Woman to Woman

By Bob Morris

July 23, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Rove and other media firestorms; The wild consistently wrong pro.Dem machine is fast entering that arena which is the most common undoing of losers—- a joke in the eyes of all!

By Bob Morris

July 23, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Media, so openly pro Dem and so often wrong as they give us their guesses as news, are becoming a laughing stock to the US public. To be a joke is the worst fate to befall any identifiable group.

By Walt Miller

July 25, 2005 07:02 AM | Link to this

Does anyone else see the traitorous irony of Bush Administration officials cooking the data on Iraqi nuclear weapons programs to justify the case for an unnecessary war and then destroying the cover of a 20 year CIA veteran operative who was working on nuclear nonproliferation issues?

People should be outraged, and they should be contacting their senators and representatives. If you press them, they will act. The lies, treason and hubris of the Bush Administration can and should be exposed, and the perpetrators -can- and should be brought to account.

Bush and Cheney should both be impeached at once.

By Thea

July 25, 2005 07:24 AM | Link to this

I’m grateful that Republican loyalists believe that the President and his administration are perfect, never make mistakes, never lie, are always above reproach. If only we were all so PERFECT!

By Randy

July 25, 2005 07:33 AM | Link to this

Walt has a vivid imagination. Bush is why the terrorists aren’t hitting the USA now. Bush is great!

By Brian Curtis

July 25, 2005 07:33 AM | Link to this

Heh. Ken Starr was sent on a fishing expedition starting with Whitewater (which led to nothing), and eventually dredged up an affair with an intern… which had no impact on his duties as President.

At least this investigation is based on an actual security issue. No matter how I personally feel about the CIA, there’s evidence of actual lawbreaking going on here—lawbreaking that’s a legitimate national concern, since it puts political revenge ahead of national security. Obviously the matter should be investigated.

By taboga

July 25, 2005 07:39 AM | Link to this

Diane best illustrates the Liberal position: It doesn’t matter whether he’s done anything wrong - he’s a Conservative. Or better yet: It doesn’t matter if we makeup things about him that aren’t true - he needs to go. Because he’s a Conservative.

Liberals view Conservatives the way Christians view the Devil: 100% evil 100% per cent of the time. So it doesn’t matter whether or not Conservatives are actually doing anything wrong or not - they are the Devil.

So even if you makeup lies about the Devil - it’s perfectly fine. Because he’s the Devil. Or Conservative - same difference to the Left.

By ric

July 25, 2005 07:51 AM | Link to this

Could Feldhahn post where and when did Wilson say the VP sent him?

By Walt Miller

July 25, 2005 07:53 AM | Link to this

Actually, Bush -is- why the terrorists are trying to, and will inevitably, hit the USA, per testimony before Congress, as Sen. McCain said yesterday on a Sunday morning talk show.

Invading Iraq was like putting a spray of gasoline on worldwide terrorism, as Bob Herbert writes in today’s NY Times. The treason in the White House either - goes all the way to the Oval Office - or Bush is criminally incompetent.

There is not much middle ground.

Bush and Cheney should be immediately impeached, and it -can- and SHOULD happen.

By Billy

July 25, 2005 07:53 AM | Link to this

Rove loves this. He loves it.

This is just more evidence that the left-wing, pro-Democrat, out-of-touch-with-middle-America liberal media machine will do anything to discredit the President, even if it has to attack those around him to do it. Please.

Were the media truly the massive liberal force they are portrayed to be by the likes of Rove and his supporters, we would still be hearing about his dirty campaign tactics during the 2000 primaries, like polling in South Carolina and asking how someone’s opinion of John McCain would change if he was revealed to be the father of a Black child. They would still be calling “BS” on having the Florida Secretary of State, the one in charge of running its elections, also chair the Bush/Cheney Florida campaign. They would still be taking the President to task for spending half his time in office on vacation up to the 9/11 attacks.

And this whole deal with Rove would just be an addendum to the lingering firestorm over the administration deliberately misleading the public. The furor in the media would be ten times as bad as during the Lewinsky affair, reflecting the respective seriousness of the two.

Is the media firestorm overblown? THIS DOESN’T QUALIFY AS A FIRESTORM! And every bit of media attention is deserved.

It’s sad and strange that an administration that’s so big on morals has such a problem with ethics.

By Billy

July 25, 2005 07:56 AM | Link to this

Taboga — I don’t think Rove is evil because he’s a conservative, I think he’s a conservative because he’s evil.

By Brian Curtis

July 25, 2005 07:59 AM | Link to this

Billy: Good point. The current “media firestorm” is more like a campfire. And still the neocons are whining about the heat!

Jon Stewart: “We’ve secretly replaced the White House press corps with actual reporters. Let’s see if anyone notices the difference.”

By taboga

July 25, 2005 08:01 AM | Link to this

Brian,

There is an investigation going on. And thus far, the investigation has discovered no wrong-doing by Karl Rove. So quite naturally - the Left accuses Karl Rove of wrong-doing even though the investigation has found none.

And do you really want to continue to pretend that our “National Security” is at stake over this?

This woman was NOT under cover. This woman had NOT been under cover for several years. Revealing a CIA Agents name alone - is NOT an offense. And anyone and everyone; it is now known, knew this woman’s name and who she worked for - for a very long time.

And Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with any of this!

So do you really want to continue to pretend that Karl Rove out’ed an undercover CIA Agent and our “National Security” has been jeopardized…?

By Ben

July 25, 2005 08:02 AM | Link to this

Ric - I don’t think she’ll be able to post that, because if she did, she would only show what Wilson REALLY said. His words were taken out of context and misquoted. Wilson said that the office of the Vice President was made aware of the situation and had knowledge that “someone” was going.

The interview was done with FoxNews a while back, but he was definitely misquoted.

By Les

July 25, 2005 08:02 AM | Link to this

If Rove is not guilty, then why did the administration change their mantra from (paraphrased) “anyone in this administration involved in the leak will be fired” to “anyone in this administration who committed a crime will be fired?” Doesn’t it seem like the Bushies are worried about the outcome of this investigation??

By Walt Miller

July 25, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

Unfortunately for Republican Party hacks, dupes and operatives, improperly discussing something that is classified, even if it is common knowledge, or done negligently, is a felony.

By SteveSC

July 25, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this

The issue is less whether or not Rove broke the law. The issue is that, with the approval of a President who ran on a promise to bring honor and dignity back to the White House, Rove is the architect of campaigns to trash the reputation of anyone who poses a potential threat to the President. John McCain (2000), Max Cleland (2002), and John Kerry (2004) can testify to this. God help Vietnam vet Chuck Hagel if he chooses to run for President in 2008 against W’s anointed sucessor (whoever that may be).

By taboga

July 25, 2005 08:14 AM | Link to this

The issue is less whether or not Rove broke the law. The issue is that, with the approval of a President who ran on a promise to bring honor and dignity back to the White House, Rove is the architect of campaigns to trash the reputation of anyone who poses a potential threat to the President. John McCain (2000), Max Cleland (2002), and John Kerry (2004) can testify to this. God help Vietnam vet Chuck Hagel if he chooses to run for President in 2008 against W’s anointed sucessor (whoever that may be).

“Polly wanna cracker”…?

By Ben

July 25, 2005 08:16 AM | Link to this

Ric - I take that back, the interview was with Wolf.

“WILSON: Well, look, it’s absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger.

What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby’s statement, it was probably the vice president himself…

BLITZER: Scooter Libby is the chief of staff for the vice president.

WILSON: Scooter Libby. They asked essentially that we follow up on this report — that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed.”

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/03/le.00.html

By Concerned

July 25, 2005 08:17 AM | Link to this

Where to start? Rove may not have given Plame’s name, but he did say “Wilson’s wife.� Arguing this as an important point is a difference without distinction. And Wilson’s wife did not send Wilson to Niger, Cheney’s interest in this issue initiated the trip. The CIA choose Wilson because he was the best qualified with his African contacts to analyze the issue. Rove has a history of this kind of outing. Beyond any partisanship, we must all demand that Fitzgerald’s report examines this issue fully. Brian is right saying that we don’t know where his investigation will take him; including to Gonzales, Ashcroft, Novak, McCellan, Libby, Rove, Cheney, and Bush.

By Walt Miller

July 25, 2005 08:20 AM | Link to this

…the Left accuses Karl Rove of wrong-doing even though the investigation has found none…

The investigation is not yet over.

The Press is always careful to qualify its statements.

For those not in the Press, Matt Cooper has said that Rove told him about Valerie Plame/Wilson working at the CIA.

The law says that any improper discussion of classified information, even if done negligently, is a felony; this is a law that goes back to 1917.

I don’t need the “Left” or anybody else to tell me how or what to think.

The -best- thing you can say about the Bush Administration is that it is criminally incompetent and negligent in general, or that it blatantly cooked up lies to sell the Congress and People on a rationale for war.

Bush’s letter to the Congress of 3/18/03 contained lies - false statements. Lying to the Congress is a felony, and Bush should be impeached on that basis if no other — and plenty of others suggest themselves.

Walt

By Brian Curtis

July 25, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this

Taboga: Yes, an investigation is going on… as it should be. So what’s the complaining about?

By mgm

July 25, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this

Hey taboga you’re right on the money! Except, let’s look at it from a different perspective:

“It doesn’t matter whether he’s done anything wrong - he’s a Liberal”

That’s why Conservatives went after Clinton with such fervor over an obvious non-issue like Monica Lewinsky.

They didn’t care if he had done anything wrong, they just saw it as an angle that they could use to stick it to they’re counterparts and (hopefully in their minds) gain an upper hand.

What comes around goes around…

By Archie

July 25, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

I don’t think the media is overblowing the Rove situation because Rove could easily have said that the CIA is sending Wilson … without mentioning the man’s wife but if you’re slick you can be within the law and accomplish your revenge all at the same time. There’s no way anything is going to happen to Karl Rove but Bush can make all the strong statements he wants because he knows he won’t have to do anything. This administration has equivocated to the point where I question just about any information they give out. Scientists were complaining about what this administration does with data and you find out that this war is based on lie after lie and spin after spin.

By Walt Miller

July 25, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

……….Taboga: Yes, an investigation is going on… as it should be. So what’s the complaining about?……….

Are you suggesting that a democracy shouldn’t have open discussion about the events of the day?

Walt

By Walt Miller

July 25, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

It now seems likely that Cheney’s Chief of Staff Libby and Rove lied to the Grand Jury. Back when they were doing their corrosive partisan leaks, it probably didn’t occur to them that since Valerie Wilson worked in the US, that she was an undercover operative. Things that are common knowledge can still be classified. Oops.

I would assume that the Repubs will try and exert some sort of pressure on the Special Prosecutor, Fitzgerald. He is supposed to be a pretty straight shooter. One site I saw said that he may even be fired, as Nixon tried to fire (did ultimately have fired) the special prosecutor in Watergate, Archibald Cox. The new special prosecutor, Jaworski, was just as devastating to Nixon. In that case, the Attorney General refused to fire Cox. The a*’t AG refused also. The guy who finally fired Cox was Robert Bork, the Solicitor General. Bork was later refused confirmation to the Supreme Court @ ten years later.

This deal is like Watergate in one way at least, the cover-up/aftermath is more damaging than the original act.

The trotting out of the new appointee to the SCOTUS is not displacing the Rove leak story. The Dems seem canny enough to know which horse to ride. It would be nice for them to be canny for once.

Bush won’t fire Rove as long as there is a breath left in either of them.

Which is only one reason Bush should be impeached.

Walt

By pouriya

July 25, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

sallam

By Harry

July 25, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

First you start with The Big Lie. Joe Wilson lied so exposing his wife and her CIA contacts is acceptable. Well that’s a lie, if you check the transcript Joe Wilson never claimed Dick Cheney sent him. But Republicans never let the facts get in their way. FOX and hate radio keep spinning this story to cover for the Bush administration’s lies leading up the invasion of Iraq. Everyone involved in the disgraceful episode lied except Joe Wilson. No WMD, no yellow cake, nothing that might justify the Bush war for OIL!

By Art Garland

July 25, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Ms Bell needs to read the 9/11 hearing report before she contines to report more mistatements.

By Vince

July 25, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Media Firestorm? Huh? This story is buried deep in the back of every newspaper and news website in circulation. Rove was fired for leaking the same type of information to the same reporter at the same paper during Reagan Bush years. I do give Rove and Murdoch credit though… whenever Bush slips in the opinion polls, they come up with some great headlines to shift our focus.

Oh, and on last weeks posting… nobody as of yet can tell me why jet fuel burned light grey at the pentagon. But, I’m nuts to ask, right?

How about these two curious events? 1) on The White House Official website (yes, Bush’s official site, not something I made up), Bush is quoted as mentioning he saw the first plane fly into the WTC from a tv set while waiting to meet with the school kids. LIES, and its still on the site today. There was no TV set according to all the teachers present, and nobody saw the first plane fly into the WTC on live tv. that video came days later. 2) on the FAA website, if you input the “N” of United Flight 93 into their search engine, the FAA shows that plane is still in operation. I thought that aircraft crashed in PA.

I dare any of you to write off the above mentioned to conspirarcy theory, as they come directly from the Federal governments official website, which cannot be manipulated by civilians.

By Joe Fincher

July 25, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

After hearing and reading about this story I have come to this conclusion. America, except the diehard left wingers really doesn’t care. This is just another example of Democrats being obstructionists. Why worry about something as simple as this when there’s bill’s needing work on and a Supreme Court nominee waiting to be confirmed. Was this woman really an undercover agent at the time? NO!! She had a desk job in D.C. but the haters of the Democratic Party make it sound as if this ladies job was a matter of national security. I truly hope Democrats realize that this makes them look bad and it certainly will not help them win elections. I think most people will agree that the Democrats are acting like spoiled little children that have gotten their way for years. Now Republicans are in charge and they are shaking in anger, but who knows. In 20 or 30 years when maybe Democrats can be in charge again Republicans might act the same way.

By Ken

July 25, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Why is ANYONE talking about this…?

We should leave this to the investigators involved and think about/discuss more important topics? We have food shortages in Niger, a war in Iraq, a new Supreme Court nominee and I just read my very disappointing social security statement.

The original question was is this overblown…? I think it is, b/c if criminal wrongdoing is found, the perpetrators will be punished. If you don’t like the President, his party or administration for other reasons then vote him/them out. Otherwise, I feel like this is a worthless subject to discuss, just like Lewinsky was 7 years ago. This is just a way for both parties to circle the wagons and lash out at each other.

By Jack

July 25, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

The Rove thing is not even news. We’ll wear this one out before the end of the day. Happy Monday.

By Kyle

July 25, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Easy, Vince, or the men in the white suits will be there soon to take you away?

I think it’s kinda funny how we all can have the same info about this Rove situation, or lack there of, and we all immediately take our party’s side. I am guilty of the same, but why don’t we just let this investigation play itself out? If he’s guilty - he’s gone. If he’s not - then shut up. Some on the left may feel that this story isn’t getting enough pub. But it’s not getting enough publicity for a good reason, there doesn’t seem to be much of a story - at least not yet. If facts later come out that show Rove to be guilty of a crime, THEN this story will be news. Until then……..

