If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2654
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7237 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2654 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
  2007-02-25 10:20:04 PM
Aesc2525

"but they discount the role that society plays in enabling them"

I am not discounting the role that society plays but I think you and I are looking at that role from different points of view.

I don't think that society enables people to produce good for sale.

I think that when individuals produce goods and engage in capitalism they and their actions create society.

Society does not exist without the individuals.

Society does not create the individuals.

I just find your origional statement...

"material resources belong, in the end, to the society and not the individual."

...curious.

When you say "belong" to "society" it suggests that there is no private property.

Or are your statements more "abstract" than what I am reading into them?
 
  2007-02-25 10:40:06 PM
sweatmasterB

"/ the war has/had nothing to do with terrorists. It was that bush thought Iraq had WMD's and now we are the police of a civil war!"

There is more than just a civil war going on in Iraq. Al Quada is in Iraq. They want us to fail in Iraq.

The Iraq Study Group stated that if we failed in Iraq (as the Dems seem to encourage) it would encourage the terrorists in Iraq and around the world.

By passing some resolution that they disagree with our actions in Iraq they are encouraging the terrorists that are killing our men and women to hold on a little longer....to increase the attacks....to not give up....

....because they (the Dems) are in charge now and they are going to get the US out of Iraq and then the terrorists will win.

Pure and simple....
 
  2007-02-25 11:08:13 PM
dottedmint: There is more than just a civil war going on in Iraq. Al Quada is in Iraq. They want us to fail in Iraq.

I challenge you to find any source that supports that statement. We don't even know who Al Qaeda is anymore--if we ever did in the first place, I'd be surprised. It's a catch-all term used by the Bush administration to desperately pin down a "winnable" aspect of the "War" on "Terror." Yes, I tend to put quotes around those words because I am suspicious of both. It's only a "War" because Bush says so, and the definitions of "terror" and "terrorist" are fluid terms at best.

And we're failing in Iraq because the warmongers in office underestimated the operation. Blaming the Democrats is partisan bickering.

This administration has already had its ass handed to it in criticisms of its almost non-existent
post-invasion planning. This even boggles me. If they really had their mind set on taking Iraq and stabilizing it, why cut so many corners and fight a "war" where most of the funding ends up in the contractors' pockets and the equipment is scarce or substandard?

The real enemies are the warmongers who planned this klsterfk, and Bush as their mouthpiece is no less guilty of failure and disgrace.

So you think about that next time you spout a kneejerk phrase like "thanks for letting the terrorists win," because to the rest of us, that kind of reasoning makes for some high-profile headshaking...:)

The Iraq Study Group stated that if we failed in Iraq (as the Dems seem to encourage) it would encourage the terrorists in Iraq and around the world.

Again, get off the partisanship. Bush needs someone to blame other than his own failed policies. And it's too late to save face. The only way Iraq isn't going to become an exponential chain reaction is to beg our case before the UN and put together a clean-up operation.

We're no longer in control over there, it's time to stop acting like we can call any more shots.
 
  2007-02-26 12:13:10 AM
dottedmint,

'Society does not exist without the individuals.'
'Society does not create the individuals.'

You're both right and wrong with these statements. Society and the individual agents which compose it exist concurrently and affect each other throughout their existence. We as individuals are defined in part by our place in society, by our functions within it, and by our interactions with others as part of society. Society, in turn, is defined by the component systems and individuals that compose it. These processes are occuring constantly.

How do you define your identity as an individual without reference to the society to which you belong? How can you do so without the use of social constructs like language, race, nationality, occupation, and so on?

Also I must take issue with your statement that "I don't think that society enables people to produce good for sale." I don't believe you can support such a claim, since a person must rely on their society to learn the skills, obtain the tools, and gather the materials necessary to produce anything. The entire reason societies exist is to allow us to do things other than fight for our basic survival. If you can describe for me one product that can be made by an individual without any social assistance whatsoever, I'd be mightily impressed.

Also, don't read too much into my statement about society's ownership of resources. I'm not trying to advocate the abolition of personal property or declare that your personal possessions aren't your own. My point was that the resources and energy needed to produce those possessions belonged in the first place to the society to which you belong. Your ownership of that property is legitimized by and depends upon society because it is in society's best interests to allow such ownership. If your desires for ownership conflict with your society's, you must either act illegally, change the society, or acquiesce. Your ownership of anything depends on society allowing you to own it.
 
  2007-02-26 06:32:08 AM
"whidbey I challenge you to find any source that supports that statement."

Alrigt:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-06-29-bin-laden-tape_x.htm

"Al-Qaeda advertised Friday's message prominently on Islamic Web forums more than 24 hours before it was posted - suggesting the importance of paying tribute to Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq who often appeared more of a rival than a follower.

The Jordanian-born Zarqawi, who was killed in a June 7 airstrike by U.S. warplanes, became a hero among extremists by positioning himself as al-Qaeda's fighter on the ground, battling the Americans on the hottest front of jihad, Iraq."

"And we're failing in Iraq because the warmongers in office underestimated the operation. Blaming the Democrats is partisan bickering. "

I'll be the first one to admit that there have been mistakes made in planning and the operation of this war.

That said when Dems (and yes some Reps) take actions that weaken our stance even more I will gladly blame them.

When polititians take actions that make it even more likely that we are going to fail in Iraq it is hard to say that they don't want us to fail.
 
  2007-02-26 03:38:02 PM
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Let individuals determine their life direction and make free choices. Let choices that interfere with the freedom of another person be dealt with in court.

Let there be justice, not a labyrinth of legal loopholes; commit murder, become a slave to the surviving family; commit theft, repay double what you stole and make public contrition.

Anyone who believes that the group identity (black, gay, hispanic, female, non-smoker, etc.) trumps individual rights needs a history lesson about the American republic, not the cra* taught in schools about democracy--which is nothing more than mob rule.
 
  2007-02-27 11:01:16 AM
govtsucks

Well said sir.
 
  2007-02-27 12:09:41 PM
govtsucks,

'The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.'

An individual does have rights that need to be recognized and affirmed, but who gave that individual those rights? Who protects those rights? Who defends that individual from more powerful and less scrupulous individuals?

