Stephen Trapani wrote:
jeff wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message

More than enough money to supply all that stuff disappeared
into the
companies run by Cheney's chums. Twice as much of our money was
spent to
give the USCG the equipment they need and they didn't get so
much as a
usable RIB out of it.

Any clue why a politician would want to risk life in prison to make
their "chums" rich? People spout this so much and never stop to
think of how ridiculous it is. These are bad, evil people taking
huge risks for someone else?? It doesn't make a bit of sense.

Huh? People risk jail time all the time for profit motive. They do
it for themselves and for others, which is not mutually exclusive.

Let's try again. The popular contention is that all these politicians
are making decisions so that their *friends* can profit, not
themselves. As we all know, high profile politicians like presidents
and vice-presidents have their finances highly scrutinized until the
day they die. Any large influx of money would shortly be obvious to
the entire world, so we all know they can't get any significant
kickbacks or profit of any sort remotely related to any companies who
profited while the politician was in office.

So the kooks, who have to come up with some motive for their
contention of corruption, are then relegated to claiming the
politician is doing it all for their friends. As if there is or ever
has been any type of criminal who does such a thing. I've never heard
of any criminal who wasn't going to profit from his crime if he
succeeded. Has anyone else? People just don't break the law for that
reason. It's not part of human psychology. Never has been.

You're either very naive, or you think the readers are.

The entire business and political world works on favors given without
an explicit promise of the favor returned. Most of us only see this
on a small scale: the vendor gives an extra portion, knowing that it
will create goodwill that will come back eventually. But if you give
a sizable contribution to one politician, that will guarantee a
favorable hearing not just with that politician, but with all others
of his party. And when a businessman gets favorable treatment from
politicians, essentially stealing from the common folk, is he called a
thief? Nope, he's called a "conservative." (OK, a few are called
Democrats)

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.

Does that really make sense to you?

Absolutely. In fact, the only question is that its worked so well
(after a fashion) for thousands of years, is it worth changing? The
"moderate-liberal" position is that its the only game in town, but that
a portion can be siphoned off for the social welfare.

The thing that most people don't see clearly is that the country is
controlled by a fairly small group, 2-5% of country. Nothing is going
to change that, it has gone on for thousands of years. Periodically,
people join the "club," while others fall out. The group is mostly
Republican, but there are some Democrats, and some with mixed
allegiance. They do business between themselves, bending or adjusting
the rules as suits their needs. The political parties haggle over minor
issues, pushing the tax rates a few percent one way or the other. When
the Republicans control the rich get a bit richer until they screw
things totally with their greed; then the Democrats get control and the
social programs and ecology get a boost until they screw things up with
their blundering and greed and the cycle continues.


Usually the contention is that they are "friends" or "chums." You're
saying they may or may not be friends, but they were instrumental in get
him to be vice-president and he was so grateful and cares so little
about the country?

It has nothing to do with what he "cares about the country." Its the
game he knows how to play. I'm sure he believes everything is "for the
good of the country," its just that he believes that what's good for
those in power is good for everyone.

Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
More than enough money to supply all that stuff disappeared into
the
companies run by Cheney's chums. Twice as much of our money was
spent to
give the USCG the equipment they need and they didn't get so much as
a
usable RIB out of it.
Any clue why a politician would want to risk life in prison to make
their "chums" rich? People spout this so much and never stop to think
of how ridiculous it is. These are bad, evil people taking huge risks
for someone else?? It doesn't make a bit of sense.
Huh? People risk jail time all the time for profit motive. They do it
for themselves and for others, which is not mutually exclusive.
Let's try again. The popular contention is that all these politicians
are making decisions so that their *friends* can profit, not themselves.
As we all know, high profile politicians like presidents and
vice-presidents have their finances highly scrutinized until the day
they die. Any large influx of money would shortly be obvious to the
entire world, so we all know they can't get any significant kickbacks or
profit of any sort remotely related to any companies who profited while
the politician was in office.
Really? After they leave office? Bill Clinton, to use the counter
example, made $100M last year. Do you know all the details?
I know he made close to that before he got in office and he makes a great
deal on the speaking circuit. I also know that there are multitudes of
reporters investigating him in hopes of a big story, just like there are
for every ex-president.

Nope. Wrong again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202189.html

You provide a link to an account of a past presidents income to disprove
my statement that people are keeping close tabs on him? To demonstrate
that you were exaggerating his income? To confirm that he makes most of
it on the speaking circuit like I said?

Man, I'd hate to see what you would provide if you were trying to
*support* my position!