By Jack

July 25, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Vince, like Eaton said last week, their were more things burning than jet fuel. Like wood, seats, rubber ETC. Those items don’t burn gray.

By Jackie

July 25, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

Is it coincidence that many people that have left either of the Bush Administrations have strong words about the less than sterlar conduct of the two Presidents? Look at who was involved in each of those Administrations and you will see the same cast of characters and their cohorts in positions of influence in both Administrations.

By Sct

July 25, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

Yeah lets hope our government goes back to tackling those big important issues like….

Teri Schiavo, flag burning amendment, daylight savings, 10 commandments, and pork barrel spending.

By Billy

July 25, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

You can me damned sure they aren’t going to start with an investigation of one of their own.

By Jackie

July 25, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Why is the President still having public meetings that are by “invitation only?” Is he still campaiging? Does he still work for those taxpayers that disagree with his policies and positions? Where is my ticket?

By Anne

July 25, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Wasn’t this supposed to be the admininstration of accountability and ‘character’? I definately remember that in the talking points prior to the 2000 installation of Mr bush. They won’t admit a mistake, and when caught in their numerous lies, they up the terror alert. Seems to me, that if Scooter and Karl were in this thing together, a conspiracy charge should be forthcoming. Funny how most of you have forgotten the agents and operatives still in the field who have been put at risk because of Karl’s and Scooter’s loose lips. I’m glad someone posted the actual quotes from the Blitzer interview with Wilson. Amazing that the republicans would mislead us once again with soundbites isn’t it?

By jesse

July 25, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

It seems the only crime Karl Rove is guilty of is defeating Al Gore in 2000, helping Bush gain seats in 2002, and beating John Kerry in 2004. Everyone knows that this is what it’s all about. If the left was truly concerned about national security, why no outrage at Sandy Berger for stuffing classified documents down his pants?

By Anne

July 25, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Oh of course! ‘Everyone’ knows that Karl and w are incapable of ANY wrong doing at all! Saints both! w ‘thinks about’ the Iraq war EVERY DAY! Every day people! Don’t you think he’d rather be falling off his bike instead? He thinks about it. He’s not thought of any mistakes yet. Not one. It certainly takes alot of thought to come up with a new reason for the war every few months. We will be waiting for the outcome of the investigation. Yes. At the ballot box.

By Anne

July 25, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Didn’t Sandy Berger plead guilty? What’s your point?

By Jack

July 25, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

Good point Jesse! Berger should be in jail.

By Anne

July 25, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

“In the plea, Mr. Berger admits to knowingly taking and destroying copies of classified documents from the National Archives while preparing for his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. When the illegal behavior came to light last summer, suspicions were raised (including on this page) that Mr. Berger may have been trying to deny evidence to what was then a highly polarized Commission. “

Jack and jesse might wanna keep up with some ‘real’ news once in a while hmm? Or do you just read Karl’s daily talking points?

By taboga

July 25, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Come to think of it - Rove must be a genius.

He’s gotten George W. Bush elected twice. The entire News Media couldn’t get Gore or Kerry elected once!

By Jack

July 25, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

The point is, the liberal media just buried the story about Berger but you would think Rowe was bringing about the end of the world.

By Kyle

July 25, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

anybody got an idea for a better topic, or do you guys think think that people will actually be able to come up with meaningful things to say about this topic for more than the next five minutes?

-anybody have anything to say on the nomination of John Roberts?

By Anne

July 25, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

Wow! They let y’all think independently??? That’s not a good trait for a good flock.

By Les

July 25, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Jackie, I’m still waiting for my ticket, too. Why have private meetings with citizens who only agree with and support you about issues that impact everyone? I just don’t get the purpose of these meetings.

By kimberly

July 25, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this

Hey, this is TOTALLY about the liberal media. I mean, the media is SO liberal they just attack anyone who is an honorable part of the the Bush-Cheney-Rove trio, also known by sane Americans as our modern-day lords and saviors. The liberal media just can’t STAND it that we finally have some decent, error-free, mistake-free, never-made-a-bad-judgment-call-ever administration in the white house. They hate us for our freedom.

How do I KNOW the media is frought with liberal bias? Well, I heard it from Bill O’Reilly. And Sean Hannity. And Joe Scarborough. And Ann Coulter. And Rush Limbaugh. And Neil Boortz. And Robert Novak. And William F. Buckley Jr. And George Will. And Brit Hume. And David Horowitz. And Oliver North. And Pat Buchannan. And Tucker Carlson. And Michael Savage. And Alan Keyes. And Gary Bauer. And Andrew Sullivan. And Matt Drudge. And David Kopel. And Thomas Sowell. And William Saffire. And Jim Wooten. And Shaunti Feldhan. (plagerized in part from George McClure of the Denver Post)

Yep, this is not about someone in the white house breaking the law in a matter of national security, nor is it nearly as interesting as a media frenzy on sex in the white house. The LIBERAL MEDIA is blowing this petty little national security thing way out of proportion. Thanks for setting these imbiciles straight, Mrs. Feldhan!

By Mason

July 25, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Victoria Toensing, a lawyer and longtime Republican who helped write the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which is at the center of this case, said Bush is now saying what he probably meant to say when the leak investigation was launched. “Of course you are going to be concerned if a law was broken,” she said. “But what is it that somebody did wrong if they didn’t break the law?”

“But what is it that somebody did wrong if they didn’t break the law?”

I believe this statement shines a light into the very dark heart of the Republican party. The fact that they even have to ask that question shows their disregard for the dignity of the truth and their concept of right and wrong. If it’s not illegal it’s not wrong. If you’re a parent you understand the importance of teaching your child that there are things that are wrong even thought they may not reach the level of being illegal. Endangering others, hurting people, and lying are some of those things. All of these were employed by Karl Rove when he sought to use Valerie Plame [Wilson] to spite her husband for embarrasing the administration. Lying is not illegal but how can you trust someone you know lies? How can you allow someone to hold the highest office in the nation (or the office right next door to it) if you cannot trust them? Should Ms Plame, a fellow CIA operative or even a member of her family, have been killed as a result of her identity/job being exposed, Rove, Cooper, Novak and anyone else connected to the revealing of her position could be prosecuted for careless disregard. Does it make it less harmful that only their lives were put at risk and no one has died (at least not yet or that we know of)? Karl Rove participated in a game of phone gossip, where he discussed the identity and postion of an agent of the CIA, with two, three or maybe more news journalists. To say that he didn’t know she or her position was ‘sensitive’ is to deny the power and position of this man. Unarguably he is the most powerful man in politics. Why? Because the only man he answers to is his puppet boss. A man who owes his position and legacy to him. A man he controls.

Let’s take for a moment an issue that is of the utmost importance to the majority of Conservatives/Republicans. Abortion. Abortion is not illegal. It falls well within the scope of the law. Yet millions of pro-life people believe it is morally wrong. So much so they make it a central issue in their choice of candidate for EVERY public office. If you apply Ms Toesing’s philosophy to abortion then there is nothing wrong with abortion. Interesting when you look at it from that perspective, isn’t it?

This isn’t just a legal matter, it’s a moral issue, a serious moral issue. Something the Republicans (the party of higher morals and values), and the media obviously don’t get. Incidentally I don’t think ALL Conservatives/Republicans are morally corrupt, just those currently running the party. And I believe the statement by Ms Toensing makes that very clear.

By Jack

July 25, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Oh…attack me some more Anne. I love it.

By taboga

July 25, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Yep, this is not about someone in the white house breaking the law in a matter of national security, nor is it nearly as interesting as a media frenzy on sex in the white house. The LIBERAL MEDIA is blowing this petty little national security thing way out of proportion. Thanks for setting these imbiciles straight, Mrs. Feldhan!

Truer words - never spoken.

By Jack

July 25, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Don’t want to argue with you Kim. It would be fun but I have lots to do today. :)

By kimberly

July 25, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Ta-booogie, shouldn’t you busy yourself with your latest love letter to Sean Hannity? Sean doesn’t read this blog, so he doesn’t know today how much you love his eyelashes and the way he foams at the mouth for righteousness’ sake.

By taboga

July 25, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

All of these were employed by Karl Rove when he sought to use Valerie Plame [Wilson] to spite her husband for embarrasing the administration.

And how did Joe Wilson’s supposed report - embarrass the Bush Administration?

By Ken

July 25, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Mason…

Please include all party leaders are at the very least more corrupt than the average folks. Let’s face it, they would not be running the parties if they weren’t.

You make a good point about what is morally wrong and what is illegal. We should expect that our public figures would be able to refrain from BOTH. However, many are not and legal action can only take place if they break the law. If they are immoral, we can vote them out of office. In this case, we are not sure if Karl Rove broke the law, therefore we need to wait for the investigation to complete.

Until that happens, any attacks from the Dems appear to be nothing more than vitriol pointed at the man who has broken their grip of power in this country. However, if it turns out he broke the law, then Karl is open to the public scrutiny he deserves. Until then, why not focus on more important issues?

By Tony

July 25, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

On July 06, 2003 New York Times published; “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” In it, Wilson states “In February 2002, I was informed by officaials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report.”

(While it is true the VP asked the CIA to check out reports of uranium sales) The Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA acted on Wilson at the bequest of his wife and not the Vice President).

In addition, (Wilson) reports: “Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The Vice President’s office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.”

(In fact, the Senate Committee confirmed that Cheney was never breifed. In addition, the Senate Committee found the facts to be contrary to Wilsons claims).

But the cockeyed slant on this non-story is masking the real story. Joe Wilson findings where discredited by the Senate Intellignece Committee, and what of Wilson’s efforts of tainting our national security against America and her image by misrepresenting those findings?

The Democrats and the media are so desperate to bring down Rove, that their blind to their effective collusion with Wilson and Plames reckless conduct against this nation.

But as long as Rove and or Bush are under fire, who cares about the facts!!!

By Les

July 25, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Tony, once again, in English, with words spelled correctly. I hope that’s not too much to ask.

By Allen

July 25, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

According to Walt, the Bush Administration was involved in “cooking the data on Iraqi nuclear weapons programs to justify the case for an unnecessary war.” Why Walt and so many others continue their lies about this when a bi-partisan committee of Democrats and Republicans said this wasn’t the case is beyond me. I imagine it’s because he wants to hold onto the lies told by people like Joe Wilson.

Walt is correct in saying people should be outraged. I’m certainly outraged at his lies and those of People for the ‘American’ Way, MoveOn.org (who should be the ones moving on), and other such hate groups.

By taboga

July 25, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

The Democrats and the media are so desperate to bring down Rove, that their blind to their effective collusion with Wilson and Plames reckless conduct against this nation.

Not “blind” - intentional and willful.

By kimberly

July 25, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Bart says: When Ollie North got caught lying to Congress, the right said, “Who cares? Those fools in congress deserve to be lied to.”

When Clinton tried to hide his girlfriend, the right and their whore press called it, “The Crime of the Century” and Henry Hyde screamed, “the flag is falling.”

But now that they’re caught lying again, they can’t say, “Who cares?” because it’s their party who lied and their party who got lied to.

By Walt Miller

July 25, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

When all is said and done, It’s in the open record that Rove’s conduct in discussing Valerie Plame/Wilson’s status with a reporter is a felony.

Walt

By Eaton

July 25, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Tony, are you just talking out of your a*? I mean, I suppose I should be impressed that you actually managed to string sentences together without the use of CTRL+C and CTRL+V, but seriously.

Are you REALLY trying to paint Wilson and Plame as anti-American? Are you REALLY trying to make two people who have dedicated their lives to this country, at least one of them putting her very life on the line, as people who would deliberately seek to damage the US? You are such a tool, Tony. The right-wingers have you wrapped tightly around their no-dissent-allowed fingers.

Perhaps your reading comprehension is challenged, Tony, but Wilson complained after his findings - that Iraq HADN’T attempted to obtain yellow-cake uranium, Tony, HADN’T - were distorted for the purposes of creating false reasons to go to war. That’s not “discrediting”, Tony, you yutz. It’s lying and manipulation.

I suppose as a robot-brained Right-wing flag-waving rigid-thinking “Yes, oh Lord Bush” quoting moron, you’d have a problem with understanding reality.

By Walt Miller

July 25, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

…….Walt is correct in saying people should be outraged. I’m certainly outraged at his lies and those of People for the ‘American’ Way, MoveOn.org (who should be the ones moving on), and other such hate groups……..

I haven’t told any lies.

Walt

By Mara

July 25, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Why is it that conservatives just can’t fess up when they make mistakes? It’s never “Oops. I truly believed this but I was wrong”. Instead it’s “LIBERALS just HATE us!!!” Why can’t a conservative admit that perhaps, just perhaps one of their own isn’t as pure as the driven snow? Is it their assumption of religeous superiority that makes them believe they are the chosen, meant to lead the flock of lost sheep into a better, more “moral” future? Perhaps it’s their persecution complex that makes them reflexively blame those who disagree with them. Or could it be that they know that were the situation reversed, they would never hesitate to do what they accuse others of doing? Despite Tobago’s rhetoric, neither I nor most of my liberal aquaintances think conservatives are “the devil”. (mostly because “the devil” is just as mythical as “the lord”, but I digress…) Mostly we think that you mean well, you’re just misguided. Until just lately, I’ve harbored the belief that if only I laid out the fact, the verifiable truths, the verbatim in-context quotes…surely my conservative aquaintances would have to admit that things look pretty fishy for Rove, Libbey, and even poor beleagured Scotty McClellan. Unfortunately, I’ve discovered that facts aren’t all that important to some. Neither is truth, candor, and responsiblity. From what I’ve seen lately, as long as Adam and Steve don’t marry, as long as the neighborhood crack wh* is forced to deal with the wages of her sins, as long as Christianity is given government sanction, then it doesn’t matter how slimey the operative, or how shady the actions.

By Kyle

July 25, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

The Dems are just upset becasue Rove is on the other team, and he always seems to win. Putting the left’s new found belief in honor and morals aside, and given the opportunity, the Democrats would welcome Rove into their party in a second. Unfortuantely, it’s just all about winning. Although morals should be present in politics, the golden rule these days seems to be “kill or be killed” - which consistently produces very predictable responses from each party. Currently, the left isn’t winning, and they’re p**. The GOP would probably act the same way if the sides were turned. THIS STORY IS NOT NEWSWORTHY. If there is any news to be found here, it is that this is an example of how partisan politics can make a big issue out of nothing.

By Harry

July 25, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Don’t worry Repugs, Bush I pardoned all of his liars and felons, I’m sure Junior will do the same. But doesn’t it kinda make your skin crawl to continually defend this incompetent loser? He lied… 9/11, WMD, mushroom cloud, treated as liberators, a cake walk, and thousands more are dead! Maybe you guys really ARE that stupid. You still believe the corrupt corporate media is somehow liberal, that life begins at conception, but doesn’t end until Sean says so, and that the government belongs in the bedroom, but not in corporate board rooms! You promised to get government off our backs, how’s that going?