'Let individuals determine their life direction and make free choices.'

Indeed, an individual should be able to determine for themselves their place and investment within society, but unless they decide to live without any social support, they cannot determine to live outside of society's rules.

'Let there be justice, not a labyrinth of legal loopholes; commit murder, become a slave to the surviving family; commit theft, repay double what you stole and make public contrition.'

So, when is it murder, and when is it self defense or just a terrible accident? When is theft justified, and where does an individual get their rights to property anyway? Our laws are complicated for a reason, since we as humans are very complex and living in a complex social system. Excess simplicity may be as unjust as oppressive bureaucracy.

'Anyone who believes that the group identity (black, gay, hispanic, female, non-smoker, etc.) trumps individual rights needs a history lesson about the American republic, not the cra* taught in schools about democracy--which is nothing more than mob rule.'

I'm not sure what you mean by the above statement, especially in the concept of one identity 'trumping' another. Individual rights are not exclusive of social or communal obligations. Your 'group identity' as an American will certainly come before your 'individual right' to own a nuclear weapon or have sex with a child. Then again, being an American will never take away your right to seek happiness and to believe as you choose.

I believe your points are worth discussion, but many seem to entertain the concept that the world is a lot simpler than it actually is. Society didn't get this complex by accident, and your relationship with others in your society has been complicated by thousands of years of human history and social interaction. Don't look for easy answers where there can be none.
 
  2007-02-27 12:56:07 PM
Why is it that Fark is no longer listing credible news outlets like Washington Post under source submission?
 
  2007-02-27 01:39:55 PM
govtsucks: Let individuals determine their life direction and make free choices. Let choices that interfere with the freedom of another person be dealt with in court.


That's the worst kind of anarchism, right there.

It's all personal freedom until somebody puts an eye out.
 
  2007-02-27 10:19:04 PM
dottedmint: There is more than just a civil war going on in Iraq. Al Quada is in Iraq. They want us to fail in Iraq.

/ true.
but If we had not started the war. none of that would be a problem. ( sadam was NOT sponsoring terrorists )
 
  2007-02-28 02:22:12 AM
dottedmint: When politicians take actions that make it even more likely that we are going to fail in Iraq it is hard to say that they don't want us to fail.

It's not a matter of wanting us to fail, it's the clarity to know we already have.
 
  2007-02-28 11:38:30 AM
DeathBySarcasm: Why is it that Fark is no longer listing credible news outlets like Washington Post under source submission?

What makes you think that the Washington Post (or the MSM in general, for that matter) is credible?
 
  2007-02-28 01:12:55 PM
"There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action."

"The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others."

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way."

"Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most boys and girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favour of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position"
-Bertrand Russell


"There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

"All that happens means something; nothing you do is ever insignificant."

"Maybe this world is another planet's hell."
-Aldous Huxley


"A cult is a religion with no political power."
-Tom Wolfe


"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."
-Winston Churchill
 
  2007-02-28 03:19:32 PM
"2007-02-28 02:22:12 AM ruthlessliberal

dottedmint: When politicians take actions that make it even more likely that we are going to fail in Iraq it is hard to say that they don't want us to fail.

It's not a matter of wanting us to fail, it's the clarity to know we already have."

We have not failed in Iraq. We are winning and as long as the polititians do not give up we will continue to win.


"2007-02-27 10:19:04 PM sweatmasterB

dottedmint: There is more than just a civil war going on in Iraq. Al Quada is in Iraq. They want us to fail in Iraq.

/ true.
but If we had not started the war. none of that would be a problem. ( sadam was NOT sponsoring terrorists )"

That is somewhat debatable. Clinton accused Saddam of having terrorist ties when he was President.

But in either case Al Quada is in Iraq. We are at war with Al Quada. Why exactly should we leave a place where Al Quada is if we are at war with them?

Typically when you are at war with a group you will go anywhere that that group can be found. You don't typically leave places where that group is found.

Unless you don't want to win the war...
 
  2007-02-28 04:05:26 PM
Winning? Winning what, the privelege of policing a civil war?

And for the record, I think pulling out of Iraq would just be a big mistake piled on top of a huge mistake.

The only way for us to actually win in Iraq (not the FOX news blow sunshine up your ass so you don't question things kind of winning) is to show the world that we are willing to hold the people who screwed this all up responsible for their actions and lies.

This means, at the very least, impeaching the President.

Only then can we go to other countries and say "Okay, we screwed up, but we're punishing those responsible, now how about working with us to make this Iraq thing better?"

Right now most every country on the planet is relishing our failure because we have been such arrogant jackasses.
 
  2007-02-28 04:22:12 PM
Oops: "privilege"

dottedmint, have you seen Farktags and the other Fark related extensions for Firefox? It'll make your posts more easily decipherable to others.
 
  2007-02-28 04:31:26 PM
dottedmint
But in either case Al Quada is in Iraq. We are at war with Al Quada. Why exactly should we leave a place where Al Quada is if we are at war with them?

Typically when you are at war with a group you will go anywhere that that group can be found. You don't typically leave places where that group is found.


Al Qaeda has far more ties to Saudi Arabia than Iraq. As you may recall the majority of the hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. There wasn't any US military action directed towards them after 9/11, with the possible exception of the bin Laden family members who were flown home after the attacks. You can find al Qaeda cells in pretty much every country, including the US. Al Qaeda didn't have much of a presence in Iraq before the invasion, the instability the invasion caused and anti-US (or anti-Western) sentiment helped establish it there.

What will constitute "winning" in Iraq? If anything, we've already "won", the evil dictator was taken down and there weren't WMDs, which is why the "War on Terror" went there to begin with. The invasion stood on very shaky ground to begin with, as evidenced by the nearly complete lack of international support, but there is nothing that can be done about that now. I think we've "won", but we still need to clean up our mess.
 
  2007-02-28 04:50:07 PM
dottedmint: We have not failed in Iraq. We are winning and as long as the polititians do not give up we will continue to win.

Oh come on, now. You don't really believe this...

That is somewhat debatable. Clinton accused Saddam of having terrorist ties when he was President.