Stephen

Don't worry about when Cheney gets his cut. He'll get it, if he hasn't
already.



Stephen Trapani wrote:
Really? You think he's much richer than he was? Or soon will be? And no
one will be able to tell?


This is an article from *before* Cheney became Vice-President.
http://www.icij.org/Content.aspx?id=225

And does nobody recall the scandal over the no-bid contracts? The
"lost" gov't property? Vice President Cheney's attempt to fire the Air
Force auditors (commissioned officers of that service) who uncovered
the total non-performance of several of his cronies companies? The
censure for fiscal conflict of interest by a Republican-controlled
Senate? His promise to donate $60 of his Halliburton profits to
charity (so far unfulfilled AFAIK)?

How quickly we forget. Yes, America has the gov't it deserves,
apparently.

Fresh ones- Doug King

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
More than enough money to supply all that stuff disappeared into
the
companies run by Cheney's chums. Twice as much of our money was
spent to
give the USCG the equipment they need and they didn't get so much
as a
usable RIB out of it.
Any clue why a politician would want to risk life in prison to make
their "chums" rich? People spout this so much and never stop to
think of how ridiculous it is. These are bad, evil people taking
huge risks for someone else?? It doesn't make a bit of sense.
Huh? People risk jail time all the time for profit motive. They do it
for themselves and for others, which is not mutually exclusive.
Let's try again. The popular contention is that all these politicians
are making decisions so that their *friends* can profit, not
themselves. As we all know, high profile politicians like presidents
and vice-presidents have their finances highly scrutinized until the
day they die. Any large influx of money would shortly be obvious to
the entire world, so we all know they can't get any significant
kickbacks or profit of any sort remotely related to any companies who
profited while the politician was in office.
Really? After they leave office? Bill Clinton, to use the counter
example, made $100M last year. Do you know all the details?
I know he made close to that before he got in office and he makes a
great deal on the speaking circuit. I also know that there are
multitudes of reporters investigating him in hopes of a big story, just
like there are for every ex-president.

Nope. Wrong again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202189.html

You provide a link to an account of a past presidents income to disprove
my statement that people are keeping close tabs on him? To demonstrate
that you were exaggerating his income? To confirm that he makes most of it
on the speaking circuit like I said?

Man, I'd hate to see what you would provide if you were trying to
*support* my position!

Stephen


I guess you don't remember typing, "I know he made close to that before he
got in office," which is clearly wrong.

Man, I'd hate to see you actually look at the facts!


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202189.html
You provide a link to an account of a past presidents income to disprove
my statement that people are keeping close tabs on him? To demonstrate
that you were exaggerating his income? To confirm that he makes most of it
on the speaking circuit like I said?

Man, I'd hate to see what you would provide if you were trying to
*support* my position!

Stephen


I guess you don't remember typing, "I know he made close to that before he
got in office," which is clearly wrong.

Man, I'd hate to see you actually look at the facts!

The article did mention that they were close to broke when Hillary was
elected because they spent so much on campaigning, but it didn't say how
much they made prior to that. Did you mean to post some facts about that?

Stephen

wrote:
Don't worry about when Cheney gets his cut. He'll get it, if he hasn't
already.


Stephen Trapani wrote:
Really? You think he's much richer than he was? Or soon will be? And no
one will be able to tell?


This is an article from *before* Cheney became Vice-President.
http://www.icij.org/Content.aspx?id=225

And does nobody recall the scandal over the no-bid contracts? The
"lost" gov't property? Vice President Cheney's attempt to fire the Air
Force auditors (commissioned officers of that service) who uncovered
the total non-performance of several of his cronies companies? The
censure for fiscal conflict of interest by a Republican-controlled
Senate? His promise to donate $60 of his Halliburton profits to
charity (so far unfulfilled AFAIK)?

Man, what deep deep love he has for his friends that he would do *so
much* just for them! Isn't it funny how only Presidents and the highest
ranking politicians seem to love their friends so much that they break
laws to make massive amounts of money just for them? Why doesn't anyone
else on earth love their friends so much????

Stephen

jeff wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
jeff wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message

More than enough money to supply all that stuff disappeared
into the
companies run by Cheney's chums. Twice as much of our money
was spent to
give the USCG the equipment they need and they didn't get so
much as a
usable RIB out of it.

Any clue why a politician would want to risk life in prison to
make their "chums" rich? People spout this so much and never stop
to think of how ridiculous it is. These are bad, evil people
taking huge risks for someone else?? It doesn't make a bit of sense.