By Kyle

July 25, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

Mara: I consider myself as a conservative, and I don’t believe that I fall into your stereotype, at all. Although I support Bush and his overall efforts, I do think he should admit to this mistake with the WMDs and take responsibility. However, I think he should be apoligizing, at the very most, for being wrong. Not for lying, as so many people from the left are accusing him of.

-surprisingly, we have something in common. I to feel like the other party generally means well, they’re just misguided.

By lozen

July 25, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Meditation in Affliction

Assailed by afflictions, we discover Dharma And find the way to liberation. Thank you, evil forces!

When sorrows invade the mind, we discover Dharma And find lasting happiness. Thank you, sorrows!

Through being appalled by these bloggers we discover Dharma And find patient for the ignorant and narrow minded. Thank you, AJC!

Through people’s hate we discover Dharma And find benefits and happiness. Thank you, those who hate us!

Through cruel adversity, we discover Dharma And find the unchanging way. Thank you, adversity!

Through being impelled to by others, we discover Dharma And find the essential meaning. Thank you, all who drive us on!

We dedicate our merit to you all, to repay your kindness.

By Disinterested

July 25, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

It has been reported (by the anti-liberal Wall Street Journal, all of you conspiracy-crazed “liberal media” nuts) that there are contradictions between Rove and Libby’s testimonies and the testimonies of reporters Cooper and Russert. That, if true, would be called perjury. It has also been reported that Rove and Libby literally wrote the draft for DCI Tenet to helpfully “explain” how those infamous sixteen words got in the State of the Union (which the kool-aid drinking right-wingers apparantly want to stand by because the British haven’t retracted their claim - even though the president and his underlings had to apologize for letting it slip in since U.S. INTELLIGENCE DIDN’T AND DOESN’T BELIEVE IT.)

In addition, it has been reported that a memo marked “TOP SECRET” was sent aboard Air Force One for Colin Powell that named Valerie Wilson as a WMD agent, and that her name was designated with another term (N/FG I think?) meaning essentially “CLASSIFIED - do not share with friendly governments. And it just so happens that administration flak Ari Fleischer was seen “perusing” this document on board. Did anyone else find it slightly odd at the time how Fleischer just up and left the administration after the prez declared “Mission Accomplished?” I know I thought it was extremely interesting timing. Gosh, I also thought that the administration’s case for war was selective, weak, and based on no new intelligence. But hey, what do I know?

We also know for a fact that someone lied when the American public was assured by Scott McClellan that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were NOT INVOLVED in any way shape or form - “ridiculous!” as he said - and we also know that the president has FLIP FLOPPED and determined that simply leaking a career WMD intelligence agent’s ID isn’t bad enough - he needs that person to have broken a law, in which case it’s out of his hands anyway (unless he issues a pardon of course). This coming from the “accountability” president.

Really, it’s pretty simple. If Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a CIA agent’s name, the White House would deny it. But they refuse to deny the allegations. They are sending their propagandist surrogates out to defend the White House (purely by attacking Joe Wilson and spreading unknowable and most likely false rumors that Plame was never undercover etc. etc.) and to confuse and obfuscate the issue.

So what is their argument (and the argument of all those blindly and reflexively loyal minions who think patriotism is equal to supporting Dubya)? Their argument is

1) Valerie Plame was not undercover. There is no way that they can know this, and the fact that the investigation is going on at all undermines this argument. If she wasn’t undercover, what did the prosecutor get the grand jury to move forward with? They know that they don’t know this, yet they claim it as fact. Why? To make other right-wingers believe that and stop the hurt.

2) Valerie Plame authorized or was involved with sending Joe Wilson to Niger when Joe Wilson claimed it was the VP. As someone so kindly provided above, the truth is that Joe Wilson never claimed the VP sent him to Niger. He claimed (truthfully) that the VP’s office was asking specifically about the Niger story and, as a result, the CIA decided to send someone there. That someone was Joe Wilson. His wife apparantly wrote a memo and suggested him - so the hell what? She’s involved in WMD issues, he’s a former ambassador to Gabon and was the last American diplomat to shake Saddam Hussein’s hand before Gulf War I. Two more qualified individuals dealing with this I can’t imagine.

And that’s basically it. Two demonstrably false claims serve as the premise and really the entire argument against Wilson and, apparantly to right-wingers, act to exonerate Rove.

There is one other thing I’d like to cover before I go. Besides all the obvious selective use of intelligence and scaring of American people with “the deadliest weapons known to man” and “mushroom clouds” on American cities (these threats are real, but didn’t have anything to do with Iraq - rather they exist with our allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and our less-marketed-than-Iraq-but-truly-a-much-greater-danger-to -our-national-security enemies Iran and North Korea - where’s the tough talk and the impending invasions and occupations of those countries? But I digress…), Vice President Dick Cheney is a liar. Plain and simple. He said, among many other things, that he didn’t know that Wilson went to Niger (which is likely), and that he didn’t even know who he was (which is a blatant lie). Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense for the first Gulf War, and when Joe Wilson was selected to be the last American diplomat to meet with Hussein and give him our demands. To think that Dick Cheney didn’t know who this guy is takes a great leap of intellectual honesty. And we have seen this type of damage-control dishonesty from Dick before - with Richard Clarke. Cheney called in to the Rush Limbaugh show (a bastion of truth-telling and objective reporting, AHEM) after Richard Clarke’s testimony to the 9/11 commission and his book and all that, and tried to say that Clarke was “NOT IN THE LOOP” with regard to terrorism issues in the White House, and essentially that he didn’t know what was going on and therefore didn’t have any knowledge from which to speak to those issues that he so eloquently and honestly did. Richard Clarke was the DIRECTOR of the counterterrorism center - he was in charge in the control room as the terrorist attacks on 9/11 occurred, and he was the most experienced, knowledgeable, and correct person when it came to al Qaeda that there was within 1000 miles of the White House. If he was not in the loop, then there was no loop. And as most of us who live in the “reality-based community” know, there is no loop at the White House, except for the what the extremely dangerous radical ideologues and the political hatchmen do and say between themselves and then send down the pipe for Rush, Sean, Neal, Michael, Ann, Dick, Bill, Jonah, and all the rest to convince the kool-aid drinking die-hard Republican right and liberal-haters that it is the gospel truth.

By Jackie

July 25, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

It was just reported that Alberto Gonzalez informed Andy Card, the White House Chief of Staff, that an investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame’s name was being conducted and this report was made to Mr. Card 12 hours prior to Mr. Gonzalez informing anyone else. Sounds to me, Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, Mr. Card and Mr. Cheyney’s collective underware are beginning to fall down around their ankles.

By kimberly

July 25, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

Mara, sadly, I have discovered the same thing. The righties don’t care about facts if it’s one of their own. If you’re not a cheerleader for Bush, you’re either “un-American” or you’re a “sore loser.” The Republican double standard is astounding.

Kyle, “the dems are just upset because Rove is on the other team?” Hahaha! We’re upset about WAYYYY more than that, Dude! Surprise surprise, it isn’t JUST about winning or losing for us; some of us DO care about things like truth, justice, and national security.

Everybody: go back and read Disinterested’s lengthy post. Take it slow; look up the words you don’t understand. This person is breaking it down for you.

By Eaton

July 25, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

I think the actual definition of “Sore Loser” is “One who devotes eight years to destroying the candidate who defeated his incumbant.”

By Mike

July 25, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Say, why doesn’t the president call Carl Rove into his office and ask him what happened? Is he afraid of what he might find or does he already know what’s going on? If so, why hasn’t he taken action and found the source of the leak and fired him? Do we need a president that is this weak on national security issues?

By Tony

July 25, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Saddam’s minions had approached the Nigeriens with a request for uranium. Wilson had told everyone that the Nigeriens had denied it, and he personally told the Washington Post and others that the documents in question were probably forgeries because names and dates were wrong.

Well, the report says that Wilson had not seen the documents, so he couldn’t have had any serious basis for claiming that names and dates were wrong. Worse yet, the Nigeriens told him about an Iraqi delegation that had gone there in ‘99, and that the Niger’s prime minister “believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.” As the Wall Street Journal elegantly put it, Iraq asked to expand trade, and Niger had only two exports: uranium and goats.”

The Wilson story gets even better. He had sworn that his CIA wife had had nothing to do with his appointment as special emissary, but the report quotes a memo from his wife recommending him for the post. And Wilson had chewed out the vice president for standing by the claim, famously made by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address, that British intelligence had reported Iraqi requests for uranium from Niger. Wilson said, in effect, the Vice President knew of my report but he just dissed it. Not true. “CIA’s briefer did not brief the vice president on the report (that Iraqis had indeed discussed uranium in Niger), despite the vice president’s previous question about the issue.”

Oh, I see. The vice president of the United States asks for information about the story. The CIA sends this lout to Niger. He hears from the prime minister of the place that the story is true, and reports as much to the CIA (while saying the opposite to the pressies). And the CIA never bothers to tell Cheney. Is this not a scandal? What have I missed?

By Mara

July 25, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Kyle, that’s the problem with painting with too wide a brush. Even those who don’t fit the mold get tarred. As I said previously, I’m new to the ideology wars and have yet to form a thick enough “shell” that I can shrug off the verbal grenades like “traitor, Blame-America-First, hater, etc”. So, as a conservative, how and when do you think that questioning the acts of elected officials become equated with hating America? With collaborating with her enemies? Republicans did it all the time during the Bosnian action. I didn’t hear any liberals trying to make it sound like conservatives hated America. Clinton, sure. But not America.
When did the conservatives decide that blind obedience was the ultimate in patriotism and daring to question presidential decisions was seditious?

By Cosby Smith

July 25, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Much to do about nothing. This is the media on something to write about during the summer lull and something for the anti- Bush Democrates to grab the National spotlight. There is an investigation going on, if Rove is guilty, then hang him, but lets wait until the facts are in and not what ‘bloggers’ are putting out. After all, did not Rove release his conversation with Cooper.

By Ken

July 25, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Mara… It is arrogant, elitist comments like yours that make many folks w/o specific political affiliations (like myself) to vote Republican.

Harry… Please don’t talk about pardons unless you also toss in Clinton pardoning Mark Rich…

Maybe I’m just jaded or cynical or realistic, but I don’t see any of these things as something out of the ordinary for any politician these days. Does it make it OK… Absolutely not… But it also does not warrant the politicos tossing bombs at each other…

NO PARTY IS INNOCENT when it comes to this crap!!!

Then again, if we weren’t so partisan to begin with, this type of rhetoric would never come into play. We’d just vote the folks out of office and go about our daily lives.

By Brad Spencer

July 25, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Notice how Shaunti shifts (it’s a very common right-wing practice):

“If Rove’s grand jury testimony is accurate, all he did was warn a TIME reporter away from printing a lie.”

“If.” Maybe he’s telling the truth, maybe not.

“If these facts are true, then the media is blowing a commonplace, off-the-record conversation way out of proportion.”

“If,” again.

“If the facts change and prove him guilty, fine, go at it.”

Notice the big shift? “If the facts CHANGE and prove him guilty.” She takes the doubt she claims exists and alters the doubts so that what she wants to believe is the “facts.” Doubt is promoted to be facts that show Rove didn’t do it. No such promotion is warranted.

That’s how Rove works, too. He makes some claim advantageous to what he wishes to acocmplish and then sticks to it (“stays on message”) through everything, fighting off any disproof or any fact that is counter to what he claims, conducting that fight in any way he can find (like, oh, using right-wing journalists to be secret mouthpieces.)

The facts show that Rove did identify Plame, the facts show that the paragraph that identified Plame (actually, Mrs. Wilson) in the State Department memo was marked “secret.” The facts aren’t going to change. What will change is that the situation will go from one in which the special prosecutor has issued no reports and no indictments to one in which he does issue a report - and possibly indictments.

Who doesn’t see that if Rove is indicted Shaunti and the others will fall back on “innocent until proven guilty”? (and the Wite House will say that until the trial is complete they’ll neither respond nor act: Rove has to be found guilty to be ejected.) “Innocent until proven guilty” is true, is good, is a core American value - but it will be used to deny what the facts, as best they are known, do show. It will be used to spin, to obscure, to justify not taking the action that should have been taken at the time of the leak.

As many others have stated, the facts show that Wilson never made any claim that he was sent to Niger by the Vice President (even the transcripts of the interviews used by the right wing to claim Wilson did say the Vice President sent him clearly show he did not.) Shaunti can start with that fact, with the change being on her part and the change being that she admits she repeated an untruth and based a portion of her rationale on that untruth. If she has respect for facts. She can replace her unwarranted spin by truth, based on a clear fact about what Wilson did say. Will she or won’t she?

By Walt Miller

July 25, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

……The Dems are just upset becasue Rove is on the other team, and he always seems to win…..

Adolph Hitler did quite a bit of winning too, up to a point.

It’s not obstruction, defensiveness, being a sore loser or anything of that nature to oppose these horrible bums who have hijacked the government.

It’s patriotism.

And when some people cast personal attacks on those who have legitmate (or even not legitmate) gripes, it shows they don’t understand what it means to -be- an American.

One of the central themes of being an American is “DON’T TREAD ON ME!”

Republicans who support Bush ignore that; they seem to welcome being lied to if it brings them surcease from their responsibilities as citizens and having to actually make their own decisions.

Walt

By Jackie

July 25, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Often, if we choose to listen to “old-folks”, we will find that their simple logic and and ability to observe more than mere burnishing of the facts would provide an insight into what goes on with life. In my opinion, Karl Rove is able to work his own form of “magic” by “throwing the rock and hiding his hand.” Remember when you were a kid and how you did that?

By Mara

July 25, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Ken, which comments came off as “arrogant and elitist”? Perhaps the phraseology wasn’t the best, but what is elitist about asking why I’ve been called a traitor for saying Iraq may have been a mistake? What is arrogant about wanting to understand how someone could defend an action that, had their ideological opposite done the same, would have raised howls of outrage? And considering that my patriotism has only been questioned by conservatives, who better to ask? Seriously…which comments?

By Kyle

July 25, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Mara, I think it is a good thing for people to question elected officials and to hold them accountable for thier actions. Power, held unchecked, will eventually corrupt. Even though I am a republican, I don’t agree with how our borders are being protected. I don’t understand why Bush doesn’t do something more on that issue. But I don’t think it is a good thing for people to accuse others of conspiracies or lies with no factual evidence to back it up. When Kennedy accused Bush of knowing about 9/11 before it occured, he was acting irresponsible and irrational. I have heard countless other allegations of lying, conspiring, etc.. thrown at this administration, with no real proof to back any of it up. To answer your question directly, I think that the whole “blame America first, tratior” thing came about when dems/libs started throwing out unsubstantiated allegations that were backed up by no real truth. Rational questioning of our elected officials is a good thing, but irresponsible partisan bomb throwing is not.

By Jack

July 25, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Wonder if Hanoi Jane is going to go over to Iraq and pose with the enemy again? Anybody going on her bus tour?