And the old "But Clinton?"

But in either case Al Quada is in Iraq. We are at war with Al Quada. Why exactly should we leave a place where Al Quada is if we are at war with them?

Actually, your earlier link is about a year old and outdated to the present conditions. Al Qaeda, if they even still exist, is a drop in the bucket compared to the present company that want us out. I really can't blame them.

With all due respect, your arguments are cliche and busted. It's time to rethink what you believe and realize that klstfk of a "war" hurt us a lot more than just looking for a bunch of "terrorists."
 
  2007-02-28 07:20:07 PM
So, what do you think should happen with Latin America, Farkers? Is Hugo Chavez a threat? Should we continue to prop up the Columbian government? Whaddya think?

/threadjack
 
  2007-02-28 07:40:12 PM
Indonesia for the Indonesians!
 
  2007-02-28 10:00:36 PM
Aesc2525:
How do they have the free time, energy, and resources to look over your wares and consider a purchase, without worrying about finding the basics of survival?

The statements you made are factual, but they discount the role that society plays in enabling them.


It seems that you are arguing against the great American myth of heroic individualism, which dottedmint and too many others believe.

I'd recommend Volume 2 of Daniel Boorstin's "The Americans" as a corrective to this myth. It spends several chapters dealing with the westward migration in general, and goes into great detail about the wagon trains, fur trappers, miners, and new settlements it was comprised of.

As opposed to the general idea of those involved as rugged individualists who made the country what it is, Boorstin argues persuasively that what led to the success of those various enterprises, and what made America great, was what he described as an American genius for organizing "spontaneous communities."

Wagon trains, trappers' jamborees, mining camps, and brand-new towns and cities were all examples of risk-taking, entrepeneurial individuals who realized that their success depended on the creation of some form of society.

Of course, I'm partial to this book, because it also argues that New England "invented" America, but that's another subject...

/just found this forum, seems cool
 
  2007-02-28 11:34:24 PM
dottedmint:
When polititians take actions that make it even more likely that we are going to fail in Iraq it is hard to say that they don't want us to fail.

Would it be presumptuous of me to conclude that you would say that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith are among those you consider to have taken actions that make it even more likely that we are going to fail? Because everything that has gone wrong in Iraq is because of actions and decisions they've made.


And, in the up-thread spirit of introductions, for those of you who haven't seen me around over the past several years:

I'm Zulu_as_Kono, but just about everybody calls me Zulu. I have no special interest in, or affinity for, any particular African tribe; I just happened to sign up for Fark while a local station was showing Hawaii 5-0 reruns late-night.

I'm an unapologetic, old-school, Massachusetts, FDR liberal; registered Democrat; card-carrying member of the ACLU.

I believe that we all benefit from a stable, prosperous society so it is therefore both too our advantage and our responsibility to contribute through taxes and individual and collective action to create stability and prosperity for all.

I believe that a society should be judged by how it treats its weakest members - children, the elderly, and the poor. (I'm a reformed Catholic, and one thing that really moved me and stuck with me was the hymn "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, thus, you do unto me.")

That being said, I don't believe we are "a Christian nation." Especially not the sort of Christianity espoused by the right-wing fundamentalists courted by the Republican party.

I don't agree with those who say that eliminating or reducing governmental assistance to the poor will lead to lower taxes and thus greater charitable contributions, and neither do studies (pops) of charitable giving vis a vis disposable income. I believe that with the rampant individualism in the current America any further cuts in programs for the poor would lead to more poor people in direr circumstance while the well-off buy bigger cars, bigger houses, and bigger TVs.

While on the topic of bigger houses, I'll say that I think McMansions and sprawl are abominations, and symptoms of something seriously wrong with our country. We're going over our heads in debt and destroying the environment so we can have seven bedrooms for a family of four.

I believe that nothing truly great has ever come out of the suburbs or rural areas - cities are the engines of human progress. Isolating yourself in a suburban manse or rural homestead is selfish. The friction and interaction of lots of people in a small area may cause headaches, but it can also lead to greatness.

I don't understand Libertarians. I can go along with some of their ideas regarding individual liberties (The war on drugs is an ill-advised, hysteria fueled waste of resources [spend billions on interdiction, but not treatment?!?], why are alcohol and tobacco legal but not pot? And if the government is going to bestow rights and privelidges of marriage to some consenting adult couples, who are they to deny it to others?)

But I don't get the Libertarians' insistence that government is bad, but corporations unfettered by regulation would be just great! Nor do I buy the Libertarians' belief that anything government can do, private enterprise can do better and cheaper (see the contractors in Iraq as an object lesson).

I think that recent examples of trends in executive pay are not only immoral but bad capitalism. News about shareholders revolting against excessive executive pay is encouraging, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for change.

I believe that the Framers included "well-regulated militia" for a reason.

I opposed the war in Iraq from the get-go. I didn't buy the hype of Saddam being a threat, and didn't think the war was necessary. That being said, I think that if we were going to do it, we should've done it right, and those who have been in charge have f*cked it up nine ways from Sunday.

What to do now? I have no idea. Seems like a very expensive Hobson's Choice to me. I think it's too late to undo all the inexcusable mistakes we've made, and that it's an awful lot to ask of our servicemen and -women to risk death for a mistake, but I also think that pulling out without having first somehow imposed order would be immoral.

Since we didn't pay enough attention to the Powell Doctrine going in, I'm afraid we're stuck with what might be called the Second Powell Doctrine - you break it, you own it.

James Fallows, writing in The Atlantic, has been the most incisive and prescient journalist covering the war. His articles have been collected in "Blind Into Baghdad." Read it, and weep.

Read Thomas Ricks' "Fiasco" and Rajiv Chandraskan's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," too, to see just how badly the administration has f*cked all this up. And watch "Frontline" - the best nonfiction show on TV. Almost all of Frontline's shows are available free online at pbs.org. "Lost Year in Iraq" is especially damning.

I think we should've done more, and better, in Afghanistan. It looks like our failure to do so might be about to bite us in the ass.

