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

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

"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

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
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


Do your own research! The Clintons were not very well off in the scheme of
things compared to Bush/Cheney. Please feel free to site the instance in the
article that said the Clintons used their money for campaining and that was
why they were broke. BTW, this was before Bill was elected. I think you need
to re-read the article.

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

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


Do your own research! The Clintons were not very well off in the scheme of
things compared to Bush/Cheney. Please feel free to site the instance in the
article that said the Clintons used their money for campaining and that was
why they were broke.

"Indeed, the Clintons -- who left the White House with an estimated $12
million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign
fundraising and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations..."

BTW, this was before Bill was elected. I think you need
to re-read the article.

Remember what this discussion was about? You know, the part you were
wrong about so you changed the subject? Don't you remember? About
whether Clinton was hiding payoffs from all the favors he did while he
was president? I said past presidents and VPs are watched carefully, so
it would be next to impossible for them to get any significant payoffs.
You responded by claiming Clinton was making 100 million per year? Then
you posted a link where a reporter knew his exact income?

Stephen