By Netbanker

July 25, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

A couple of comments on what Shaunti said (that must be coming from the White House ‘Cover Karl’s A** Talking Points’ document) as well as other posters :

“Rove exposed the lie by telling TIME what he had learned from another journalist: that it was Wilson’s wife, working on “WMD issuesâ€? for the CIA, who had actually suggested the trip. Rove apparently didn’t even know Plame’s name or that she was an agent. CIA “issuesâ€? people are usually analysts, not agents.”

First of all, why couldn’t Rove have ‘exposed the lie’ by simplying saying that the story wasn’t true? Period, end of sentence, no more need be said or information given. If pressed he should have known better than to provide clues to the identify of someone who works for the CIA regardless of their position.

Second is that Rove didn’t know she was an agent. Uhhhh…since one can never be sure then regardless of position CIA employees should not be identified. Former CIA agents have said that it’s not that uncommon for agents to work as ‘analysts’ without anyone else knowing they are/were agents…espcially those who’ve done work as NOCs.

Third..she wasn’t under cover at the time. Oh…that makes it OK. Gee we spent millions training her and the whole world knows who she is NOW so that just kills her potential to ever go out into the field again on any kind of secret mission . And what about all those people who worked with her in the past when she was on NOC assignments? They’re all useless as future sources of info because their own government’s possible suspicions over past contact with her. We’ll never be able to know the impact of lost future information.

The whole SHE SUGGESTED HIM. So what? She suggested someone with the appropriate contacts to go find out and that person happened to be her husband. Someone else made the decision.

The SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE discredited his report. Where to begin on that one? The oxymoron over ‘senate intelligence’ or thinking that a committee of senators with no professional experience would be more knowledgeable than CIA employees?

Lastly…why all the focus on what Joe did or Valerie did in the past by Republicans? That’s not the point of the investigation is it?!

By jesse

July 25, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

The White House counsel, told his clients at the white house, that they were under investigation, and that he testified. YAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNN, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Looks like nothing to write home about here. An attorney advised his client, oh my god, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

By kimberly

July 25, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

Jane Fonda has more GUTS and ‘NADS in her little pinkie finger than the strutting, fearless son-of-a-rich-man you people worship as the savior of America. (1)It takes guts to stick your neck out when you’re young and pretty and other young and pretty celebs are just focusing on themselves (2) It takes guts to admit you made a mistake, something the swaggering chimp has NEVER done, EVER. Even when his mistakes are clearly supported by facts, the gutless alkie blames anyone and everyone BUT himself and his inner circle of liars and thugs.. I mean, greedy oil barons. (3) It takes guts to come out of a perfectly comfortable retirement to speak up in the face of venom and vitrol, and grown men spitting in your face, because you care about saving the lives of young men and women who are put in harms way for a lie. Do you think she needs the money? Ha! (4) It takes GUTS to actually care about something other than you own bank account, tax cuts, and public approval rating.

I wish more Democrats had guts like that.

By Harry

July 25, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Remember it was the CIA that asked for this investigation! Not the Democrats, not Joe or Valerie Wilson, not Clinton, but the CIA because a crime had been committed. John Ashcroft appointed the Special Prosecutor only because he had no way out. This administration has brought shame and ruin to our country. You Republicans can try to twist the facts, change your story, and parse words to escaped accountability but your gang of bullies went to far this time. You don’t mess with the CIA!

By Jack

July 25, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Kim, I take it you don’t like Bush? LOL! It took Jane a long time to admit her mistake. She deserves to be spit upon daily for the rest of her days. The Vietnamese showed pictures of her to our men being held prisoner while they were being interogated. She is scum.

By Kyle

July 25, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

kimberly, tell me, why doesn’t Fonda have the “GUTS” to appear on O’Reilly. If O’Reilly is truly the extreme right biased reporter, as so many left-wingers like to paint him to be, shouldn’t Fonda take it upon herself to expose him as such? She certianly has an open invitation.

By Mara

July 25, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

Well Kyle, I agree with you in that perhaps the eptithets as applied to Kennedy and a few others may (or may not) be deserved. Whether or not the statements by government representatives in regard to our sure knowlege of WMDs were flat out lies or merely tragic errors in judgement may never be known. But…how much of that rhetoric was fed by the Presidents insistance that there were no errors made, no judgment calls to rethink, and no need to listen to opposing opinions because “that just enboldens the terrorists”? That’s not to excuse the left from un-provable accusations, nor inflammatory rhetoric who’s purpose is merely to rile the opposition or the base. Shouldn’t be done. On the other hand, when the group in power refuses to even investigate those allegations (to disprove them if nothing else)…what is to be done? A lot of Dems went along with the Clinton investigations, though there was no proof at the time that any wrongdoing had occured. So where are the Republicans who are supposed to police their own? When a government cloaks it’s actions in secrecy and silence, denying reports of misbehavior(like the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan)that ultimately prove to be true, it breeds suspicion, fear, and anger in those who aren’t “on the inside”.
But for my part, I know that I have caveated my comments with “if”, “perhaps” “in my opinion” and “might have” just to keep on the “I-could-be-wrong” side of intellectual honesty. And yet, it seems that most conservatives find no difficulty describing me, as a liberal, in really hateful ways. There are several issues that I agree with my conservative friends (border security being one of them!) but it doesn’t seem to matter. If I say that in my opinion, the president has governed irresponsibly, or made mistakes, or even trusted the wrong people, it must mean that I have no credibility and I think this only because I hate George Bush. And America. And the Troops. (I’d throw in apple pie and baseball, but then I’d just be indulging in sarcasm, and not interesting dialog)

By Jack

July 25, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

We really should have listened to George Washington and had a 1 party system. We are divided now and that is not good. Our enemies are loving it.

By Archie

July 25, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Karl Rove will work at the White House until something really damaging comes out. This won’t be it because Mr. Bush will cover for him. The investigation will show that no laws were broken but as I said before you have to question why did he answer the question the way he did. Another poster here provided a link to show that this administration has a history of outing people. The poster’s name is CONCERNED.

By kimberly

July 25, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Jack, Who says I don’t like Bush? That’s just not true! I LOVE BUSH! I think Sixteen Stone is one of the best rock CD’s to come out of the 90’s. Machine Head is everyone’s favorite, but I also like Everything Zen. “There’s no sex in your violence! No sex in your violence!” I TOTALLY can’t wait for their next CD!

Interesting though, that you’d spit on people who want peace but glorify people who want death and destruction. Are you a member of the 700 Club perhaps?

By Eaton

July 25, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

We would be divided regardless, Jack. It’s not because we have multiple parties, it’s because we’re diverse. But, instead of embracing our diversity, which frankly is what made the US such a special country in the first place, we’re doing our level-best to crush it. Everyone is far to concerned with how other people are living their lives.

What’s a one-party system, by the way, if not a nice name for tyranny. Personally, I wish we had a parliamentary system - they force disparate groups to work together.

By Steven

July 25, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

If lying to Congress is a felony, then just about everyone there needs to be thrown in jail.

By taboga

July 25, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

And when all this nonsense is over, all the Left will have to show for it is a pocket full of soap.

And while the Leftists keep crawling down the rungs looking for somebody, I did hear a rumor that George W. Bush’s second cousin bought a candy bar with his milk money back in the third grade.

There’s got to be a connection there. Somehow. Some way.

By Ken

July 25, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Mara…

Mostly we think that you mean well, you’re just misguided.

Until just lately, I’ve harbored the belief that if only I laid out the fact, the verifiable truths, the verbatim in-context quotes…surely my conservative aquaintances would “have” to admit that things look pretty fishy…

So much for the “if�, “perhaps�, “in my opinion� and “might have� just to keep on the “I-could-be-wrong� side of intellectual honesty. Two examples of where your rhetoric reaks, IMO, of arrogance and elitism.

By kimberly

July 25, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

I wrote to Senator Isakson during the whole filibuster flap and asked him: What will America be like when we are finally a one-party theocracy instead of a two-party democratic republic? Will this one-party theocracy be the utopia we seek? He never responded, so perhaps someone else can enlighten me. How will our lives be better when these pesky personal freedoms are done away with completely for the greater corporate good in the name of God? Help me see the light and sleep better at night, please.

By Chilao

July 25, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

LOL @ “The 700 Club”

but don’t blame certain cultures for creating hate-filled idealogy/religions…..not THEIR fault…no sirree….

By Chilao

July 25, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Our relations with Europe and indeed the rest of the world have never been better than in the past 6 years. (snort) that alone says EVERYTHING.

On the topic, until Spcl. ProsecutoreFitzgerald is done, all is mere speculation….

By Jackie

July 25, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

Many folks refuse to recognize the Nationalist fevor that pervades the “conservative” movement. It appears to me that many of the tactics being employed today is neo-Facist in their concept and implementation. Does the “conservatives” still believe the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution are still intact?

By Kyle

July 25, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Mara, as you’ve obvioulsy witnessed firsthand, there will always be some narrow-minded kool aid drinkers on either side of the party lines - the trick is to not put any value in what they have to say.

kimberly, definately a good cd reference - although i can’t really forgive that guy for taking Gwen S. off the market. But i don’t quite see where your going with that last post?

By vince

July 25, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

Hi Jack,

And I suppose at the WTC, only jet fuel was burning? I guess all of the chairs, rubber, computers, etc., were in psychics defining modes.

By taboga

July 25, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

I wrote to Senator Isakson during the whole filibuster flap and asked him: What will America be like when we are finally a one-party theocracy instead of a two-party democratic republic? Will this one-party theocracy be the utopia we seek? He never responded, so perhaps someone else can enlighten me.

He didn’t respond? I find that extremely hard to believe.

But then again, from your question - he probably didn’t think that you were of voting age!

By taboga

July 25, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

We Conservatives are not interested in “working with” you Barney Fife’s.

We’d rather just defeat your entire insane ideology. Period.

And we’re on our way to doing just that. Whine about a “Parliament” all you like.

By Eaton

July 25, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

taboga, it’s possible that there is someone out there who is more narrow-minded, more venom-filled, more ignorant, and frankly, more just flat-out unlikeable, despicable, and all-around verging on evil, but I doubt it.

By kimberly

July 25, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Kyle, there are people on this board who try to convice us daily that people who dissent or question the motives, actions, or integrity of the current right-wing domination of our government are just bad, stupid, lazy, immoral, unpatriotic, losers, sore losers, disgrutled welfare queens, or have pockets full of soap, whatever that means. I read this every day. If you don’t love the President and his merry band of saviors, then you’re WRONG and stupid and bad… etc.

What I want to know is, OKAY: What IF we all just shut up and let them have the Utopia they seem to believe would exist if we all just shut up and agreed with them? What if NO democratic senators ever challenged a nomination? What if no one questioned the actions of white house officials? What if we just DRIED UP like they want us to?

Someone please describe that America to me and how my life would be wonderful if I just “give in and stop fighting it, b—ch…”

By Mara

July 25, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

So Ken, it’s arrogant and elitist to believe that my opinion is worthy of respect if it’s based in fact? It’s arrogant to believe that you can influence the thinking of others merely by the application of truth? Is it really elitist to believe the motives of those who believe differently may be good, even if their actions may not be be acceptable to me? Maybe one of us should look up the words “arrogant” (OK I’ll do it: arrogant: Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one’s superiority toward others) and “elitist” (The belief that certain persons, classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority). I fail to see the implication of superiority or entitlement in my statements that conservatives must see the logic of the investigation if shown the facts. If anything, it shows respect for their (or your) ability to think independantly. Perhaps I’m giving some of them way too much credit though, eh Ken?
And as for my caveats…you may notice that I directed the “must” toward the appearance of wrongdoing, not the actual finding of fault. If you honestly look at the facts, not the spin, there appears to be cause for investigation. If you want arrogance and elitism…perhaps you should look to those who refuse to admit that one of their own may have abused his office and the trust of the people. And even think he’s entitled (if he did it) to get away with it because those who found him out either hate him or hate his boss.

Oh, and BTW…”reak” is actually spelled “reek”…and that’s said with sarcasm, not elitism.

By taboga

July 25, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

taboga, it’s possible that there is someone out there who is more narrow-minded, more venom-filled, more ignorant, and frankly, more just flat-out unlikeable, despicable, and all-around verging on evil, but I doubt it.

And don’t forget: *Racist, Bigot, Nazi and Homophobe who wants to starve the children, evict the elderly from their homes and poison the air and water!

By Eaton

July 25, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

By the way, Ken, if you want to see “arrogant and elitist”, I suggest you go back and re-read tobbaco’s posts. You will find more arrogance, more rigidity, more elitism (surprisingly enough from someone with a fifth-grade education) than you will ever find from any of the liberals on this blog.

Along with a healthy dose of hatred, contempt, facism, stupidity, mendacity, unreasoning rage, misplaced hostility, mixed metaphors, and ignorance, of course. But please - feel free to continue to patronize us.

By Eaton

July 25, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

oh taboga, you are so pitiful…you pop on here and tell us how horrible we leftists all are and how you want to destroy us all, and then when someone calls you on it and accuses you of being the uneducated, anti-intellectual minority-hating bigot that you are, you act offended and put upon. Poor, poor you. Do you need a hug, crotchstain?

If you actually WEREN’T calling us all communists, etc. maybe you would have a point. But, since all you CAN do is spew out hatred and preach your ultra-facist philosophies, I will continue to call you the evil, nazi-esque enemy of freedom that you are.

Tell me topeka, if

By taboga

July 25, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

Calm down before you lose your mud. I am not “offended” at all by your words - I take none of them seriously. I laugh at you Eaton and I make fun of you - but I never take you seriously.

And when you get frustrated - it’s all the more amusing for “5th grade educated” fascists like me!

By Dave From Woodstock

July 25, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Shaunti has this Republican Talking Points down to an artform.

Had this been a Democratic president with a Democratic advisor, I’m sure she’d be calling for his head.

By kimberly

July 25, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

…and tobooogie still hasn’t answered my question. Anyone? Anyone? WHAT WILL AMERICA BE LIKE if we all just agree to shut up and let our nation continue its evolution to a one-party, dictatorial theocracy? Frist for Prez in ‘08? Anyone? Anyone?

By Mara

July 25, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Ah, Kyle. You renew my faith in my fellow man. Too bad Ken and taboga have to kick it right in the teeth. And do you know what “a pocket full of soap” means? It sounds kinda kinky… Perhaps taboga, in his zeal to silence all liberals and their ideas, forgets that it’s (more or less) an evenly divided electorate. Much as he’d like to have us believe that liberalism is dead, just remember that George Bush, an incumbant, only beat Kerry, viewed as so-so even by rabid leftists, by a mere 3%.
But never mind. Gotta go. Kyle, kimberly, Eaton…all the rest, have a great evening.

By Pee-Wee

July 25, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Dear [your political faction here]:

I’m rubber and you’re glue, whatever you say bounces of me and sticks you!

Nyah!

By Dave From Woodstock

July 25, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: Conservatives are 100% evil.