All this saber-rattling about Iran is troubling. The administration talks a lot about the aid Iran is giving to the Shi'ites, but, as the ISG report said, most of the attacks on US troops are carried out by Sunni forces, who are being funded by Saudi Arabia, but we hear nothing about that.

I believe that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of our worst Presidents. I've already written too much, or else I'd go into why, if it isn't already clear. Maybe in another post.

Finally, I believe that writing a declaration of political/social beliefs after several beers is a recipe for prolixity.
 
  2007-03-01 01:07:39 AM
McCain? Why am I not surprised?
 
  2007-03-01 08:41:16 AM
Zulu_as_Kono: I'm Zulu_as_Kono, but just about everybody calls me Zulu. I have no special interest in, or affinity for, any particular African tribe; I just happened to sign up for Fark while a local station was showing Hawaii 5-0 reruns late-night.

I'm an unapologetic, old-school, Massachusetts, FDR liberal; registered Democrat; card-carrying member of the ACLU.

I believe that we all benefit from a stable, prosperous society so it is therefore both too our advantage and our responsibility to contribute through taxes and individual and collective action to create stability and prosperity for all.

I believe that a society should be judged by how it treats its weakest members - children, the elderly, and the poor. (I'm a reformed Catholic, and one thing that really moved me and stuck with me was the hymn "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, thus, you do unto me.")

That being said, I don't believe we are "a Christian nation." Especially not the sort of Christianity espoused by the right-wing fundamentalists courted by the Republican party.

I don't agree with those who say that eliminating or reducing governmental assistance to the poor will lead to lower taxes and thus greater charitable contributions, and neither do studies (pops) of charitable giving vis a vis disposable income. I believe that with the rampant individualism in the current America any further cuts in programs for the poor would lead to more poor people in direr circumstance while the well-off buy bigger cars, bigger houses, and bigger TVs.

While on the topic of bigger houses, I'll say that I think McMansions and sprawl are abominations, and symptoms of something seriously wrong with our country. We're going over our heads in debt and destroying the environment so we can have seven bedrooms for a family of four.

I believe that nothing truly great has ever come out of the suburbs or rural areas - cities are the engines of human progress. Isolating yourself in a suburban manse or rural homestead is selfish. The friction and interaction of lots of people in a small area may cause headaches, but it can also lead to greatness.

I don't understand Libertarians. I can go along with some of their ideas regarding individual liberties (The war on drugs is an ill-advised, hysteria fueled waste of resources [spend billions on interdiction, but not treatment?!?], why are alcohol and tobacco legal but not pot? And if the government is going to bestow rights and privelidges of marriage to some consenting adult couples, who are they to deny it to others?)

But I don't get the Libertarians' insistence that government is bad, but corporations unfettered by regulation would be just great! Nor do I buy the Libertarians' belief that anything government can do, private enterprise can do better and cheaper (see the contractors in Iraq as an object lesson).

I think that recent examples of trends in executive pay are not only immoral but bad capitalism. News about shareholders revolting against excessive executive pay is encouraging, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for change.

I believe that the Framers included "well-regulated militia" for a reason.

I opposed the war in Iraq from the get-go. I didn't buy the hype of Saddam being a threat, and didn't think the war was necessary. That being said, I think that if we were going to do it, we should've done it right, and those who have been in charge have f*cked it up nine ways from Sunday.

What to do now? I have no idea. Seems like a very expensive Hobson's Choice to me. I think it's too late to undo all the inexcusable mistakes we've made, and that it's an awful lot to ask of our servicemen and -women to risk death for a mistake, but I also think that pulling out without having first somehow imposed order would be immoral.

Since we didn't pay enough attention to the Powell Doctrine going in, I'm afraid we're stuck with what might be called the Second Powell Doctrine - you break it, you own it.

James Fallows, writing in The Atlantic, has been the most incisive and prescient journalist covering the war. His articles have been collected in "Blind Into Baghdad." Read it, and weep.

Read Thomas Ricks' "Fiasco" and Rajiv Chandraskan's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," too, to see just how badly the administration has f*cked all this up. And watch "Frontline" - the best nonfiction show on TV. Almost all of Frontline's shows are available free online at pbs.org. "Lost Year in Iraq" is especially damning.

I think we should've done more, and better, in Afghanistan. It looks like our failure to do so might be about to bite us in the ass.

All this saber-rattling about Iran is troubling. The administration talks a lot about the aid Iran is giving to the Shi'ites, but, as the ISG report said, most of the attacks on US troops are carried out by Sunni forces, who are being funded by Saudi Arabia, but we hear nothing about that.

I believe that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of our worst Presidents. I've already written too much, or else I'd go into why, if it isn't already clear. Maybe in another post.

Finally, I believe that writing a declaration of political/social beliefs after several beers is a recipe for prolixity.



That's all well and good, but why aren't you on TF anymore?
 
  2007-03-01 03:35:59 PM
CtrlAltDelete:
That's all well and good, but why aren't you on TF anymore?

Funny you should ask - someone just took care of it.

And here I was, planning on re-upping anyway, as I've pretty much achieved the financial goals I set myself when I put myself on my austerity program.

Thanks, anonymous sponsor!
 
  2007-03-01 05:57:58 PM
Zulu_as_Kono,

Though I agree with much that you have written on this thread, I must voice my heartfelt disagreement with the idea that no good things can come from rural areas. My disagreement stems, of course, from my upbringing in a rural area and my deep-seated narcissism. So, I therefore submit to you that at least ONE great thing has come from a rural area.

/ok, that's hyperbole. I know I'm not great.
//better than average?
\\\ these slashies go the other way
//Libertarians are a bizarre bunch though.
 
  2007-03-01 07:18:22 PM
Actually, I've got nothing against finding 10-20 wooded acres with a house on it. Or maybe one of those silver Clipper trailers, for a couple of years, anyway. I'm not quite ready to abandon the comforts of a city just yet.

Peace can bring inspiration just as well as urban angst. When I'm here in the city, I wanna go somewhere quiet and reflect on it.
 
  2007-03-01 07:56:43 PM
Yeah, I overstated it a bit in my anti-suburbia/anti-rural thing. Quiet contemplation in the middle of nowhere can lead to inspiration, but I firmly believe that as social creatures, we can do more, better, when we're dealing with lots of other people on a regular basis.

