GWB made that exact statement, but from what I can gather is that you are posting third hand he said/she said info as a paraphrased quote. If he said it we can discuss, but since he didn't then you are asking a pointless question. Remember strawmen. If you insist on debating what you think others would say you will get nothing out of it except further convincing yourself what you already believe. FYI...I think you spelled pretty boy Sean's name wrong.


Again. how about some detail. you referring to soldiers votes overseas being disqualified...(Oh wait, that would be Gore) could you tell me what case/person/instance you are talking about?

What a convenient memory loss! Hey Haus, tell her about the democratic majority districts in Ohio who were denied voting machines, people who were sent letters directing them to other districts, calls threatening jail time if they voted, etc. It's called voter supression, and the 15th Amendment (led by Republican James G. Blaine) and 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed because of tactics like the Republicans used in 2004.
---This is the example of violating voting rights act? This? aRe you kidding me? I though maybe you had some smoking gun. By the way, I am certain there are some sleazy folks in local Rep. party who do this sort of stuff as there are Democrats (ever hear of Daly?), but if you actually think that Bush/Cheney and/or the Rep. Party leadership did this (if it is even true) then you need to adjust your-V-hat.

What about question #2? were you referring to Gitmo? Still searching for the actual quote? Just wondering.

[FDRfollower]

For the first time since 1877, the two houses of the U.S. Congress went into separate sessions on Jan. 6 back in 2005, to debate a challenge to the outcome of the Electoral College vote for the Presidency of the United States. If you think about that, if it was just some corrupt local politico, would that cause a constitutional crisis? Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, on Jan. 5, released a 102-page staff report from Judiciary Committee Democrats, itemizing the massive vote suppression and fraud in Ohio.

The Executive Summary of the report stated bluntly: "We find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio." The Judiciary document said that there were "ample grounds for challenging the Electors from the State of Ohio"; and called on Congress to conduct a full probe into the Ohio irregularities through the appointment of a Joint Select Committee of the House and Senate.

Sen. Boxer voted against certifying the Ohio Electors, along with 31 House members. Prior to the election, both the Columbus Dispatch and WVKO radio documented that phone calls from people impersonating Board of Elections workers were made to registered voters in Ohio, directing them to different and incorrect polling sites. According to Bob Fitrakis, who worked on vote protection in Ohio, one individual was falsely told not to vote at the polling station across the street from his house, but at a "new" site, four miles away. Under Blackwell's new rules concerning provisional ballots, such a vote would not be counted.

But the biggest single case of such dirty tricks in Ohio was cited by Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, on national television, Oct. 30. Pairing off with Republican National Committee head Ed Gillespie, on ABC's "This Week" talk show, McAuliffe said that 250,000 flyers falsely telling Ohio voters that their registrations were not valid had been distributed, especially to minority group voters. McAuliffe handed a copy to Gillespie on the air, but viewers were not given a chance to see it.

By McAuliffe's description, the leaflet was similar to the forged Board of Elections letter of Oct. 22, sent out on Lake County Board of Elections letterhead, that told voters that they were ineligible to vote on Election Day.

So, if you think that is fine, then really, I'm sorry that you don't want a constitutional republic where all peoples votes matter.

[sweetpea]

For the first time since 1877, the two houses of the U.S. Congress went into separate sessions on Jan. 6 back in 2005, to debate a challenge to the outcome of the Electoral College vote for the Presidency of the United States. If you think about that, if it was just some corrupt local politico, would that cause a constitutional crisis? Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, on Jan. 5, released a 102-page staff report from Judiciary Committee Democrats, itemizing the massive vote suppression and fraud in Ohio.

The Executive Summary of the report stated bluntly: "We find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio." The Judiciary document said that there were "ample grounds for challenging the Electors from the State of Ohio"; and called on Congress to conduct a full probe into the Ohio irregularities through the appointment of a Joint Select Committee of the House and Senate.