By Eaton

July 25, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Trust me, tobbogan. However hard you laugh at me, I laugh ten times harder at you. And please, don’t mistake contempt and disgust for frustration.

By kimberly

July 25, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Staying On-Topic: CIA Leak Case By the Numbers (from senate.gov)

Number of days after the article outing Ambassador Wilson’s wife appeared that the White House required its staff to turn over evidence relating to the leak: 85

Approximate hours between then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez’s advance notification to White House Chief of Staff Andy Card that he would require staff to turn over evidence relating to the case and formal notification to staff of that requirement: 12

Minimum number of times an Administration official leaked classified information about the identity of Ambassador Wilson’s wife: 11

Minimum number of times after the beginning of the Justice Department’s investigation that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan claimed Karl Rove was not involved: 5

Number of press conferences since evidence linking Karl Rove to the leak was made public where Press Secretary McClellan has refused to comment on the case, citing an ongoing criminal investigation: 7

Minimum number of hearings held by Senate Republicans to investigate accusations against President Clinton involving the “Whitewater” case: 20

Total hearings held by Senate Republicans to investigate the leak of the covert identity of Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife: 0

By Jack

July 25, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Kim. I was there. I’m not saying all who want peace should be spit on, just her. 700 club?Hahahahahahahahahah!

By taboga

July 25, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

Perhaps taboga, in his zeal to silence all liberals and their ideas, forgets that it’s (more or less) an evenly divided electorate. Much as he’d like to have us believe that liberalism is dead, just remember that George Bush, an incumbant, only beat Kerry, viewed as so-so even by rabid leftists, by a mere 3%.

Not wanting to “silence” you Mara - I am trying to bring out the best in you!

By Dave From Woodstock

July 25, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Tobogo wrote: “*There is an investigation going on. And thus far, the investigation has discovered no wrong-doing by Karl Rove. So quite naturally - the Left accuses Karl Rove of wrong-doing even though the investigation has found none.

And do you really want to continue to pretend that our “National Security� is at stake over this?

This woman was NOT under cover. This woman had NOT been under cover for several years. Revealing a CIA Agents name alone - is NOT an offense. And anyone and everyone; it is now known, knew this woman’s name and who she worked for - for a very long time.

And Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with any of this!

So do you really want to continue to pretend that Karl Rove out’ed an undercover CIA Agent and our “National Securityâ€? has been jeopardized…?*”

If this is non-issue why has this investigation been on-going for almost 2 years?

This is not a non-issue. Believe it or not, even your average, holier-than-thou Conservative can be a corrupt idealogue. Karl Rove is a master of spin and a master unethical politics.

Ann Richards Max Cleland John McCain John Kerry

And now this.

The man is a danger to Americans.

By taboga

July 25, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Trust me, tobbogan. However hard you laugh at me, I laugh ten times harder at you. And please, don’t mistake contempt and disgust for frustration.

So, I guess I am supposed to say: No Eaton - I laugh at you 100 times harder! And then you go for a 1,000 and tell me that your daddy can beat-up my daddy!

By Pat

July 25, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Talk about over blown - Bill Clinton was over blown!

By taboga

July 25, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

*This is not a non-issue. Believe it or not, even your average, holier-than-thou Conservative can be a corrupt idealogue. Karl Rove is a master of spin and a master unethical politics.

Ann Richards Max Cleland John McCain John Kerry

And now this.

The man is a danger to Americans*

He’s a danger to Liberals - not Americans!

By Antyler

July 25, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Taboga,

Could you please define the term conservative for me? I guess the meaning has changed drastically so that I no longer understand what one means when using the term. GW Bush, Bush 41 and Reagan all claimed to be “conservatives” but we not in practice.

The Bush 43 administration has presided over a $400 billion expansion of Medicare entitlements. The party that once campaigned to abolish the Department of Education has produced an education plan that involves unprecedented federal involvement in local public schools. There is talk from the White House about a grandiose new moon shot. Budgetary watchdogs like the Heritage Foundation echo the Republican Senator John McCain’s complaint about “drunken sailor” spending.

Late-20th-century Republicanism was an uneasy alliance of social conservatives â€â€? who were comfortable with government intervention in citizens’ lives when it came to morality issues â€â€? and libertarians who wanted as little interference as possible. So if conservatives no longer support limited government, fiscal restraint and individual liberty then what is it exactly that they stand for?

By Eaton

July 25, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Oh yes, everyone. Toboga, in true facist form, continually claims that only CONSERVATIVES are true Americans. Go on topol, keep preaching it. Let everyone see what kind of rigid, hate-filled bigot you really are! You’re the only one who knows how things are and should be - you’re the only American here - no one else belongs here in this country because they don’t think like you do!

Keep it up, toaster, you are showing everyone here what kind of Orwellian nightmare lurks in your psyche.

By kimberly

July 25, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Ta-boogie, like the energizer bunny, your energy is boundless. But you still haven’t answered my question. Nothing you say has any merit unless you can answer my question.

By Dave From Woodstock

July 25, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

I know, a danger to you is Bill Clinton getting a bj in the Oval Office.

By taboga

July 25, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

Why Bill Frist for President?

We kinda thought, that since we have you with one foot over the edge - we’d bring Newt Gingrich back in to push you over!

Could you imagine Newt as President? Is France big enough to hold the influx of American Communists?

By Antyler

July 25, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Can someone please explain how the US’s “liberal” media is owned by conservatives?

By Barbara

July 25, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

For those of you who believe the Karl Rove situation is being blown out of proportion, read the following. James Marcinkowski is a former CIA case officer.

Testimony of James Marcinkowski July 22, 2005

What is important now is not who wins or loses the political battle or who may or may not be indicted; rather, it is a question of how we will go about protecting the citizens of this country in a very dangerous world. The undisputed fact is that we have irreparably damaged our capability to collect human intelligence and thereby significantly diminished our capability to protect the American people.

Understandable to all Americans is a simple, incontrovertible, but damning truth: the United States government exposed the identity of a clandestine officer working for the CIA. This is not just another partisan “dust-up” between political parties. This unprecedented act will have far-reaching consequences for covert operations around the world. Equally disastrous is that from the time of that first damning act, we have continued on a course of self-inflicted wounds by government officials who have refused to take any responsibility, have played hide-and-seek with the truth and engaged in semantic parlor games for more than two years, all at the expense of the safety of the American people. No government official has that right.

For an understanding of what is at stake it is important to understand some fundamental principles. No country or hostile group, from al Qaeda to any drug rings operating in our cities, likes to be infiltrated or spied upon. The CIA, much like any police department in any city, has undercover officers—spies, that use “cover.”

To operate under “cover” means you use some ruse to cloak both your identity and your intentions. The degree of cover needed to carry out any operation varies depending on the target of the investigation. A police officer performing “street buys” uses a “light” cover, meaning he or she could pose as something as simple as a drug user, operate only at night and during the day and, believe it or not, have a desk job in the police station. On the other hand, if an attempt were made to infiltrate a crime syndicate, visiting the local police station or drinking with fellow FBI agents after work may be out of the question. In any scenario, your cover, no matter what the degree, provides personal protection and safety. But it does not end there. Cover is also used to protect collection methodology as well as any innocent persons a CIA officer may have regular contact with, such as overseas acquaintances, friends, and even other U.S. government officials.

While cover provides a degree of safety for the case officer, it also provides security for that officer’s informants or agents. In most human intelligence operations, the confidentiality of the cover used by a CIA officer and the personal security of the agent or asset is mutually dependent. A case officer cannot be identified as working for the CIA, just as the informant/agent cannot be identified as working for the CIA through the case officer. If an informant or agent is exposed as working for the CIA, there is a good chance that the CIA officer has been identified as well. Similarly, if the CIA officer is exposed, his or her agents or informants are exposed. In all cases, the cover of a case officer ensures not only his or her own personal safety but that of the agents or assets as well.

The exposure of Valerie Plame’s cover by the White House is the same as the local chief of police announcing to the media the identity of its undercover drug officers. In both cases, the ability of the officer to operate is destroyed, but there is also an added dimension. An informant in a major sophisticated crime network, or a CIA asset working in a foreign government, if exposed, has a rather good chance of losing more than just their ability to operate.

Any undercover officer, whether in the police department or the CIA, will tell you that the major concern of their informant or agent is their personal safety and that of their family. Cover is safety. If you cannot guarantee that safety in some form or other, the person will not work for you and the source of important information will be lost.

So how is the Valerie Plame incident perceived by any current or potential agent of the CIA? I will guarantee you that if the local police chief identified the names of the department’s undercover officers, any half-way sophisticated undercover operation would come to a halt and if he survived that accidental discharge of a weapon in police headquarters, would be asked to retire.

And so the real issues before this Congress and this country today is not partisan politics, not even the loss of secrets. The secrets of Valerie Plame’s cover are long gone. What has suffered perhaps irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince our overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us. How are our case officers supposed to build and maintain that confidence when their own government cannot even guarantee the personal protection of the home team? While the loss of secrets in the world of espionage may be damaging, the stealing of the credibility of our CIA officers is unforgivable….

And so we are left with only one fundamental truth, the U.S. government exposed the identity of a covert operative. I am not convinced that the toothpaste can be put back into the tube. Great damage has been done and that damage has been increasing every single day for more than two years. The problem of the refusal to accept responsibility by senior government officials is ongoing and causing greater damage to our national security and our ability to collect human intelligence. But the problem lies not only with government officials but also with the media, commentators and other apologists who have no clue as to the workings of the intelligence community. Think about what we are doing from the perspective of our overseas human intelligence assets or potential assets.

I believe Bob Novak when he credited senior administration officials for the initial leak, or the simple, but not insignificant confirmation of that secret information, as I believe a CIA officer in some far away country will lose an opportunity to recruit an asset that may be of invaluable service to our covert war on terror because “promises of protection” will no longer carry the level of trust they once had.

Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear—politics in this country does in fact trump national security.

Each time a distinguished ambassador is ruthlessly attacked for the information he provided, a foreign asset will contemplate why he should risk his life when his information will not be taken seriously.

Each time there is a perceived political “success” in deflecting responsibility by debating or re-debating some minutia, such actions are equally effective in undermining the ability of this country to protect itself against its enemies, because the two are indeed related. Each time the political machine made up of prime-time patriots and partisan ninnies display their ignorance by deriding Valerie Plame as a mere “paper-pusher,” or belittling the varying degrees of cover used to protect our officers, or continuing to play partisan politics with our national security, it is a disservice to this country. By ridiculing, for example, the “degree” of cover or the use of post office boxes, you lessen the level of confidence that foreign nationals place in our covert capabilities.

Those who would advocate the “I’m ok, you’re ok” politics of non-responsibility, should probably think about the impact of those actions on our foreign agents. Non-responsibility means we don’t care. Not caring means a loss of security. A loss of security means a loss of an agent. The loss of an agent means the loss of information. The loss of information means an increase in the risk to the people of the United States.

There is a very serious message here. Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people. Think about whether your partisan obfuscation is creating confidence in the United States in general and the CIA in particular. If not, a true patriot would shut up.

Those who take pride in their political ability to divert the issue from the fundamental truth ought to be prepared to take their share of the responsibility for the continuing damage done to our national security.

When this unprecedented act first occurred, the president could have immediately demanded the resignation of all persons even tangentially involved. Or, at a minimum, he could have suspended the security clearances of these persons and placed them on administrative leave. Such methods are routine with police forces throughout the country. That would have at least sent the right message around the globe, that we take the security of those risking their lives on behalf of the United States seriously. Instead, we have flooded the foreign airwaves with two years of inaction, political rhetoric, ignorance, and partisan bickering. That’s the wrong message. In doing so we have not lessened, but increased the threat to the security and safety of the people of the United States.

By taboga

July 25, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Oh yes, everyone. Toboga, in true facist form, continually claims that only CONSERVATIVES are true Americans.

You’re employing some of those Leftists “Constitution interpretation” skills again.

I did not say that only Conservatives were Americans. I said that Liberals weren’t. With all that education - you should be able to figure out the difference between the two.

By Dave From Woodstock

July 25, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Toboga:

I noticed you casually did not respond to my counter that the Fitzpatrick Investigation is nearly two years old.

If this is a not a big deal, why would one federal prosecutor be spending so much time ivestigating the outing of one CIA agent who is not an overt agent?

Doesn’t it seem odd that Robert NoFacts would call her an “operative” in his story about her?

Nexis Robert NoFacts columns and you’ll find he knows the definition of “operative” very well, as does any agent of the CIA, or top government official.

Operative = Covert Agent

Look it up, get the facts.

I know this may be against the Conservative grain, but get the facts before you decide to regurgitate Republican talking points.

By Chilao

July 25, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

the Marcinkowski BOOK makes it look like we have some slimeballs running the government.

wait, some of us already knew that.

By Dave From Woodstock

July 25, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Barbara:

Great Post! It says it all, but you know what a story like that means don’t you?

A: Soon Conservatives will work on discrediting James Marcinkowski.

By Randy

July 25, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

The liberal media is mainly Jewish owned. They may not be liberal(necessarily) but many have an agenda against Christians. They don’t try to convert anyone to the Jewish religion but have a concern with the Christian population, which is growing massively worldwide. They distort the news, only reporting what they want to report, if they can keep good Christian news under wraps they do. The liberal media has distorted many people’s views including many on this forum.

By Kyle

July 25, 2005 05:09 PM | Link to this

kimberly, I think most reasonable republicans recognize the necessity of having a democratic party - and vice versa. Eventhough I am one of those dreaded right wingers with a big “W” on the back of my SUV, I wouldn’t want any party (GOP included) to be given unchecked power. Having to answer to the other side is what has kept both parties relatively in check for all these years. If there was no “other party”, this country would be run by extremists from one party or the other - and not to many sane people actually want that. Although I support Bush and the Republican party, I certianly see the value in having multiple parties. Without being forced to debate people with different perspectives, our own beliefs are never really tested.

By Antyler

July 25, 2005 05:54 PM | Link to this

Mara “If I say that in my opinion, the president has governed irresponsibly, or made mistakes, or even trusted the wrong people, it must mean that I have no credibility and I think this only because I hate George Bush. And America. And the Troops. (I’d throw in apple pie and baseball, but then I’d just be indulging in sarcasm, and not interesting dialog)”

Excellent post, Mara. I grew up in the “burbs outside of Jacksonville, FL. My family is a long line of “big business” Republicans owning one of the nation’s largest retailers. So I’m a child of conservative Republicans who have always enjoyed their reputation as the champions of business. The difference now is that they no longer couple their business-friendly attitudes with tight-fistedness. The modern party’s key allegiance is to corporate America, and its tolerance for intrusive federal government ends when big business is involved. If there is a consistent center to the domestic philosophy of the current administration, it is the idea that business is best left alone. The White House and Congress have chipped away at environmental protections that interfere with business interests on everything from clean air to use of federal lands. The administration is determined to deliver on corporate America’s goal of cutting overtime pay for white-collar workers. At the same time, it has been tepid in asserting greater federal vigilance over the developing scandal of workplace safety.