Huh? People risk jail time all the time for profit motive. They do
it for themselves and for others, which is not mutually exclusive.

Let's try again. The popular contention is that all these
politicians are making decisions so that their *friends* can profit,
not themselves. As we all know, high profile politicians like
presidents and vice-presidents have their finances highly
scrutinized until the day they die. Any large influx of money would
shortly be obvious to the entire world, so we all know they can't
get any significant kickbacks or profit of any sort remotely related
to any companies who profited while the politician was in office.

So the kooks, who have to come up with some motive for their
contention of corruption, are then relegated to claiming the
politician is doing it all for their friends. As if there is or ever
has been any type of criminal who does such a thing. I've never
heard of any criminal who wasn't going to profit from his crime if
he succeeded. Has anyone else? People just don't break the law for
that reason. It's not part of human psychology. Never has been.

You're either very naive, or you think the readers are.

The entire business and political world works on favors given without
an explicit promise of the favor returned. Most of us only see this
on a small scale: the vendor gives an extra portion, knowing that it
will create goodwill that will come back eventually. But if you give
a sizable contribution to one politician, that will guarantee a
favorable hearing not just with that politician, but with all others
of his party. And when a businessman gets favorable treatment from
politicians, essentially stealing from the common folk, is he called
a thief? Nope, he's called a "conservative." (OK, a few are called
Democrats)

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 to do so much for the
people he loves 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?

Does that really make sense to you?

Absolutely. In fact, the only question is that its worked so well
(after a fashion) for thousands of years, is it worth changing? The
"moderate-liberal" position is that its the only game in town, but that
a portion can be siphoned off for the social welfare.

The thing that most people don't see clearly is that the country is
controlled by a fairly small group, 2-5% of country. Nothing is going
to change that, it has gone on for thousands of years.

So what you are saying is that democracy is a farce. 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. Democracy is just
a farce meant to hold the ordinary person down as has happened for
millennia.

Have I got that right?

Stephen

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!

to do so much for the people he loves

Omigod! You're pouring it so thick!

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?


Does that really make sense to you?

Absolutely. In fact, the only question is that its worked so well
(after a fashion) for thousands of years, is it worth changing? The
"moderate-liberal" position is that its the only game in town, but
that a portion can be siphoned off for the social welfare.

The thing that most people don't see clearly is that the country is
controlled by a fairly small group, 2-5% of country. Nothing is going
to change that, it has gone on for thousands of years.

So what you are saying is that democracy is a farce.

Not at all, but it isn't Utopia or Walden. The rich and powerful still
run the show, democracy simply puts limits on certain aspects, shapes
how the game is played.

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.

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.

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.

This is an article from *before* Cheney became Vice-President.
http://www.icij.org/Content.aspx?id=225

And does nobody recall the scandal over the no-bid contracts? The
"lost" gov't property? Vice President Cheney's attempt to fire the Air
Force auditors (commissioned officers of that service) who uncovered
the total non-performance of several of his cronies companies? The
censure for fiscal conflict of interest by a Republican-controlled
Senate? His promise to donate $60 of his Halliburton profits to
charity (so far unfulfilled AFAIK)?


Stephen Trapani wrote:
Man, what deep deep love he has for his friends that he would do *so
much* just for them!

Ahem... did you miss the part about how much Mr. Cheney is pocketing?
For himself, I mean?
No friends required there, besides I suspect that anybody would be
friends with a man who handed them hundreds of millions of dollars.
Returning the favor with various kinds of political support would
truly be a no-brainer.



.... Why doesn't anyone
else on earth love their friends so much????


Hand me $60 million and I'll be your best friend, too.
Unfortunately, some of Vice President Cheney's friends & associates
have also been rewarded with a rather embarrassing jail sentences.
Probably more will be joining them as more info about his dealings
become public. Money can buy happiness (or at least rent it for long
time) but it can't stave off justice.

Regards
Doug King

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.

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?

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?

Does that really make sense to you?

Absolutely. In fact, the only question is that its worked so well
(after a fashion) for thousands of years, is it worth changing? The
"moderate-liberal" position is that its the only game in town, but
that a portion can be siphoned off for the social welfare.

The thing that most people don't see clearly is that the country is
controlled by a fairly small group, 2-5% of country. Nothing is
going to change that, it has gone on for thousands of years.

So what you are saying is that democracy is a farce.

Not at all, but it isn't Utopia or Walden. The rich and powerful still
run the show, democracy simply puts limits on certain aspects, shapes
how the game is played.

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.

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

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

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. They're still getting screwed. Or, what are you saying?

Stephen