In "Home From Nowhere", James Kunstler makes a pretty strong case that sprawl and the rise of McMansions are partly the result of people trying to shut themselves off from society in their 2-acre mini-estates, and I think that impulse is anti-human.

Hell, I don't even like most people, but I like having them around.

Aesc2525: My disagreement stems, of course, from my upbringing in a rural area ... So, I therefore submit to you that at least ONE great thing has come from a rural area.


//better than average?


Lake Woebegone?
 
  2007-03-01 11:43:30 PM
I like Al Gore.
 
  2007-03-02 12:36:53 PM
Yeah, pretty good with ketchup.
 
  2007-03-02 04:14:12 PM
Kind of fatty, though.
 
  2007-03-02 10:50:04 PM
Needs a long marinade.
 
  2007-03-03 11:09:38 AM
dottedmint: if you do not mind me asking how old are you.

Reason people 50 + seem much more likely to be bush/Iraq war supporters.
 
  2007-03-03 12:18:39 PM
I'm 50+ and I certainly am not a Bush/Iraq war supporter. No offense intended, but I think that may be a baseless perception on your part. I believe the present administration, and the past congressional makeup is most fairly characterized by the statement "most corrupt/incompetent government since the Grant administration".

Now, since I'm 50+ I don't go out and get plastered, slobbering drunk and wake up with coyote women anymore, and I don't blow up mailboxes with fireworks, nor do I spend all the rent money on strippers and blow, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't like to now and then. It's just that I'm old enough to know better now, and have other (more pressing) priorities.

Have of shot of tequila out of her belly button for me.
 
  2007-03-03 07:05:54 PM
"sweatmasterB: dottedmint: if you do not mind me asking how old are you.

Reason people 50 + seem much more likely to be bush/Iraq war supporters."

I was born in '72.

Makes me (what?) 35.

And for the record I think it might be over-simplified to say that I am a Bush/Iraq war supporter.

I voted for Bush twice and still think that the alternatives in both cases were worse.

There have been things that Bush has done that TRUELY disappoint me.

That said I don't doubt that (again) the alternatives would have disappointed me more.

I supported going into Iraq but I think that we have made mistakes in how we handled the war. I also think it would be an even bigger mistake for us to leave Iraq before the Iraqi government can defend itself from the terrorists.

A majority of Iraq is actually safer than some major US cities but because we have a bunch of terrorists trying to destroy our acheivements and a media that wants to hype the problems in Iraq people think that all of Iraq is a failure.

I'm sorry but it isn't.

At some point I want our troops to come home but I don't think a bunch of politicians in DC should decide when that happens.

That choice should be made by the Iraqi government, the generals in Iraq and finally The President.

Any other quesions/concerns???
 
  2007-03-03 07:33:00 PM
It absolutely floors me that any thinking rational American could possibly support Bush after the complete and utter disregard that he and the Republicans have shown for this country, and the world as a whole. I saw a car with a W'04 sticker on it today, and my jaw dropped. I had to pull up next to her just to get a look at the kind of person who would openly admit that they are a traitor.

Had Gore won the presidency, there would have been no Iraq war, and thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be living and breathing today. The real issues facing us, such as health care, climate change, and domestic stability would have been at the forefront of his agenda.

Had Kerry won the presidency, the Iraq war would have been swiftly and diplomatically ceased. I wasn't a big fan of him, but he is an extremely competant military strategist and would have surrounded himself with problem solvers.

Over a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost because Bush thinks "God" talks to him. Shame on anyone who thinks he's worthy of anything better than a lifelong jail sentence.
 
  2007-03-03 09:02:46 PM
"We know that he [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

The ignorance of some in here is more than just a bit amazing.
 
  2007-03-03 09:23:48 PM
Anyone know a good place to get the 411 on all current Presidential nominees?

Paulson: Had Gore won the presidency, there would have been no Iraq war,

True, but what would he have done about Afghanistan?

dottedmint: The ignorance of some in here is more than just a bit amazing.

Everyone talks, though. They probably would have kept on talking and tried to help the UN put inspectors in place, then not done anything.
 
  2007-03-04 04:12:00 AM
dottedmint:

That choice should be made by the Iraqi government, the generals in Iraq and finally The President.

The Iraqi government wants us out, the generals have condemned Bush policy as a failure, and the President has not admitted to his fellow Americans of his error.

A majority of Iraq is actually safer than some major US cities but because we have a bunch of terrorists trying to destroy our acheivements and a media that wants to hype the problems in Iraq people think that all of Iraq is a failure.

With all due respect, that sounds like propaganda. What's your source on this?

And don't forget: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter." They don't want us there, and instead of getting the message and getting out, we're digging our heels in and losing because we never stopped to think that we just might not be welcome there.

At some point I want our troops to come home but I don't think a bunch of politicians in DC should decide when that happens

Those politicians you rail against are our representatives. The military takes their orders, and ultimately ours.

Not the other way around.

And as for those who voted for the war, the honorable thing to do is step down at the end their terms instead of running again. They had no business funding another illegal police action, and defended the tissue of lies that justified the invasion. Why they weren't all voted out is dismaying to me.
 
  2007-03-04 09:30:10 AM
"The Iraqi government wants us out,"

Of course the Iraqi government wants us out (EVENTUALLY) but the Iraqi government is not out there telling us to pull out NOW like many Dems are saying.

Even I want us out of there EVENTUALLY.

IF the Iraqi government came forward and said that they wanted all US troops out of Iraq by the end of the month then we should do everything that is in our power to have all US troops out of Iraq by the end of the month.

"the generals have condemned Bush policy as a failure,"

When the generals who are actually running the war say it is time to pull out then we should start to pull out.

"and the President has not admitted to his fellow Americans of his error."

Actually Bush has said there have been mistakes with the Iraq war. Not that this actually matters....

When the Iraqi government say that they are ready for us to pull out, the generals that are running the war say we can pull out, and The President says we can pull out is when we should pull out.

