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:
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.


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.


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."


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. 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.

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.



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!

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?



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?

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!


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.

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

Its a fact of life that people who do not look out for their own
interest get screwed. Its a fact of life that some people in power will
misuse that power. Are you claiming any different?

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