Anyway, what I’m saying is that taking a long, hard look at at the modern GOP and it’s politics and can no longer align myself with them. A political majority(??) that believes in big government for people, and little or no government for corporations, has produced an unsustainable fiscal policy that combines spending on social programs with pork and tax cuts for the rich (of which I have benefitted greatly). Massive budget deficits have been the inevitable result. Something similar happened in the Reagan administration. But unlike Ronald Reagan, Mr. Bush has given no hint of a midcourse adjustment to repair revenue flow.

This, it appears, is what compassionate conservatism really means. The conservative part is a stern and sometimes intrusive government to regulate the citizenry, but with a hands-off attitude toward business. The compassionate end involves some large federal programs combined with unending sympathy for the demands of special interests. If only it all added up.

And with that I now call myself an independant with no allegiance to either party. Democrats and Republicans are IMHO nothing but two different flavors of the same poison.

Some people still call me unpatriotic and unAmerican. I’ve just learned not to care what the hard-lined party supporters think about me. The supreme object of my loyalty is to the United States of America and its Constitution. I don’t think too highly of others who claim loyalty to the Republican and/or Democratic party.

The Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower, Earl Warren and Nelson Rockefeller stood for fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, limited government, opportunity for small business entrepreneurs, citizen autonomy, defense of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, and international law and order. These principles have been abandoned in practice by the Republican party of today.

By Morel Hughey

July 25, 2005 06:05 PM | Link to this

We know from a State Department memo that, at the time of Joe Wilson’s article in NYTimes, Valerie was not only covert but also had NOC status, which proves the RNC (Republican National Committee) talking points to be FALSE(there always false). We also know that Valerie did not send her husband to Niger, she did not have the authority. She made a suggestion, but a CIA Head (or higher) had to sign off on it. Of course Karl revealed her identity as retaliation, however, this is not the first time Karl has leaked:

According to Esquire magazine in 1992, during Bush Sr. campaign, Karl Rove was FIRED for leaking info. Apparently, Bush Sr. has all the common sense. And on subsequent occassions, Bush Sr. has shown his support for Joe Wilson as a competent, trustworthy person.

For those who do not know difference between NOC and non-NOC status, it’s like this: Those CIA operatives with non-NOC status have a “get out jail free card” if they are ever caught. CIA ops who are of NOC status, do not enjoy this luxury. In fact, our government will disavow any knowledge of that CIA op, and that op is most likely EXECUTED. Valerie did this for the about 15+ years, and as far as I am concern she is a TRUE PATRIOT AND HERO right along with our wonderful TROOPS fighting this ridiculous war in Iraq, which is what this whole CIA outting leads to: Was the info for going to war in Iraq fixed?

—-> The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), which monitors all uranium deposits being used in nuclear reaction plants all over the world (including America), disputed the claims of the a Niger-Iraq connection saying the documents that Bush was trying to use to build a case for going to Iraq were forgeries (NO URANIUM WAS BEING SOLD TO IRAQ).

—-> The Downing Street Memos clearly show Bush was “fixing” the info to the pre-Iraq war policy. These memos have not been disproven, NO British official has come out against them. In fact, Blair confirm them while he was before a press conference courting America for more aid to Africa, when a reporter ask the question about the Downing Street memos, see CSPAN archive for video of this.

—-> Joe Wilson, his wife Valerie, and Rove all go to the SAME CHURCH

As a concerned African-American male, christian, and liberal, it is not hard to tell tell the truth, I can provide facts, and links to where I’m getting my facts, instead of reading from talking points.

Have a bless day everyone…..and conservative please get a clue, you are fighting against your own best interest (smaller government, govt staying out of our private lives used to be republican values)

By Ken

July 26, 2005 07:39 AM | Link to this

Sorry for the untimely responses…

Eaton… A couple of weeks back I chided Taboga for inflammatory and unconstructive rhetoric. Now, I simply skip over his/her comments… Too much ranting and raving… I’m surprised that you still engage him/her…? Ignore him/her and they’ll probably go away…

Mara… Actually, I was referring to your choice of words, specifically “misguided”, implying that folks who have differing opinions from you are incorrect and that you know better. Take that jointly with your subsequent message about how you offer a disclaimer on all of your postings and I come to my conclusion.

And you’re right about President Bush governing irresponsibly… He has not done many of the things that I would expect the GOP to do, however, too often, we are faced with the two less than adequate choices. Unfortunately for the Democratic party, their last two candidates have simply been unlikeable. They came off as candidates who believed they were smarter than the rest of us and people hate that. That is why I bring up your choice of words… Most unaffiliated folks would vote Democrat, if we weren’t made to feel stupid.

By taboga

July 26, 2005 07:48 AM | Link to this

Kimberly,

Let me give you the obvious answer to your question about different “parties”.

Your assumption is based upon the notion that the Left has a birth-right of sorts - to being that other party.

Myself and many others, are not interested in the least in some sort of authoritarian rule of one political party. But we don’t think either, that the Democrats/Liberals/Communists (sorry for the redundancy) are entitled to be that other party.

And in the Leftists present state of madness, they are moving the process of their party’s future irrelevance along - quite well.

By taboga

July 26, 2005 07:53 AM | Link to this

Most unaffiliated folks would vote Democrat, if we weren’t made to feel stupid.

Ken,

If you can be made to feel stupid - then you probably are. And if you can be made to feel stupid by a bunch of bumbling and clueless Leftists - then you certainly are!

By Anonymous I

July 26, 2005 07:55 AM | Link to this

When we come to realize that liberalism is more harmful to us than terrorism, we can begin the rebuilding of America. We won’t have to worry about Rove and the rest of government. They will all fade into obscurity because we won’t need big government to dominate our lives.

By Ben

July 26, 2005 07:59 AM | Link to this

I think I figured tobaggon out - somewhat. He’s like the kid that always takes the joke too far and ruins the punchline.

“If you can be made to feel stupid - then you probably are.” I can agree with that, but the rest of what he said makes his logic irrelevant.

By Brian Curtis

July 26, 2005 08:11 AM | Link to this

Riiiiight… because the Republicans have been all about “smaller government” lately, what with the unprecedented spending increases, deficits, new bureaucracies, and ever-more legislation for intruding into our personal lives and cutting back our civil liberties.

The sad thing is, you far-right nutjobs still believe Bush represents “smaller government,” don’t you? Despite all evidence to the contrary. No wonder liberals sneer at you and call you stupid—you ARE!

Eaton: Don’t worry about responding to Taboga, who’s already proven to be both a coward and an idiot. The pathetic child still hasn’t figured out the definitions of liberalism and communism, after all! You can’t help people who get all their thoughts programmed into them by Fox “News.” Better to focus on people who can actually think.

By Tony

July 26, 2005 08:12 AM | Link to this

Ken,

How is it that you can judge inflammatory and unconstructive rhetoric, too much ranting and not see inflammatory and unconstructive rehetoric and ranting???

By taboga

July 26, 2005 08:13 AM | Link to this

Ben,

I couldn’t care less what you “agree” with. Or your assessment of jokes - which really weren’t!

By Ben

July 26, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

Taboga - You care or you wouldn’t have responded! And YOU my challenged friend are the joke!

By Ben

July 26, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this

So supposedly, bin Laden tried to buy tons of coke and poison it to kill a bunch of Americans but the cartel didn’t want to loose the client base. That’s too funny! Definitely a terror plot that might do some good!

By E. Lewis

July 26, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Perhaps the White House and Karl Rove are hoping this will all blow over like it has every other time Mr. Rove has pulled something like this. It worked in South Carolina against John McCain, in the Texas, etc……… If bugging your own office, sabotaging a fund raiser for the opposing party, and branding your opponent the father of an illegitimate biracial child don’t get you thrown out of politics, then what makes you think that divulging the name of a CIA agent would?

By taboga

July 26, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

E. Lewis,

Just curious - what did Karl Rove do to John McCain…?

By E. Lewis

July 26, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

“That’s been the hallmark of Rove’s career — and Bush’s. After Bush lost the 2000 New Hampshire primary to John McCain, Rove directed a slanderous campaign in South Carolina that knocked McCain virtually out of the race with a barrage of fabrications about the personal lives of the senator and his family.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201367.html

and there’s plenty more where that came from.

By Lyrazel

July 26, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Last night I had a dream I had a baby…and being in my sexagenarian grey-haired ancient years…I was somewhat dismayed…when I learned I had had George W Bushs baby (o the dream pixies never explained that to me, sorry) I woke up came on-line and read all these wonderful comments by new and returning bloggers and bloggettes…and with the sunlight and coffee came the truth, GWB did not visit me in ATL when he last came.

Phew, now about Karl Rove.

Whenever people give away identity of police officers working undercover, it is a blow to the individuals in law enforcement who have worked possibly years on cases. It puts the officer in jeopardy. Leaks were dripped to liberal as well as conservative journalists and only these liberal journalists were brought to court to reveal their sources (Novak is still sitting outside). Only one is serving a prison term for NOT handing over her contact, the Time Mag buckled. The NYC Times stands behind Ms Miller as do many in journalism who think this issue is less about uncovering agents in the field and more about government demands journalists must disclose their sources.

I am rather dismayed that Shaunti and Diane failed to mention the link to journalists who are behind bars for withholding sources. Certainly that would have been my opening volley concerning the further erosion of constitutional rights, liberties by this administration that is unpresidented.

But what do I know? I have watched journalism fade into the carnival cavalcade of instant message journalism like this blog. I have seen administrations use the medium to promote a candidates stellar good looks over issues which should matter to the voters. I have suffered through cookie recipies from women who I damn well know have never cooked a cookie in their husbands careers, and now I guess after all the mis-disinformation being spewed at the public—not even two journalists care. What me worry?

By taboga

July 26, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

E. Lewis,

I am not interest in Links. If I were - I wouldn’t be out here on a blog where the idea is: State your own opinion.

Again, what did Karl Rove do to John McCain (in your own words if you can).

BTW - It took you a while to do that Google search.

By Bruce

July 26, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

This has been the most amusing topic for me since I have been on this blog. You guys are bickering back and forth like school age children. I find it hard to believe there is NO COMMON ground between any of you. I am just glad you folks were not around when this country/government was formed. The British wouldn’t have a worry in the world……..

By Chilao

July 26, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

well, since Kerry won 48 percent of the popular vote in the 2004 Presidential Election, and assuming he/Democrats are considered ‘pinko commie leftists’ (left the f* out intentionally), it is HIGHLY unlikely that a 2-party system would involve the Republicans as one party and their right-wingers(who only them would refuse to be considered NeoFascists) as the second party.

since that would kinda make conventional Republicans ‘leftist’ (to the Neo-fascist). of course an alternative party might be “The Party of God” (who would want a theocratic state). The 700 Club comes to mind.

Not sure how that would fall in the left/right crap. but assume most fundamentalists right-of-right, above may also apply, in that conventional Republicans would be considered ‘lefties’.

LMAO

By Jackie

July 26, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

Karl Rove and his method of appealing to the people’s fears, apprehensions and repressed racism is legendary. The man uses the same tactics of Joseph Goebbels to advance the political agenda of his clients. His goal is to win, at all costs, and he does not care if the public has it shoes “splashed.” Ask yourselves, what are the pressing issues facing our country today? Why we are debating about the tactics of this neo-Facist named Karl Rove?

By Kyle

July 26, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

I was wondering if some of you could clear up what you meant by some of the previous posts. A few of you said that republicans used to be for small gov’t and civil liberties - but now they are clearly going in an opposite direction? Can you give some examples? I understand that there has been a lot of spending going on in the past few years, but war is expensive. Many liberals now complain that our troops don’t have adequate equipment, yet you would complain about our gov’t spending money on the war? You can’t have it both ways, pick a side. Also, as for our civil liberties being violated, I presume the Patriot Act is at the top of your list on this issue, I once again fall back on the current war. I have no problem with the gov’t profiling those that fit the description of our enemy. We are not being attacked by little old ladies in airports - we are being attacked by Muslum extremist, and most muslums generally look a like. England actively sought out those that appeared to be of Irish decent during the times when IRA terrorists were attacking their country. I admit that the Patriot Act needs to be revised, but the purpose of the bill is extremely important. Our nation needs to have the ability to gather as much info as they can to effectively fight terroism. Notice the previous bombings in England were done by it’s own citizens.

Also, can you people stop telling me that just becasue I watch Fox, listen to O’Reilly, or read Coulter that I am being brainwashed and just repeating talking points. I support the republican party on the majority of the major issues, and for that reason, I generally get my news from right leaning sources. But I understand that these sources are biased for the right, so I can take the info in context and decide for myself. People on the left have their left leaning news sources, and I trust that they can recognize the bias present in such outlets as CNN, NBC, or the NY Times.

-you might get a little more progress out of a conversation with us stupid, brainwashed, and ignorant republicans if you would just stop acting as though you are intellectually superior to everyone and actually treat those that disagree with you as equals - it doesn’t make me feel stupid, I just resent it.

By Dakotawoman

July 26, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

Oh, yeah! Things are only getting better for everybody in Iraq! “Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq had some of the most secular legislation in the region. But all that could change, with hardline Shia members of the national assembly pushing for the country to be named the Islamic Republic of Iraq. “We are worried that the interpretation of Sharia law will take us backward and that people will think that, regarding women, the era of Saddam Hussein was better,” Ms Damluji says. Secular women in Iraq have been through a difficult two years, with relentless violence keeping more and more women indoors and many feeling growing pressure to wear the veil. “Things have got worse even since last year,” says Rafif, a 28-year old bank auditor attending a recent conference on women and the constitution. “I’m now afraid to drive my car. I’ve changed where I study and work so that I can be nearer to home. But we women have got to get out of the house if we’re going to change things.” But many fear they could be fighting a losing battle over the constitution. “I am worried,” says Yannar Muhammad, a prominent activist who runs a shelter for abused women. “I think the future of women in Iraq is very bleak.”

By taboga

July 26, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

This has been the most amusing topic for me since I have been on this blog. You guys are bickering back and forth like school age children. I find it hard to believe there is NO COMMON ground between any of you. I am just glad you folks were not around when this country/government was formed. The British wouldn’t have a worry in the world……..

Oh but there were! The Revolutionaries had just as many doomsday’ers and defeatists as we have on the Left today.

By TT

July 26, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Anyone listen to Michael Savage—the true voice of conservativism? He actually has a word for people like Tony and Taboggan. He calls them “Bushbots” because they don’t deal in facts and just parrot whatever the White House and Sean Vanity say. Maybe liberals wouldn’t be so elitist if today’s Republicans actually attempted to think for themselves. How laughable to hear Democrats compared to Barney Fife. The only hillbilly in the Democratic party is Zell Miller—the darling of the Republican National Convention.

By Dave From Woodstock

July 26, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

The CIA will not let this blow over. I feel they’ll have something very special for Karl Rove someday in the future, maybe a nice retirement gift.

The CIA may have blown it regarding September 11, but individually, the organization has a lot of very smart people in it.

They will not forget what Rove did to them.