Sen. Boxer voted against certifying the Ohio Electors, along with 31 House members. Prior to the election, both the Columbus Dispatch and WVKO radio documented that phone calls from people impersonating Board of Elections workers were made to registered voters in Ohio, directing them to different and incorrect polling sites. According to Bob Fitrakis, who worked on vote protection in Ohio, one individual was falsely told not to vote at the polling station across the street from his house, but at a "new" site, four miles away. Under Blackwell's new rules concerning provisional ballots, such a vote would not be counted.

But the biggest single case of such dirty tricks in Ohio was cited by Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, on national television, Oct. 30. Pairing off with Republican National Committee head Ed Gillespie, on ABC's "This Week" talk show, McAuliffe said that 250,000 flyers falsely telling Ohio voters that their registrations were not valid had been distributed, especially to minority group voters. McAuliffe handed a copy to Gillespie on the air, but viewers were not given a chance to see it.

By McAuliffe's description, the leaflet was similar to the forged Board of Elections letter of Oct. 22, sent out on Lake County Board of Elections letterhead, that told voters that they were ineligible to vote on Election Day.

So, if you think that is fine, then really, I'm sorry that you don't want a constitutional republic where all peoples votes matter.
-
Nice cut/paste.

So tell us. Whatever came of these seperate sessions? What was the end result? Did the vast right wing conspiracy round up the Democrat memebers of Congress and tie them up so they couldn't finish the sessions OR did the political grandstanding and unsubstantiated accustaions die a natural death?

What about your false questions 1 and 2? you give up on those?

[FDRfollower]

So denying people the right to vote is fine and dandy in your book? As long as it gets your hero GWB elected?

That's a pretty immoral, and unconstitutional stance. I'm sorry that you disagree with the constitution.

[sweetpea]

So denying people the right to vote is fine and dandy in your book? As long as it gets your hero GWB elected?

That's a pretty immoral, and unconstitutional stance. I'm sorry that you disagree with the constitution.
--

So concluding I said something when I didn't is fine and dandy in your book? As long is it further convinces you that your "progressive" ideals are right?

That's a pretty dishonest stance. I'm sorry you don't comprehend what my response was. I'll ask again.

What came of the sessions? What happened in the end?

One last question. Do you believe it is OK for overseas soldiers absentee ballots to be thrown out on a technicality?

[FDRfollower]

--
So concluding I said something when I didn't is fine and dandy in your book? As long is it further convinces you that your "progressive" ideals are right?
That's a pretty dishonest stance. I'm sorry you don't comprehend what my response was. I'll ask again.
What came of the sessions? What happened in the end?
One last question. Do you believe it is OK for overseas soldiers absentee ballots to be thrown out on a technicality?

For those who are students of history, Arguing about Slavery : John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress by William Lee Miller :thumbup: will give you a GREAT view into the situation currently faced by our Democratic Representatives, where Cheneys lackies institute a modern day version of the "Gag Rule" to suppress any substantive discussion in the House. Just as John Quincy Adams (my HERO) :notworthy: fought a single-handed battle in the congress against the slave interests, who would suppress all petitions submitted dealing with slavery, today, our Democratic Representatives have to hold hearings in catering rooms, or broom closets, being denied official hearing status. What became of them, you ask? The discussion was SUPPRESSED, & CRUSHED on orders of Cheney.

What became of the votes of our overseas soldiers? Why, because of the decision of our supreme court, they didn't matter. If you can throw away the votes of black voters, why should military members votes count. You can play a sophist game, but I'm not going to let you.

[sweetpea]

For those who are students of history, Arguing about Slavery : John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress by William Lee Miller :thumbup: will give you a GREAT view into the situation currently faced by our Democratic Representatives, where Cheneys lackies institute a modern day version of the "Gag Rule" to suppress any substantive discussion in the House. Just as John Quincy Adams (my HERO) :notworthy: fought a single-handed battle in the congress against the slave interests, who would suppress all petitions submitted dealing with slavery, today, our Democratic Representatives have to hold hearings in catering rooms, or broom closets, being denied official hearing status. What became of them, you ask? The discussion was SUPPRESSED, & CRUSHED on orders of Cheney.

What became of the votes of our overseas soldiers? Why, because of the decision of our supreme court, they didn't matter. If you can throw away the votes of black voters, why should military members votes count. You can play a sophist game, but I'm not going to let you.