We should NOT pull out because a bunch of politically motivated politicians see an unpopular war.

"With all due respect, that sounds like propaganda. What's your source on this?"

A majority of attacks are in Baghdad and the area around Baghdad.

"And don't forget: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter." "

Someone who blows up schools, kills women and children, beheads and tortures people is a TERRORIST.


"Those politicians you rail against are our representatives. The military takes their orders, and ultimately ours.

Not the other way around."

NO! NO! NO!

Congress does NOT have the authority to dictate military policy.

All that they can do is fund military action or not fund a military action.

Those that want us to pull out are too cowardly to vote to cut off funding for the troops because they know the political backlash they would face at the next election.

The military answers to The President and ONLY The President.

He is the Commander in Chief.

All Congress can do is close the checkbook......

"And as for those who voted for the war, the honorable thing to do is step down at the end their terms instead of running again. They had no business funding another illegal police action, and defended the tissue of lies that justified the invasion. Why they weren't all voted out is dismaying to me."

There is nothing "illegal" about this war.
 
  2007-03-04 02:01:24 PM
Okay, Hillary has to quit NOW.
 
  2007-03-04 03:33:25 PM
dottedmint: Of course the Iraqi government wants us out (EVENTUALLY) but the Iraqi government is not out there telling us to pull out NOW like many Dems are saying.

You are mistaken. As of last September, the majority of Iraqis wanted the United States to pull out its troops immediately.

And there you go again with your kneejerk partisanship. You might want to ditch that if you want to have anything resembling a serious discussion here. There are staunch Republicans also calling for the war to end.

When the generals who are actually running the war say it is time to pull out then we should start to pull out.

They don't have to. Bush should be taking their present comments to heart, that Iraq indeed is a failure. Just one easily-found article denouncing Bush administration policy.

Actually Bush has said there have been mistakes with the Iraq war. Not that this actually matters...

No, Bush has never admitted to the American people that the ENTIRE war was a mistake. We got him with the bad intelligence and the even worse justification to invade. When you're cornered, you come clean, not continue to dig deeper in the muck. That's what Bush is doing, arrogantly forging on without admitting how seriously f*cked his decisions were. That's incredibly bad leadership.

We should NOT pull out because a bunch of politically motivated politicians see an unpopular war.

A very short-sighted observation. Again, the politicians are OUR conduit to government, and we've already done some reminding that we didn't care for their pro-war positions when the Republicans lost their majority last November.

Like I said, vote all of them out that still support this klstrfk.

With all due respect, that sounds like propaganda. What's your source on this?"

A majority of attacks are in Baghdad and the area around Baghdad.


You did not provide a source that documents your dubious comment A majority of Iraq is actually safer than some major US cities. I seriously doubt this. Please provide some believable justification or rethink your position.

dottedmint: Someone who blows up schools, kills women and children, beheads and tortures people is a TERRORIST.

I don't know about beheading, but I know for a fact the United States has done all of the other things you cite. Who's the terrorist?

Congress does NOT have the authority to dictate military policy.

Congress pulls the strings ultimately. You bet they could completely nullify the war resolution and bring the troops home.

The military answers to The President and ONLY The President.

The President answers to Congress. Checks and balances. The Executive Office is not a sovereign body.

There is nothing "illegal" about this war.

It's not a war--it's a police action: it was never declared as a war and the reasons for invading were flimsy at best.

These are enough criteria to call this abomination what it is, and to demand impeachment of both the President and Vice President.

And I find this debate with you rather puzzling. Why do you still support this conflict even though you are privvy to the same easily-available information I used to refute your points? Really, what is your personal fascination with it, and why do you still cling to its necessity even though it's been proven to be both a black hole and a very immoral situation?
 
  2007-03-04 09:39:14 PM
I really don't want to get stuck debating ONLY the Iraq war but I will respond for some time yet.....

"whidbey You are mistaken. As of last September, the majority of Iraqis wanted the United States to pull out its troops immediately."

I said that the Iraq GOVERNMENT is NOT asking for us to leave NOW. This is true.

"They don't have to. Bush should be taking their present comments to heart, that Iraq indeed is a failure. Just one easily-found article denouncing Bush administration policy."

But the point is that the generals that are in charge in Iraq are NOT calling for us to leave now.

"No, Bush has never admitted to the American people that the ENTIRE war was a mistake. We got him with the bad intelligence and the even worse justification to invade."

Actually Bush has said there were mistakes in the intel running up to the war and how the war has been handled.

"A very short-sighted observation. Again, the politicians are OUR conduit to government, and we've already done some reminding that we didn't care for their pro-war positions when the Republicans lost their majority last November."

Actually it is farther-sighted than you may think.

The next time we find ourselves in a war all our enemies would need to do is cause us enough casualties to drive the public opinions of the war down far enough to pressure the politicians to end the war.

It can be dangerous for our national security to be determined by public opinion.

"I don't know about beheading, but I know for a fact the United States has done all of the other things you cite. Who's the terrorist?"

There is a HUGE difference between intentionally targeting innocent civilians and collateral damage.

"Congress pulls the strings ultimately. You bet they could completely nullify the war resolution and bring the troops home."

There are HUGE questions if Congress would be within it's power to "nullify the war resolution".

The ONLY "string" that Congress can pull is the one that is attached to the purse.

The Constitution DOES authorize Congress to cut funding. It does NOT authorize it to "nullify the war resolution".

"The President answers to Congress. Checks and balances. The Executive Office is not a sovereign body."

Congress has "powers".

The President has "powers".

The President IS Commander In Chief...NOT Congress.

As I said before the only option that The Constitution gives to the Congress is the funding.

"It's not a war--it's a police action: it was never declared as a war and the reasons for invading were flimsy at best.

These are enough criteria to call this abomination what it is, and to demand impeachment of both the President and Vice President."

1. Define for me what a Declaration of War is.

2. Show me a template for what a DoW "MUST SAY".

The Constitution only says that Congress can "declare war".

It doesn't say what a DoW "must say" or even that a DoW is needed before military actions.

There is no impeachable offense here.....
 
