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.

And yet the kook claims goes on and on because no one ever stops for
five seconds to think about how ridiculous it is.

Stephen

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)


And yet the kook claims goes on and on because no one ever stops for
five seconds to think about how ridiculous it is.

Are these the kooks who are still wondering where their investment in
Enron went to?

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.
Does that really make sense to you?

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?

Stephen

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.

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.

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

"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?

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?

You're right. Cheney is a criminal, and he will profit. So will Bush and his
oil buddies. Certainly, they won't be glad to ensure his cushy life after he
leaves office. He only netted them billions.

People just don't break the law for that reason. It's not part of human
psychology. Never has been.

And yet the kook claims goes on and on because no one ever stops for five
seconds to think about how ridiculous it is.

Yeah, like you.

Stephen



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

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.

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?

You're right. Cheney is a criminal, and he will profit. So will Bush and his
oil buddies. Certainly, they won't be glad to ensure his cushy life after he
leaves office. He only netted them billions.

Do you repeat this so many times in gets imprinted in your brain? Like I
said, if you want it to stay there, don't actually think about it for
more than five seconds or you will see how dumb it is. So you think they
will secretly be much richer? Or you think they will obviously be much
richer and no one will care? Which insane theory do you subscribe to?

Stephen

"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


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?

You're right. Cheney is a criminal, and he will profit. So will Bush and
his oil buddies. Certainly, they won't be glad to ensure his cushy life
after he leaves office. He only netted them billions.

Do you repeat this so many times in gets imprinted in your brain? Like I
said, if you want it to stay there, don't actually think about it for more
than five seconds or you will see how dumb it is. So you think they will
secretly be much richer? Or you think they will obviously be much richer
and no one will care? Which insane theory do you subscribe to?

Yes. See the other link. I subscribe to the insane theory of reality over
wishful thinking.


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