----
I love how you rewrite/edit/ history.

So. You are telling me that Cheney told the Democrats to leave the House and Senate and go to the broom closets?
Turn your-V-hat a little left and you will hear Willie Wonk espousing his chocolate factory OR maybe you can go ask Alice in Wonderland.

Just to be clear. It was Ok to throw out military ballots because there were accusations of voter fraud in Florida in 2000? Wanna take a guess how many times the votes in Florida were recounted and what the outcome was each time?

Keep focusing on 2 yr. and 6yr. history and continue to become less and less credible. Ask Kucinich.

[FDRfollower]

Ok, maybe you should brush up a little on the function of the House of Representatives. It'll take reading something above the level of the Enquirer, but you should try anyway.

There's a biiiiiiig building in Washington DC, which two political parties occupy. One party has a larger number of members and is in control of Committees. On the floor of the biiiiiiig building, in the House of Representatives (ooo, five sylables) a vote is taken to find out the truth of a matter of importance to the nation, the matter is sent to a committee to investigate, write a report, and send it back to the floor for a vote. Since the Democrats are the minority party, whenever they ask to form a committe to investigate something that would look baaaaaad to the people in the White House, there is one response, NO! So, since the Democrats are not allowed to get at the truth, they have to hold committee meetings in broom closets. The Republicans, under the control of Cheney, just go along with the Dick-tats of the White House.

A lot of people didn't have their votes counted in 2000, not just members of the military. The constitutional method for dealing with the situation was to send the matter to the House of Representatives for a vote, just like the election crisis in 1876. The Democrats failed, by picking the only candidate who could have lost against the biggest IDIOT our nation has ever had the experience to have sitting in the White House. You and I have to live with the consequences of having political parties who cannot choose qualified people. Going into a hysterical, triumphalist screech isn't going to help rebuild our country, or stop Dick from dragging our asses into a permanent religious war with the entire Muslim world, or get anything done in a constructive manner. Especially if there's going to be a posterity for our children, which they don't have anymore thanks to your blindness, and the blindness of most of our citizens.

[haus]

There's a biiiiiiig building in Washington DC, which two political parties occupy.

To paraphrase The Count from Sesame Street: "It's three, THREE political parties. Bwahahahahaha!" One mustn't forget Bernie Sanders and Jim Jeffords from the Great State of Vermont. Though one tends to dump them in with the Democrats, on the count of their good sense.

[sweetpea]

Ok, maybe you should brush up a little on the function of the House of Representatives. It'll take reading something above the level of the Enquirer, but you should try anyway.

There's a biiiiiiig building in Washington DC, which two political parties occupy. One party has a larger number of members and is in control of Committees. On the floor of the biiiiiiig building, in the House of Representatives (ooo, five sylables) a vote is taken to find out the truth of a matter of importance to the nation, the matter is sent to a committee to investigate, write a report, and send it back to the floor for a vote. Since the Democrats are the minority party, whenever they ask to form a committe to investigate something that would look baaaaaad to the people in the White House, there is one response, NO! So, since the Democrats are not allowed to get at the truth, they have to hold committee meetings in broom closets. The Republicans, under the control of Cheney, just go along with the Dick-tats of the White House.

A lot of people didn't have their votes counted in 2000, not just members of the military. The constitutional method for dealing with the situation was to send the matter to the House of Representatives for a vote, just like the election crisis in 1876. The Democrats failed, by picking the only candidate who could have lost against the biggest IDIOT our nation has ever had the experience to have sitting in the White House. You and I have to live with the consequences of having political parties who cannot choose qualified people. Going into a hysterical, triumphalist screech isn't going to help rebuild our country, or stop Dick from dragging our asses into a permanent religious war with the entire Muslim world, or get anything done in a constructive manner. Especially if there's going to be a posterity for our children, which they don't have anymore thanks to your blindness, and the blindness of most of our citizens.
------
So, since the Democrats are not allowed to get at the truth,
---Poor wittle Democrats. Not allowed to get to the truth, by themean evil Vice President. Cut the condescencion and listen to what you are saying. OR keep adjusting your-V-hat.