  2007-03-05 12:17:26 AM
dottedmint:

What stake do you have in continuing to buy into the BS that the Iraq "War" is not an illegal, immoral undertaking?

Really, I'd like to understand it.

Once again: the Iraqi government wants us out. We can go back and forth on it, but it's always going to go back to that square on the court. US out. You're really not going to find any information to the contrary.

Actually Bush has said there were mistakes in the intel running up to the war and how the war has been handled.

Under pressure, he's given lip service, certainly. But he's never admitted to the American people that invading was wrong and the policy was a complete failure, rather the exact opposite: he has continued to arrogantly assert the same BS as to why we invaded.

The next time we find ourselves in a war all our enemies would need to do is cause us enough casualties to drive the public opinions of the war down far enough to pressure the politicians to end the war.

That sounds like a nice paranoid fantasy, dottedmint...:)

It doesn't take high casualty numbers to wake people up and realize that we're involved in another bullsh*t police action once again.

It can be dangerous for our national security to be determined by public opinion.

Sure, it's dangerous--to the warmongers in charge. However, it's essential for citizens who believe in the democratic process and want to stop this government from meddling in places it doesn't belong.

. Define for me what a Declaration of War is.

Thanks, but I'll decline. It's actually your call to justify how the illegal Iraq "War" differs from a garden variety police action.

Wars suck by their very nature, but at least a declaration gives the appearance of a legitimate operation.

Police actions are basically terrorism, bound by flexible "rules" and objectives.

There is no impeachable offense here.....

Both Bush and Cheney should be impeached before Congress for lying to the American people about the justifications for the Iraq invasion

Anyone else want to add anything? It can't be just me who finds your staunch support and shaky justifications, well, rather appalling, man...
 
  2007-03-05 06:54:53 AM
"Once again: the Iraqi government wants us out. We can go back and forth on it, but it's always going to go back to that square on the court. US out. You're really not going to find any information to the contrary. "

But the link that YOU provided did not support your claim.

I said that the Iraqi GOVERNMENT is NOT out there telling us to leave NOW.

This IS A TRUE STATEMENT.

They want us to leave EVENTUALLY but are NOT NOT NOT telling us to leave now.

"Under pressure, he's given lip service, certainly. But he's never admitted to the American people that invading was wrong and the policy was a complete failure, rather the exact opposite: he has continued to arrogantly assert the same BS as to why we invaded."

IF he does not think going into Iraq was wrong and a complete failure there is no reason for him to say so.


"Thanks, but I'll decline. It's actually your call to justify how the illegal Iraq "War" differs from a garden variety police action."

Uh.... No. YOU are the one who is saying this is an "illegal police action" and you based that on the notion that it was not "declared".

So I want you to tell me what The US Constitution requires for a Declaration of War.

The reason that you will "decline" is because The US Constitution does NOT have a template for a DoW and it does NOT say that a DoW is even needed.

"Both Bush and Cheney should be impeached before Congress for lying to the American people about the justifications for the Iraq invasion"

There is a HUGE difference between "lying" and simply being wrong about the intel.

There is ZERO evidence that they "lied".

Were they wrong?

Yes. (maybe) And Bush has said the intel was wrong but making choices based on what the intel says is NOT an impeachable offense.

I simply go back to what Gore said about Saddam.

"We know that he [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Are you telling me that everyone who said Saddam had WMDs was lying???
 
  2007-03-05 10:48:01 AM
dottedmint: here is ZERO evidence that they "lied".

Were they wrong?

Yes. (maybe) And Bush has said the intel was wrong but making choices based on what the intel says is NOT an impeachable offense.



Ignoring and or suppressing evidence that doesn't support your pre-determined goals is tantamount to lying.

Anyone who still believes that the Bush Administration was even remotely up front about justifying the invasion of Iraq is either willfully ignorant of completely delusional. I'm sorry, but those are the only two choices.

For a bunch of guys who talk about being the party of responsibility and accountability, you sure are quick to sweep glaringly obvious examples of chicanery under the carpet.

Oh, and earlier you talked about being "dissappointed" with the Bush Administration about some things. You didn't give examples, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you're talking about them spending like Paris Hilton on a bender and expanding the federal government to the point of bloat.

You know, I hear a lot of so-called conservatives tsk-tsk about how "dissappointed" they are with Bush, but do they hold him responsible for... anything? No. They farking defend him while watching our money fly out of the Treasury on little Halliburtan wings.

Sorry if that's not what you were talking about, dottedmint, but it is what a lot of conservatives are talking about.
 
  2007-03-05 01:52:49 PM
dottedmint: So I want you to tell me what The US Constitution requires for a Declaration of War.

Simply, it requires that Congress declare one. Otherwise, it's just another illegal police action, ignoring procedure and bending the rules. We've allowed our government to get away with this for too long.

But the link that YOU provided did not support your claim.

I said that the Iraqi GOVERNMENT is NOT out there telling us to leave NOW.


I'd say last September is recent enough. Got anything that says otherwise? You're not going to find anything other than Iraq constantly asking for a timeline.

There is a HUGE difference between "lying" and simply being wrong about the intel.

It's enough to bring Bush to impeachment.

There is ZERO evidence that they "lied".

I'd like to see a tribunal decide that.

I simply go back to what Gore said about Saddam.

Gore's not in power. Bush is, and made the decision.

Are you telling me that everyone who said Saddam had WMDs was lying???

Do the math. The whole WMDs justification has been shot down six ways to Sunday. All that hasn't happened is some Senator or Congressmen with the balls to stand up and call out this information publicly.

Really, dottedmint. Again, I'm asking you:

Why do you support this "war" despite the overwhelming evidence it's a manipulative deceitful act?

I really don't want the tiresome task of answering your cliche arguments anymore, let's hear why you believe this is a worthwhile policy.
 
  2007-03-05 09:50:30 PM
"whidbey dottedmint: So I want you to tell me what The US Constitution requires for a Declaration of War.

Simply, it requires that Congress declare one. Otherwise, it's just another illegal police action, ignoring procedure and bending the rules. We've allowed our government to get away with this for too long."

The US Constitution ONLY says that Congress has the power to "declare war". NOWHERE in it is it written that a Declaration of War is somehow "required".

