jeff wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
jeff wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
jeff wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
jeff wrote:


Think about what you're saying. Cheney, who was selected by Bush
as his running mate, so badly wanted to be *vice-president* that
he surreptitiously promised to sacrifice the well being of the
country so these companies could make billions and billions of
dollars in profits.

No. He did it out of habit. It's the system he knows, the people
he trusts. It just turns out that his friends, relatives,
associates etc. are the ones who make money.

So anyone with a habit of taking such huge risk

What risk? I'd bet that Cheney could reveal the identity of a secret
agent just for political purposes and get away with it!

So you think massive corruption worth billions isn't much of a risk. I
see.

When you make the rules, the risks are minimal. When your chief-of-staff
will take the fall, the risks are minimal. And for billions of
dollars, the risks are acceptable. If you're connected enough, the SEC
doesn't bother to investigate when you dump stock a few weeks before
announcing major losses. Only a few ever get punished - that's only
when the crimes are in the Enron scale.

In my lifetime, Nixon has gotten in criminal trouble he couldn't get
himself out of, so has Clinton, and so have about fifteen Congressmen
that I can recall. All for offenses that pale in comparison to the
supposed corruption we're discussing here.

I'm not sure why you think they are all above the law. I mean, back in
the seventies I used to believe the whole trilateral commission/ rich
people ruling the world stuff. But upon further thought and observation
it just doesn't wash.

to do so much for the people he loves

Omigod! You're pouring it so thick!

No, this is your theory. You're saying he's doing it for his friends.
He must love them or really really like them, or what? Why is he doing
this then if it's not love?

Oh, I thought you were claiming he (or "they" in general) do it "for
love of country." No, as I said, favors are given because that's the
way the system works. Give someone from a well connected family a small
stake in a business, perhaps a baseball team, and suddenly a stadium is
built with public funds. Out of love? No, that's something you keep
bringing up. Its a way of life.

Ah, so now you're saying Cheney got his payback *before* he was VP.

When he acquired the shares of Halliburton, the Bush/Cheney ticket
wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye. Cheney certainly wasn't on the fast
track to any big position of power at the time, so in order for your
theory to make sense, tens of thousands of never was's are being groomed
and paid large amounts just in case they end up as vice-president.
That's the only way it could work, right?

Like, no one could have known, say, six years ago, the position Obama
would be in now, but just in case, him and many others like him are
being given favors and whatever, *large* favors, worth billions, just in
case. Have I got that right?

Seriously, with rhetoric like this you're pretty much admitting
you're full of ****!

but not for himself is generally considered a wonderful wonderful
person, right? I mean the story is normally how evil of a person it
takes to do what he does. Do these pieces really seem to fit?

Perfectly! Your nonsense is a perfect example of "repeat the
bull**** often enough and enough of the naive voters may buy it."
How many of the voters thought the last election was really about gay
marriage?

Don't you get what I'm saying? Now you seem to be suggesting Cheney
doesn't love his "chums" that he is acquiring billions for. Why is he
doing it then????? He's just some freak of nature who has a habit of
trying to steal billions of dollars for someone else?

No, he's just dealing in the world he helped create. You're trying to
base an argument on "rich people would never commit a crime because they
have too much to loose."

No, my argument is that the logistics of your scenario (which BTW
qualifies as a giant conspiracy, terminology-wise) doesn't make sense.
The money/favor trail would be too easy to trace and there are too many
rabid reporter types out there who are searching for such money trails,
many of them on Cheney himself, right this minute, I'm sure.

Most of the conspiracy theorists who investigate start realizing this so
they stop proposing that guys like Cheney are doing it for themselves
and suggest they are doing it for someone else, which makes even less
sense, as I've explained previously.

It hasn't really
gotten average citizens of democratic countries any more rights,
priviliges, or benefits than any form of government that has come
before it, or more than any other country currently on earth.

Ah, so now you're claiming the rich and powerful deserve anything
they can grab because some of the people have more rights.

No, *you* are the one who said things are the same as they've been for
thousands of years before democracy existed.

Not exactly the same, obviously, but unchanged in many ways.

Perhaps you should read a basic history book.

Been there, done that.

Read about the Patricians
and Plebeians in ancient Rome. Even after centuries of fighting when
the Plebeians were given equal rights, the wealthy families ruled. All
that really changed was that Plebeians could rise to power as the old
Patrician families died out.

That system, of course, was not a liberal democracy, like ours.

Whether the common folk have right stamped on bronze tablets, or written
in the Magna Carta or the Constitution doesn't change the fact that the
rich and powerful are rich and powerful.

Yes, well, a free economy *should* reward those who do more to earn
more, shouldn't it? I mean if I discover the cure for cancer, shouldn't
I be able to make lots of money and live in the lap of luxury? We want a
society like that don't we? For god's sake, let's make even more of a
reward for the guy who discovers the cure for cancer, and the guy who
builds me a reasonably priced car that runs on water, and the guy who
makes great Chinese food within fifteen minutes of my home! Don't you agree?

The children of the wealthy get their "youthful excesses" expunged,
while the same violation means 15 years for others. One could go on
all day on this theme, but only a fool believes the rich and poor are
really equal under the law.

Well, the average rich individual supports many many times more of the
governments expenses than the average poor person. You know that, right?

Well duh, they enjoy a privileged position.

They even pay a larger percentage of their income. Did you know that?

That is one of the myths that Rush loves to spout, but it simply is not
true. If you think I'm wrong, bring it on!

No point in arguing about that, the point is that they pay way way more
per person than poor people. At least you're not arguing with that.

They do have ways of making it less, but it's still way way more than
the poor guy. Like, say, a million dollars compared to five thousand.

Do you have a point here? Because someone just getting by only pays $5K
in taxes, someone else making millions should only pay $5K?

Well, I'm not saying they should pay the same, I am saying they are
contributing way way more, financially, to our society/govt already,
they don't use that much more than any one else without paying for it
and I don't understand why this inequity is not taken into consideration
by the left.

It looks a lot like people who want to do more for the poor, but not
themselves, they want someone else to pay for it. This is morally
inferior, not morally superior.

It's very easy to see this as unfair, especially if the rich person
worked hard for his money. He isn't using any more of the government
than the poor person.

Oh, really??? What color is the sky in your world, Steve?

So he needs more police protection, he drives more on federal roads, he
uses more what? And while you're at it, explain how he uses 200 times
more free federal government services than the poor guy.

Why is he having to pay so much more? Why do you resent him being able
to decrease it?

Did I say I resent it? Frankly, I benefit from it! Everyone has a
right to lobby for their position. The question is, why do the
conservatives love to make up nonsense to support their positions? The
answer is, their policies only benefit to top few percent, so they need
issues like gay marriage to win elections!

The policy of reducing taxes for those who earn more is supposed to
benefit the economy by creating more incentive to make more business.
Doesn't that make any sense?

Democracy is just a farce meant to hold the ordinary person down as
has happened for millennia.

Have I got that right?

Yes, that is the label the right wingnuts like to pin on anyone that
protests against their crimes.

So, okay, you think democracy has helped the average person, but not
much.

I'm not trying to quantify anything. Democracy has made a profound
difference. But the rich and powerful are still rich and powerful.

Right, they create more, earn more because of the value they create, and
can spend more. This is the best system anyone has thought of so far.
But to deduce from this that Cheney is part of some massive conspiracy
doesn't wash.

Stephen