[FDRfollower]

Not allowed to get to the truth, by themean evil Vice President. Cut the condescencion and listen to what you are saying. OR keep adjusting your-V-hat

You should take the tin-foil off your head first.:pick:

[FDRfollower]

I've found our SweetPea in history.

Shakespeare - Julius Caesar Act 1 Scene 2

Brutus - What said he when he came unto himself?

Casca - Marry, before he fell down, when he percieved the common herd was glad he refused the crown, he plucked me ope his doublet and offered them his throat to cut. An I had been a man of any occupation, if I would not have taken him at a word, I would I might go to hell among the rogues. And so he fell. When he came to himself again, he said, if he had done or said anything amiss, he disired their worships to think it was his infirmity. Three or four wenches, where I stood, cried "Alas, good soul!" and forgave him with all their hearts: but there's no heed to be taken of them; if Caesar had stabbed their mothers, they would have done no less.

Brutus - And after that, he came, thus sad, away?

Casca - Ay.

For those who wish to a see a modern Bush rally, read all of Act 1, Scene 1

I'm wondering. What do you think about me spouting all this classic poetry? Does it bother you? Is it annoying? Do you enjoy it?

[haus]

By way of answer:


In science, read, by preference the newest works; in literature, the oldest. The classics are always modern.

--Edward George Earle Lytton Bulwer-Lytton (1803–1873)

[Jane of Arc]

I'm wondering. What do you think about me spouting all this classic poetry? Does it bother you? Is it annoying? Do you enjoy it?

I assume you were looking for a response from Sweetpea, who seems to have disappeared.

I think you're a wonderful breath of fresh air FDR. You bring wisdom and wit to the forum. So please ... quote away ... :thumbup:

[FDRfollower]

Victory for the nation!! Down with corporate bloodsuckers!!

May 25th, 2006 1:05 pm
Enron's Lay, Skilling Convicted of Conspiracy and Fraud Charges


May 25 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. jury convicted Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of orchestrating the fraud that destroyed Enron Corp., giving prosecutors a victory a case that came to symbolize corporate crime sparked by the stock market bust in 2000.

Jurors in federal court in Houston deliberated six days before finding Lay, Enron's former chairman, and Skilling, its former chief executive officer, guilty today of fraud, conspiracy and other charges. The panel heard four months of testimony before reaching a decision in the case.

``This conviction brings to a close the government's effort to send a clear message to the corporate world that fraudulent behavior won't be tolerated,'' said David Irwin, a former state and federal prosecutor who now handles white-collar criminal defense cases in Baltimore.

Here's me back in 02/04/06

Well, let's see. I know that Gov. Davis went to Washington DC to ask the administration for help, and the administration said "F___ YOU!"

Fact: I do know that Bush got up around $600,000 in campaign contributions from "Kenny Boy".

Fact: During the Wilson governership, Enron wrote the deregulation laws that were passed unanimously by both parties following national deregulation.

Fact, Enron and the other "companies" were shutting power plants off and on in order to create a shortage.

Fact: there is NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET. That's a fairy tale. The fundamental principle of our nation is the GENERAL WELFARE, not "markets" Adam Smith is the biggest fraud in history. The same goes for Ricardo, Mill, Malthus, Quesnay, Samuelson, Marx, and every economist who's won a Nobel Prize in the last couple of decades.

and here's our misspelling Sweetpea 02/03/06

when I referred to enrons deeds I was referring ot their financial scandal.

However, concerning California and blaming Bush-Cheney on that sate's stupid deregulation (kinda but we wanna freeze prices and make those evil energy companies [Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Electric ] pay) laws is patently absurd.

Bottome line is CA enacted half-assed energy policies and laws and paid the price. Wholesale prices went up on a free market and these mean, evil energy companies were forbidden to raise their prices....ergo they curtailed output.

[JamesP]

The conviction of the Enron robber-barons is another great sign that there is still life & hope in the concept of an America "for, of & by the people".