Also Congress attempted to clarify how this country can goto war when it passed the War Powers Act.

The WPA says that a President needs only a Joint Resolution to go to "war".

"I'd say last September is recent enough. Got anything that says otherwise? You're not going to find anything other than Iraq constantly asking for a timeline."

What you linked to does NOT say the Iraqi GOVERNMENT is asking us to leave NOW.

"There is a HUGE difference between "lying" and simply being wrong about the intel.

It's enough to bring Bush to impeachment."

Being "wrong" with the intel is NOT an impeachable offense.

"Gore's not in power. Bush is, and made the decision."

No he is not in power. I was using him as an example of others saying the SAME THING that Bush said.

IF Bush "lied" then Gore lied, Clinton lied, etc...etc...etc....

"let's hear why you believe this is a worthwhile policy."

Well....

Because the Iraq Study Group said that if we leave Iraq sooner than we should all sorts of bad things will happen.

"Calmamity
Oh, and earlier you talked about being "dissappointed" with the Bush Administration about some things. You didn't give examples,"

Fair enough....

1. Yes. The BIGGEST is spending like Paris Hilton. He should have vetoed a couple of spending bills but unfort he didn't.

2. He has failed to secure our borders. Granted he can't secure the borders without the support of Congress but he should have "pushed" the issue more.

3. I am very upset that he signed campaign finance reform. This clearly puts limits on our speech rights.

4. I am upset that he maintained this "new tone" crap. The Dems did NOT want to work with him an anything and he should have stood up against them more. Instead he let Kennedy help write the education bill.

5. Finally he should have "cleaned house" in the Pentagon and State Department.

I supported going into Iraq and think leaving too soon would be a huge mistake.

I supported the tax cuts and if anything I think they might not have been big enough. Ultimately I think our tax system is messed up.

I supported the idea of giving people the choice to put a part of their SS in a private account. It is my money (after all) and I should have at least SOME say on what I do with it.

Any other questions.... issues.... that you want my opinion on????
 
  2007-03-06 01:57:57 AM
Hi All.

I'd post this on the regular page, but it's really nothing more than an instance of tin-foil hattery come true.

So, my BF and I are watching the WalterReed CSPAN reruns tonight (yeah, I was gonna watch 24, but this was WAY sadder ans sicker).

So wee watch the panel with the eye-patch Sgt w/PTSD who "breaks things", the verklempt Army wife, and the soldier with sunglasses who's missing an ear; it's sad, and a long heartfelt indictment of the Army and VA medical system, told from the inside. The Congressthings looked appropriately outraged, and thanked the injured vets and families for their service and sacrifice. I got the feeling they'd be some new "independent committee" or agency that's supposed to represent the vets which won't be beholden to the Army *or* the VA. [YAY! a whole 'nother set of papers to fill out! More bullshiat political appointments!] Watch for this in the upcoming election cycle, swear to God.

So then the next set of people comes up for the hearing, and it's 2 top brass and a wonk from the GAO.

The first Brass is the current head of all Army Medical, who was the head of Walter Reed until 2004. He yammered on about how the Army gives the very bestest in Medical care EVAR. [Which is probably true for trauma medicine, but what happens after they stabilize you is anoth thing entirely].

The second Brass was head of Walter Reed from summer of 2006 until about 3 weeks ago (presumably when this shiat was breaking), when his lame ass was fired. He bloviated, and said he was sorry, and some other bullshiat.

At this point, I said to my BF, "Hey, I bet this is Rumsfeld's fault, some crap-ass privatization scheme for the VA or something, that's why the care sucks so bad now. Bet you five dollars it's a prison services contractor or Halliburton."

During the second Brass's testimony, or during GAO lady's testimony (I can't quite remember which, being three glasses into a bottle of portuguese wine) One of them mentions that in 2005 or 2006, there was a private bid for services and lay offs. The bid came from a company called "IAP Worldwide Services".

So, I stumble upstairs and consult the Oracle of GOOGLE.

Google points me to IAP's website, which says:

May 2004 - Cerberus Capital Management, L.C., a New York-based private investment group, becomes majority owner of IAP Worldwide Services, Inc. In addition to a whole range of government contracting (which sadly, doesn't include correctional facilities, I looked).

So, I say to myself, WTF is Cerberus Capital Management??

And the WIKI Answered me:

Cerberus Capital Management
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cerberus Capital Management LP is a large privately owned hedge fund. The firm is based in New York, N.Y., and run by 45-year-old financier Steve Feinberg. Former Vice President Dan Quayle has been a prominent Cerberus spokesperson and runs one of its international units.

Founded in 1992, Cerberus invests primarily in companies which are near bankruptcy and hopes to make the businesses it acquires profitable.

The company has been a voracious acquirer of businesses over the past several years and now includes sizeable investments in sportswear, paper products, military services, real estate, energy, retail, glassmaking, transportation, and building products. Its holdings amounted to $24 billion in 2006.

On October 19, 2006, John W. Snow, President George W. Bush's second United States Secretary of the Treasury, was named chairman of Cerberus.

Cerebus was recently involved in controversy surrounding its contributions to Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis. MCI, a company owned by Cerebus, had a $1 billion dollar contract to create the Navy/Marine computer network. However, the Defense Appropriations subcommittee released a critical report of MCI after receiving complaints about cost overruns and bad management. In response to this report, the committee had proposed to cut the MCI contract by 10%. In June 2003, Lewis, the head of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, received over $110,000 dollars in contribution from Cerebus. Shortly thereafter, Lewis decided to preserve full funding for the $1 billion dollar contract. In 2005, Lewis was elected as Chairman of the House Appropriations Commitee. He acknowledged that the fundraising efforts of Cerberus "played a very significant role" in winning the post. US Attorney Carol Lam began an investigation of Lewis's contributors in 2006. [1]


Carol Lam has since been fired by Alberto Gonzales.

My tinfoil hat is getting itchy and sweaty. Should we be concerned? Or just bored at this point by all this sleazy-ass shiat?

/needed to vent, so sorry.
 
Displayed 50 of 2653 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Remember me Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report