By taboga

July 26, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

Anyone listen to Michael Savage�the true voice of conservativism? He actually has a word for people like Tony and Taboggan. He calls them “Bushbots� because they don’t deal in facts and just parrot whatever the White House and Sean Vanity say. Maybe liberals wouldn’t be so elitist if today’s Republicans actually attempted to think for themselves. How laughable to hear Democrats compared to Barney Fife. The only hillbilly in the Democratic party is Zell Miller�the darling of the Republican National Convention

That’s funny. Mainly because I have spoken to Michael Savage on several occassions - he never indicated that to me.

By Brian Curtis

July 26, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Kyle: If you do think for yourself, then obviously the comments about brain-dead Limbots doesn’t apply to you.

They do, however, apply to the cowardly dolt Taboga.

By TT

July 26, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

T-bag, Michael Savage probably couldn’t understand you without your dentures in. Perhaps he’s not fluent in your slack jawed native tongue. I find it hard to believe someone with your limited intelligence could comprehend a radio program or make use of modern devices such as telephones. You should be the poster child for the dangers of the Patriot Act. “Why think for myself, read a book, when I can get all my learnin’ from Dubya?” True conservatives value education and ambition, and the right to decide for ourselves what religion to practice, who to marry, if we want to carry guns, and what to do with our bodies. We have not abandoned civil liberties for the fire and brimstone, pro-life, anti-gay, big brother and bureaucracy spectacle that is today’s Republican Party.

By taboga

July 26, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

The man uses the same tactics of Joseph Goebbels to advance the political agenda of his clients.

Please enlighten us as to which Joseph Goebbels tactics are being used.

And you do know, that everything doesn’t have to be compared to a Nazi, regardless of what your Leftist teachings may have instructed, right?

By kimberly

July 26, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Kyle, where to start… How ‘bout with Reagan saying “get big gov’t off our backs!” Then de-regulating the banking industry, hence the “S&L crisis” and the subsequent government bailout of a lot of people who were bilked. What he meant was what Republicans in power mean today: Get big government off the backs of our rich friends who own big conglomerates! Meanwhile, Kyle, will you please go pee in this cup now so we can sniff it and analyze it? We’d like to know what you did in the privacy of your home last weekend, ‘cause that’s somehow the federal government’s business. More: biggest federal government in history in terms of spending. That’s not smaller government. More: State’s rights. Recently, the states’ rights to determine the legality of medical marijuana was overturned, giving favor instead to federal prosecuters to go into the states and prosecute sick people and their doctors. That’s not smaller government. More: Search & seizure and probable cause rules have been chipped away over the years. When I was in school, I learned that these elements of the law were what made American better than the Soviet Union, for example, where jack-booted agents of the government are free to slam down your door in the middle of the night and drag you away. BTW, Tommy Chong was dragged from his home in the middle of the night by federal officers bearing machine guns… Why? Because he sold glass and rubber tubing items over the interent. Smaller government? No. More agencies. More rules. Tax breaks? YES, there are tax breaks if you’re making lots of money, or if you’re a big corporation you can beg off your taxes in the interest of “creating jobs” and that’s CORPORATE WELFARE which is wayyyyy more expensive to us than feeding poor people. More: Look at your congressmen and senators. THey have HUGE staffs. As such, they don’t even read the bills on which they vote. They don’t have time. They’re lunching with the lobbyists while their staffers are making up new versions of social security pie charts they can use on C-SPAN in prime time to stump for Bush’s plan. But they don’t even do their own jobs anymore, which is to research and READ and amdend legislation before voting on it. They’re much too busy. Huge staffs… all of them. Who pays? The American cubicle class, that’s who. Government isn’t smaller, it’s just been re-arranged!

By Chilao

July 26, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

If you have read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich you would understand the Joseph Goebbel’s reference. And the parallels to our rising Nationalism and the War On Terror and the rise of Nazism in Germany ARE very similiar. so comparisons ARE fitting.

there is this thing called Google, allows one to do their own independent research. Novel idea….

By Eaton

July 26, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Yet again, the person who calls anyone who is a liberal a communist gets upset when he/she/it is compared to a Nazi.

Can dish it out…can’t take it.

By Kyle

July 26, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Can someone please explain to me how the Republican party is now pushing bigger gov’t and associated with “big brother”? It seems to me that it would be the ideology of the far left, and not the far right, that would be closer to a “big brother” style gov’t. The far left are the one’s that want to help make everyone finacially equal (judging from their apparent hatred for the rich and their pandering to the poor for votes). The far left are the ones that want to tax more to increase the size of the gov’t and increase the number of gov’t programs. I don’t follow, anyone?

By kimberly

July 26, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

OOOPS: forgot the (underfunded) No Child Left Behind federal mandate. Here’s the federal government telling all the little governments how to measure their school systems. Yet teachers will tell you this isn’t helping. And parents (like me) will tell you it’s BS. My child spends weeks in repetitive drilling for these tests, while learning nothing new. And by the way, learning to memorize crap doesn’t make kids smarter. It doesn’t teach them to think and search and solve problems. Meanwhile, kids and schools are being labeled “stupid” if they don’t meet the testing standards which are highly questionable in the first place. This is BIGGER government, not smaller government.

By the way…. Anyone care to guess WHO is tied financially to the very big, expensive (our tax money) job of administering these tests and producing and selling us (taxpayers) all these MANDATORY materials? Anyone care to guess WHO is making a profit from this brilliant bit of government intrusion? Anyone? Anyone?

By Brad Spencer

July 26, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

Kylie:

you said:

“I support the republican party on the majority of the major issues, and for that reason, I generally get my news from right leaning sources. But I understand that these sources are biased for the right, so I can take the info in context and decide for myself.”

I don’t think so. You surely can identify the bias in what they say about their own positions but it has to be impossible to discern when and how they misrepresent the positions of others - and that’s where much of the manipulation is done. When they quote “some people” or “some liberals” or “some Democrats” or “some” you really have no idea who they are talking about - and very often they are making up what these supposed sources said. If they find one Democrat someplace that said something intemperate they do not hesitate to use that one Democrat’s words to paint the entire party. Browse the right-wing side of the net for a while and see if you don’t find opinions that would make you drop support instantly for the Republican party if the party voiced support for hose opinions (“glass over Iraq” is one such opinion - do you support murdering an entire population - the one to whom supposedly the goal is to bring democracy? The big difference is that in general the Democrats and liberals don’t take such fringe attitudes and claim they are the position of all Republicans. The Republicans will use any means, any lie to gain and keep support.)

I grew up a Republican, still don’t think of myself as a Democrat nor identify myself as a Democrat. I find it easy to accept you believe in very good things. To me it is clear that the current Republicans in power misuse those with such beliefs by hiding their motives behind a facade of decency. You surely recall how late it was in the war against Iraq that “democracy” became the slogan. Their big initial slogan was “WMD.” “Democracy” came to the top when “WMD” proved to be a complete bust. You’re decent, you’re right to want WMD controlled in the world, right to want for the people of other nations to have democratic governments - but that the Republicans chant these slogans doesn’t mean they are their true motives. They know you, know your decency, know how to deceive you so that you’ll approve their actions. Not just you personally but millions of decent Americans.

Nothing here is meant to suggest you let Democrats deceive you instead. It wouldn’t hurt, though, to check out some non-right-wing-biased sources - you might find that they aren’t saying or advocating anything at all like the right wing says they are. Recall, for instance, that the legislation giving Bush authority to act against Iraq passed with a huge number of Democratic votes. Do you remember Bush saying that such support was evidence of a united America acting against its enemies (I don’t remember it - I think it never happened, or was briefer than a day) or did he almost instantly start claiming that only the Republicans had the welfare of the country at heart and find reasons to pick at the Democrats, implying they were not true Americans?

Best wishes to you.

By kimberly

July 26, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Kyle, Big Brother is watching you. The FBI no longer needs a warrant to search your house, or tap your phones. Everything about you is contained in a number of databases. It would take them MINUTES to find out exactly what prescriptions you take and why, how many times you had your teeth cleaned last year, the location of each gasoline purchase and whether you bought a RedBull, Budweiser, or some HoHos with your gasoline, which books you purchased on your last trip to the bookstore, the last conversation you had with your sister, how long it lasted, and whether she removed her tampon immediately afterward. Cameras are everywhere, and don’t you feel safer now?

Do some research on a local company called ChoicePoint. Hmmm….

By Dave From Woodstock

July 26, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

-Joseph Goebbels

By Jack

July 26, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

“and whether she removed her tampon immediately afterward” Oh Kim!!!!!!

By Stephen

July 26, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

Kyle, Go to any reputable site and you’ll find this is one of the largest spending administrations sans the war on terrorism. I used to be a republican until they abandonned their core principals of small government and yes, reduction of personal privacy. Just yesterday I noticed red-light camera’s on an intersection near me. Eminent domain now the rule of the land. A patriot Act which is specifically written to apply to all citizens and cases - not just terror specific activity. They could enter your house without ever telling you. Not to mention the hypocrisy of “supporting the troops.” Look at VA funding over the last two terms and see how much our troops are “valued” once they return home. It seems there is just no money then. To me the Republican party has been hijacked by the far right. I was big John McCain fan, and was appalled at how they treated and even more appalled that a true patriot like him with real political experience (not one-term as governor) was not selected by republicans to represent their party. CONSERVATIVES should be about FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY!! Look at our deficit. WE are indebted to other major countries, because they loan us money. They Euro and the Pound are worth considerably more than the dollar. A 100 dollars is only worth 57 pounds. Why not tax for this war? If it’s so important to Americans and our safety why are we afraid to pay for it? Why is the president afraid to ask for it. I’ll pay a tax and give back my tax break to stabilize the budget - who else will? I know it costs more than ribbon sticker - but I care about the financial shape of this country. I’m not a big Boortz guy but his June 22, article about this Administrations spending is right on.

“SO .. NOW I “HATE” REPUBLICANS

There are a lot of listeners out there who really need to make some attempt at growing up. Well, maybe not a lot of listeners .. but quite a few.

Yesterday I spent some time on the air detailing the spending habits of the Republicans since they gained control of both the legislative and executive branches of our Imperial Federal Government. Federal government spending has gone up by 33 percent since George W. Bush took office. For those of you who think that we were spending enough when Clinton was president … just imagine spending one-third more! Think about this one … During every year that Clinton was president and the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives the final budget was less than the budget proposed by Clinton. Congressional Republicans at least put some effort into holding back spending. But what about the Bush years? Every single year since George W. Bush was sworn in the Republican congress has passed a final budget that spent more than Bush requested. More, not less.

Now don’t give me that nonsense about defense and homeland security spending. When you back out the numbers for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and homeland security spending Bush and the Republicans are still spendthrifts. You might be interested in knowing that there have only been two presidents in the last 40 years under whom both discretionary non-defense spending and defense spending have gone up. Those two presidents are Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush.

The truth here is that the Republicans are no longer the party of less government and less government spending. When it comes to government spending and the growth of government there seems to be no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Now … to get to the point here. As soon as I went on the air to detail the heavy spending habits of the Republicans I started getting the email messages telling me what a evil person I am because of my “hatred” of Republicans. That’s right. I “hate” Republicans because I don’t like the way they spend money.

Some of you need to grow up. Do you realize how silly and childish you look when you stumble forth with that “hate” nonsense? Is that the intellectual contribution you have to make to this debate? Someone makes you a bit uncomfortable by detailing the profligate spending habits of your political party, and all you can come up with is “I’m never going to listen to you again because you hate Republicans.” What are you going to do next? Stomp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue? Face it .. your political party has some pretty big zits. The solution is not to break the mirror.”

By Chilao

July 26, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

and under the Patriot Act, the FBI can enter my home while I am at work, snoop around, and not need ANY search warrant to do so, they only have to suspect me of anti-regime THOUGHTS.(in their minds only of course)

By taboga

July 26, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

If you have read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich you would understand the Joseph Goebbel’s reference. And the parallels to our rising Nationalism and the War On Terror and the rise of Nazism in Germany ARE very similiar. so comparisons ARE fitting.

Let’s see.

Hitler, with the assistance of Joseph Goebbels - was never elected.

Karl Rove couldn’t be picked from a line-up by the overwhelming vast majority of Americans.

I can’t recall Karl Rove doing any such thing.

Can’t recall Rove doing this either.

Haven’t seen Rove out front on the War on Terror.

Hardly anyone would know the voice of Karl Rove.

…In fact, if you look real close - you would have a difficult time finding any similarity between the two.

By Stephen

July 26, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

Kyle,

In the Orwellian land of Oceania, “Big Brother” referred not to equality of all or end to poverty or anything you stated the far left want. “Big Brother” refers to a society in which there is one party rule that requires complete nationalistic fervor from all of its citizens. To dissent is to be a traitor, to even think what you government is doing might be wrong is a “thought crime” punishable by death. Mostly now it is used to represent big govenment and the profligation of cameras, or technology to keep on eye on everyone. Interesting note:One of the key philosophies of 1984 is Oceania is constantly at war (this way nationalism is high-and there are enemies to vent individual rage and oppression against-an outlet so to speak) much like our never-ending War on Terror.

By Kyle

July 26, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

kimberly, thanks for the response. You definately raised some good points, but I would like to address a few if I could:

-Biggest federal gov’t in history in terms of spending? Once again, doesn’t this number have a lot to do with recovering from 9/11 and fighting the current war. That seems like when people on the left say that we have suffered the highest gas prices in history under the Bush administration, but they fail to take into account inflation and that in real terms prices were higher under Carter.

-Can I go pee in a cup? I haven’t had the gov’t tring to figure out if I smoked pot last weekend, ahve you? In what situation, besides being a gov’t employee, can the gov’t drug test a person?

-States rights to prescribe medical marijuana has recently been overturned. This seem to be a direct affect of the “living Constitution” that so many people on the left speak of. If the Constitution is allowed to change and evolve to reflect society, then things like this will occur. And besides, this isn’t even an act of the current administration. This was an act of the Supreme Court, which is completely seperate from the Bush administration.

-Chipping away of search & seizure? Can you be a little more specific? If your talking about the Patriot Act, it nedds to be revised, but I support the purpose of the bill. If we are worried about being politically correct with our enemy it only make it easier for them to accomplish their goal - which is killing you and I

-As for the tax cuts, I don’t see why everyone shouldn’t just pay a flat rate. Why do rich people have to pay a higher percentage, while those that haven’t earned as much pay a smaller percentage - or none at all. But that’s just wishful thinking. Also, I do believe tax breaks create jobs for people and stimulates our economy - but it takes time.

By TT

July 26, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

The Republican Party has become the lapdog of the religious right, lobby groups, and big businesses, who benefit from a cheap, free-flowing labor force from Mexico and diversionary issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Our lawmakers have focused solely on judging alternate lifestyles at the expense of taxpayer time and dollars. Marriage protections, voting restrictions, eminent domain laws, and Peachcare cuts have been the major “accomplishments” of the Georgia Legislature this year. Republicans are all for cutting benefits to poor women and children, as well as veterans who served their country, while simultaneously rolling out the welcome mat for illegal immigrants who mooch off of our welfare and Medicaid system. I suppose preserving Christian mores is more important than preserving jobs to our state representatives.