When those so high & "politically-connected" can be held accountable, it is a clear indication that our justice system can still work, as intended, for "all of the people" & that corruption & cronyism is not yet supreme.

The dark period characterized by the Bush administration's reign is winding down.

[wimzkl]

FDRfollower

The free market SUCKS!!!


Please show me one example in history where some other economic system worked better. FDR was a strong advocate of free market economics and it was his New Deal policies that fended off the socialist movement in this country during the Great Depression.

Regulation is necessary to keep a level playing field so that "free market" economics can work. It has built-in faults particularly the tendency toward concentration of wealth and concurrent concentration of political power, but it is the best system according to history.

Why don't we call this thread "nit-picking"? It seems appropriate, especially considering the "misspelling" dig.

[wimzkl]

Sweetpea

Let's keep it simple. Who defines this vague "general welfare"?

Perhaps the "general welfare" is the greatest benefit for the public.

It would seem obvious that there must be guidelines and regulations covering private enterprise so that competition will be to the benefit of the public. Many will argue that the benefit of the public is of secondary importance. Refer to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” His logic that free enterprise is the best system was that is the way to attain the greatest benefit for the public. You cannot advocate a system without advocating its philosophic basis. And, if it of secondary importance, pray tell what is of prime importance?

What in our system exactly provides the greatest benefit to the public. I think we will all agree it is liberty, democracy, the Separation of Powers, checks and balances and personal security as protected by the Bill of Rights. I know I want all these things for my grandchildren and their grandchildren and I am confident we all do. Enormous fortunes, privilege and special interests come and go, but the public interest goes on as long as liberty lasts.

You can nit-pic all you want, but after all else is said and done, the only important issue is the maintenance of liberty. Is it now under threat? It is always under threat. Liberty has come to an end many time in history and always the result of excessive political power. Excessive political power is the result of the concentration of wealth in few hands.

Most important, what are children without expectations of liberty? The struggle to obtain and keep liberty is no more than combat to limit the power of those that govern. The struggle to limit the power of those that govern is no more than combat to limit the concentration of wealth in few hands. The struggle to limit the concentration of wealth in few hands is no more than combat to spread the wealth among many middle class consumers.

It really comes down to problem solving by the private sector or by the public sector; conservative versus liberal respectively. As with most difficult matters, the best answers lies somewhere in the middle. Both sides are weighed down by bureaucracies – government agencies or corporate behemoths. Some things are done best by government because the desired results are in direct conflict with the profit motive. History demonstrates that certain objectives can only be reached communally. Law and order are the best examples. Efficient creation of material objects is best accomplished by the private sector.

Capitalism is, without doubt, the best economic system, but what is capitalism without liberty? Inequities make capitalism work. The concentration of wealth defeats both liberty and capitalism. The great middle class consumers, who power the economy of our great nation, can win this struggle at the ballot box so their grandchildren and future generations will not have to win this struggle to insure liberty once again sacrificing their lives and limbs.

“The government is the problem!” Well, duh, it has always been thus and it depends solely on who is doing the driving. Today’s liberal Republican and Democrat favoritism to the special interests is a grave threat to our most basic values. Who should be driving this nation?

[FDRfollower]

FDRfollower
Please show me one example in history where some other economic system worked better. FDR was a strong advocate of free market economics and it was his New Deal policies that fended off the socialist movement in this country during the Great Depression.

Regulation is necessary to keep a level playing field so that "free market" economics can work. It has built-in faults particularly the tendency toward concentration of wealth and concurrent concentration of political power, but it is the best system according to history.

Why don't we call this thread "nit-picking"? It seems appropriate, especially considering the "misspelling" dig.

Ha ha! :laughing:

Don't worry too much about SweetPea, it was during one of his/her contentious trolling threads recently, when she/he accused Haus or -V- of spelling something wrong, when he/she was misspelling words in the very post!! If you go over his/her posts, you'll see numerous errors.

My exclamation was about my frustration at getting ANY point across to his/her naive view that everything is pure and holy in the corporate world and whatever they say is sancrosanct. :angel:

Don't get me wrong. What FDR called the "free market", has a different meaning today. Today, the protections that he implemented have largely been gutted, and the philosophy of business, finance, and economics is "beggar thy neighbor", or, in more modern terms, "screw him before he screws you". While we can be glad that crooks like Kenny Boy and Skilling get their just deserts, the model they used dominates what is taught in the universities. Where the IDEA of morality is left out, nay, is looked on with horror!! Where morality should be the guiding principle of economics, not the Imperalistic or Fascist view that reduces humanity to a commodity. Today, the "Free Market" in the "mind" of the business world, is a licence to steal as much as possible with no interference by any government, regardless of the cost to humanity.

So, when I say that THE FREE MARKET SUCKS!!!!!!!, it's just my reaction to what is going on today. Not what the idea would mean in the real world under a more rational government, with a more rational and beneficial business climate, where the long term interests of the nation took preference, instead of short term, primitive accumulation.

Your homework for tonight is Henry C. Carey's "The Harmony of Interests", so you can see where I'm coming from.

[wimzkl]

SweetPea

More on "general welfare."

Why are the interests of society more important? Simply because that is what we all want. It is not your selfish motive for yourself; it is what you want for your grandchildren and for their grandchildren. You may make a great fortune through you selfish activities, but when your grandchildren fritter it away, you want their children and grandchildren to have the opportunity to succeed as you succeeded. To ensure that opportunity, we must make sure that the system we now have will be there for them.

Our problem, then, is to make sure that our system is stable and safe. That is the public interest. Public interest is not welfare and not pork, but it is a safe environment, it is clean air and safe streets and decent pay and working conditions and safe food and good schools and so many other things.

“We have some real political differences among us, but we all share the same goals: clean air and water, injury free workplaces, safe transportation systems, to name a few of the good things that can come from regulation.”-Fred Thompson (a conservative.)

Historically the greatest threat to democracy has been the concentration of wealth in few hands. Corporate America now poses the greatest threat to our liberties and democracy. Every historical democracy came to an end. Ours can be different only if we make sure that all potential danger is contained.

In 1941, a U.S. Congressional committee states: “The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power…” When the executive and legislative branches are unified and dominated by an outside force the whole system is jeopardized by the imbalance and lack of checks.

Corporate institutions are not flesh and blood and the legal system should acknowledge the fact that corporations are merely one way to do business. While we ban any person from stuffing our ballot boxes, we have no good way to deter “stuffing” their money where it corrupts.

In most cases, the managements of these corporations are honest men who would not think of cheating on the golf course or in most of their other activities. When it comes to spending money for favors from politicians or bureaucrats, there are no holds barred because that is outside the province of normal ethical behavior. The rational is that there is the only way to achieve certain desired goals. It is the other SOP (Standard Operating Procedure vs the Separation of Powers.)

Machiavelli deja vous: “His audacious doctrine was avowed in the succeeding age, by men whose personal character otherwise stood high. They saw that in critical times good men have seldom strength for their goodness, and yield to those who have grasped the meaning of the maxim that you cannot make an omelet if you are afraid to break the eggs. They saw that public morality differs from private, because no government can turn the other cheek, or can admit that mercy is better than justice. And they could not define the difference, or draw the limits of exception; or tell what other standard for a nation’s acts there is than the judgment which heaven pronounces in this world by success.”

Corporations are not “endowed by the creator with unalienable rights,” and should not be allowed to influence our elections. The mere equation of a corporation to a human insults the memory all who have fought and died for liberty. It insults all humanity. It is vastly more insulting to those great men of our history who risked their all to give us the American system and way of life.

We must not judge corporations solely an a standard of success. As a general rule, virtually all corporations fail over the long run. The bigger they are, the greater the damage to the public interest. The first corporations were chartered to accomplish the public interest and they were held to high standards. Lobbying and corrupting politicians has done away with those standards.

The corporate aristocracy is now driving this nation through the lobbyists. Do you believe they have some sort of divine guidance? To be sure, the rich and powerful have managed much in history and some have managed well. But as humans they will make mistakes and the general welfare is damaged. The difference between run and ruin is just and a very small letter.