By Eaton

July 26, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Kyle, the problem is that, despite your claims of thinking for yourself, you are doing an excellent job of parroting the Limbaughs of the world. If you really want to be thought of as an independent thinker, then you should have your facts straight.

1) Modern Liberals do not want to equalize the distribution of wealth. The equal distribution of assets is a component of Communism. Liberals believe it is ethically responsible to provide assistance for the disadvantaged. That’s not financial equalization. As has been mentioned more than once, pretty much every liberal-leaning voice on this blog is a professional who benefits from and believes in a free market Capitalist economy.

2) Liberals do not “hate” the rich. We believe in progessive taxation systems under which those most able to pay shoulder proportionatly larger shares of the tax burden. You’ll find that there are many wealthy liberals out there.

3) What makes you think that the far left (if by far left you mean the typical American Liberal and not tobacco’s imagined Communist movement) favors a Big Brother state? A belief in some government oversight of industry is hardly tantamount to BB…in fact in 1984, Orwell was writing about facism, which rests to the far right. BB implies government control of one’s private lives as well as a propaganda-like stranglehold by the gov’t over the media. If anything, the typical liberal favors a hands-off approach on people’s private lives.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has presided over the largest expansion of gov’t powers in decades, attempted to ammend the constitution with the express purpose of restricting rights of US citizens, allied itself with religious fundamentalists bent on controlling people’s personal lives, and been responsible for numerous regulations that allow for greater intrusion of govt into our private affairs.

Now…which ideology were you talking about?

By Chilao

July 26, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

starting to get the clue others here on this blog probably have about how SIMPLE things really are for some.

because this: “And the parallels to our rising Nationalism and the War On Terror and the rise of Nazism in Germany ARE very similiar. so comparisons ARE fitting”

had very little to do with Goebbels/Rove directly.

LMAO

By kimberly

July 26, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Tabooogie, I’m sorry to succumb to the urge to be impolite; seriously, but you ARE an idiot with no grasp of history or fact. Hitler WAS elected…. you moron. Seriously. Get a job. No, I would not like fries with that.

By Eaton

July 26, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

I believe the Goebbels/Rove comparison was more a matter of philosophy than of specific comparison on how they live their lives. Of course, appreciating that would require the ability to think abstractly, and some people lack that.

Personally, I find the Goerring quote to be far more representative of Rove.

Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

Does this sound at ALL familiar, people?

By Chilao

July 26, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

and the Kommunistas/Jews/TradeUnionists were VERY POTENTIALLY political opponents of the state.

simple minds, man, simple minds.

are you in 6th grade, Taboga? Rhetorical.

By Chilao

July 26, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

and the first thing one should do with potential political opponents is VILIFY them as the ENEMY.

oh, wait, we have that now, in this country and even on this blog….LOL

The Germans loved Hitler the same way 52 percent of Americans love Bush. Both ‘unilateral’ under the pretense of ‘cooperation’, etc etc etc.

anyway, gonna stop.

By Stephen

July 26, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

Kyle:

Do you really want answers to your questions or are they rhetorical? Three people have responded that this is the largest NON-DEFENSE spending administration, yet you respond (paraphrase) doesn’t this have to do with 911 - No it doesn’t include the emergency funding or military funding. A little research will easily demonstrate the spending habits of this administration. Or is it you just don’t want to believe the republican party has changed so drastically? Have you read 1984 where the term “Big Brother” comes from?

By jpetz

July 26, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

Ms. Feldhahn is showing her partisan view of the world. If someone in the Clinton administration had done what Rove did, conservatives would be calling for impeachment. There is nothing consistent about social conservatives like Feldhahn. They are so transparent its laughable.

By Dave From Woodstock

July 26, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Herman Goerring’s quote is hauntingly familiar with another - from Mark Twain:

Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.

By Walt Miller

July 26, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

………Please enlighten us as to which Joseph Goebbels tactics are being used……

All of them.

Walt

By Randy

July 26, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

Looking back on Iraq, I see them starting the wars. Wasn’t it Iraq that attacked Kuwait back in 1990? Wasn’t it terrorists that hit the world trade buildings in 2001? What about London just this month/ Maybe we should just let them do whatever they wished and have no one to answer to. Or maybe we should be glad we have a president who will not listen to some of the idiots on this forum and do what needs to be done. Thank you President Bush.

By taboga

July 26, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

*Hitler was never elected. He ran in two national elections in 1932. In the first, he got 30 percent of the vote, and no one got a majority. In the resulting runoff election, he increased his votes to 37 percent, while his opponent, World War I hero Field Marshall Hindenburg, got a majority. And since the Nazi party won 230 seats out of 608 in the Reichstag, it did not have the majority to make Hitler Chancellor.

Hitler was appointed as the Chancellor of Germany by Hindenburg. Be it by it strong-arm tactics or whatever went on behind the scenes, the fact remains - Hitler was never elected.

By Eaton

July 26, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Yes, Randy. There are idiots on this blog. They make innane suggestions like: the Jews are responsible for the liberal media distorting Iraq and covering up good Christian news - whatever THAT means.

You know, there’s a joke I heard when I was a kid. There’s this beatnik snapping his fingers on a street corner. When a man asks him why he’s snapping, he says: “To keep the elephants away”. The man responds “Is it working?” The beatnik says: “You don’t see any elephants, do you?”

This illustrates a particular type of logical fallacy, also summed up by Randy’s incorrect assumption that Bush’s ill-planned assault on Iraq has done anything to decrease terrorism.

Despite the increases in acts of global terrorism, despite the evidence suggesting that al-qaeda’s recruitment numbers are through the roof, despite the evidence that Iraq has turned into Terrorist University and Urban Guerilla Warfare Academy - Randy STILL continues to cling to George W. Bush’s hollow reassurances.

Only the most deluded of fanatics can look at a terrorist attack and say it’s proof that our war on terror is working. Wht should the terrorists attack us here again, where it is expensive and dangerous, when we are doing what they want us to already? We’re playing into their hands and doing exactly what they want, and now they’ve turned their attentions to creating panic and fear elsewhere. Hey - they’ve already got the British murdering innocent men in public.

But please, Randy. Continue to think that we’re doing ANY good at all. You’ll sleep better, I’m sure.

By Kyle

July 26, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Eaton, just becasue I make the some of the same points other “Limbaughs” are making doesn’t automatically mean that I have not reached a certian conclusion on my own. Do you honestly believe that every point you make on this blog is 100% original?

1.) “Modern liberals do not want to equalize the wealth”. I don’t think the far left is as extreme as communism, but I do see efforts to lift people up financially (who often don’t deserve it) and to punish those who succeed. Maybe I’m just coldhearted, but I see no need for Affirmative Action or Welfare. I think the government should do everything in their power to ensure equal opportunities for education when people are young, but after that, it’s survival of the fittest. Take the best person for the job, regardless of race. As for Welfare, once people are given an equal opportunity to suceed in life, why should we hand them a check if THEY make poor decisions that negatively affect their lives. I don’t want to pay for their mistakes.

2.) “Liberals do not hate the rich”. This comment was not directed at you, or others on this blog, but rather democrats high up in the party who campaign. They constantly preach to help the middle income and poor americans, while they vilinize many of the rich simply because they have money (ironically, many of them are very wealthy themselves). I have heard countless democrats say that they GOP is nothing but rich, white, christian males. The GOP is a diverse party and is not made up solely of the previously mentioned group, but since when did being rich, white, and christian equate to being evil? I’m also aware that there are several weathly liberals.

Stephen, I’ve read the book, thanks.

By Mara

July 26, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

and don’t forget that it was the Republican majority that did away with the pay-go rule, basically a governmental rule that dictates a zero-sum spending philosophy. Under this rule, if you wanted to raise spending on, say, Medicare, you’d have to find the money somewhere, either by raising taxes or cutting spending in another area. It was one of the actual bi-partisan peices of legislation that did what it was supposed to do. Until this administration decided that tax cuts (who got the most money? According to “Citizens for Tax Justice” 40% went to the richest 1%. Or, 99% of American households split 60% of the tax cut…go ahead, Google it yourself! You can decide for yourself whether “tax cuts for the rich” is valid or not) were more important than keeping the bankbook balanced. Once the Democratic party was labled “tax and spend” and it was true. Probably still is. But we at least understood that the programs that were instituted had to be paid for by someone. That’s what is known as “fiscal responsibility”. The pay-go rule was instituted under Bush the Elder. It was eviscerated under Bush the Younger, and allowed to die in 2002. By Republicans. The party of “personal responsiblity” and “fiscal restraint”. So can any of the conservatives here (except tabago, of course)give me a reason why the Republicans shouldn’t be seen as abandoning their fiscal policies of the past and becoming the “borrow and spend” party?

By Jackie

July 26, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

The neo-Facists your U.S. House of Representatives are at it again! CAFTA would establish new rights for large corporations to sue governments for cash compensation simply because their profits have been hurt by rules designed to protect public health or the environment.

By Mara

July 26, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Wow. We may actually be getting half-way civil up in here. Nobody reparte’d tobagos “Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg” with the lefty complaint that “Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court” LOL

By Eaton

July 26, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Kyle, do you honestly believe that everyone on welfare has had the same chance to succeed as everyone else?

We can discuss philosophy all day long. I could tell you that Rousseau’s The Social Contract forms the root of most social welfare systems, or that I, personally, believe that a just society provides at least a bare standard of living for it’s bottom rungs, or that as much as you object to spending tax dollars on welfare, I object to spending tax dollars on the development of nuclear weapons.

Or, I could even tell you my personal and, frankly, more pragmatic belief that by providing the aforementioned bare standard of living, we actually benefit society as a whole. There is less crime, less disease, etc. because we don’t allow, for the most part, anyone who has a difficult time surviving on their own from sinking into the utter depths.

To be honest, Kyle, I DO find you less than compassionate. I DO think that your position is coldhearted. I find it almost incomprehensible that there are so many conservative Christians out there who feel the same way, considering that compassion and assistance to the less fortunate is pretty much a cornerstone of that religion.

And Kyle, you haven’t heard countless democrats say that Republicans are nothing but rich, white, Christians - though, let’s be honest, if you were to look at thr actual makeup of the party it’s not an inaccurate claim - you heard Howard Dean say it. That’s ONE democrat. Count ‘em…one!

By kimberly

July 26, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the heads-up, Jackie! I write my Congressman frequently, but since I cannot write huge checks to his campaign fund, and because I’m not a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry, he ignores me.

Taboooogieman, Ah, thanks for setting me straight on the Hitler thing. Your cut & paste skills are improving. I see you figured out how to use your google. Actually, Hitler WAS elected in 1933 by THEIR method of electing a leader, which, it might surprise you, is a process that varies from nation to nation, and as we all now know, from administration to administration. More recently, the American “democratic” process has been changed to allow the Supreme Court to order cessation of vote counting, when and if they get tired of hearing the people screech about it, and just pick one or the other as the declared winner. Still, nice going Einstein. Way to pump a search engine.

By kimberly

July 26, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Mara, Hon, you spoke too soon. I lost civil about mid-morning today. {;->

By Stephen

July 26, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Mara,

No real conservative will tell you this Administration is one of fiscal responsbility. Even most of these newbie republicans won’t deny this charge. Numbers don’t lie. The reason it is accepted so widely is because it doesn’t affect us right NOW.

By Chilao

July 26, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

LOL @ Mara - I had said I was done, so I stayed away from the Hindenburg/Supreme Court ‘appointment’ thing…

But I THOUGHT it….

By Jackie

July 26, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Does this piece of history sound like the tactics used by Karl Rove? On January 30, 1933, Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor. As Hitler historian Alan Bullock put it:

Hitler’s deal did not even give him a majority in the Reichstag. His coalition of Nazis and Nationalists had only 247 out of 583 seats in the Reichstag, still not a majority. But Hitler wasted no time using his newfound powers to start eliminating his competition. New elections were scheduled for March 5, 1933. Goebbels was completely confident now of success. “Now it will be easy to carry on the fight, for we can call on all the resources of the State. Radio and press are at our disposal. We shall stage a masterpiece of propaganda. And this time, naturally, there is no lack of money.” (5)

Hitler’s opponents had brought him to power thinking that they could control “the Austrian corporal.” Papen even boasted: “Within two months we will have pushed Hitler so far in the corner that he’ll squeak.” But they fatally underestimated him. On February 27, 1993, a fire engulfed the Reichstag — Germany’s symbol, if not actual center, of democracy. Hitler blamed it on the Communists, and used it as an excuse to begin a brutal crackdown. This he accomplished by drawing up an emergency decree “for the Protection of the people and the State.” It read:

Are you able to see the parrells between then and now?

By Kyle

July 26, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Eaton, no, I don’t believe that everyone currently on Welfare has had the same chances to succeed as everyone else. What I do think, and I have no real statistics to back this up, is that a large number of people on welfare on in that position because of a bad choice or a number of bad choices they have made in their lives. I don’t like the idea of paying for other people’s mistakes. I would rather see a little more responsibility taken for ones own actions - rather than people waiting for the gov’t to give them handouts. I understand that certian people don’t receive the same opportunities, that’s why I said “once everyone is given an equal opportunity, then it’s survival of the fittest.” I don’t want people who are at a disadvantage to suffer for the rest of thier life. I want everyone to receive a fair shot at success. But once you get that shot, the individual should be held responsible for the choices they make. The Constitution ensures “equal opportunity” not equal outcome. If that line of thinking is coldhearted, then I am guilty. But, I admit, your point with the bare standard of living keeping disease and crime under control is valid. (But see, this is why we have two parties, so you guys can keep me in check when I go off on little rants like that)

As for the rich, white, christian comment - I think I’ve heard the same being said by Hillary (before she started her presidential move to the center), Al Sharpton, and even Al Frankin. And yes, it is an inaccuarate claim if you look at the makeup of the party.

By taboga

July 26, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Line item 2 of the: Communist Manifesto.

Of course, keeping with the notion: (para) “From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs”.

By taboga

July 26, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

Sound like the beliefs of the Liberal next door?

By taboga

July 26, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Just chum’n the water a little more…

By Dave From Woodstock

July 26, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Sound like the beliefs of the Liberal next door?

Sounds like you’re delusional.

By spartacus

July 26, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

this white house is trying to achieve the reality of the empire, as opposed to empirical reality. what that means in this case is that wilson never said cheny sent him, only that the cia decided to in responding to cheney’s request for more info. big difference, there, yet the entire conservative column is about how wilson is a liar. rewriting reality only works for so long…and this is going to get a lot uglier before it’s over.

By Antyler

July 26, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Kyle,

Big government Republicanism” has replaced the limited government ideals that Goldwater espoused in 1964. Bush presided over the dramatic expansion of the U.S. Department of Education to oversee his No Child Left Behind law. He and Congress expanded Johnson’s Medicare program to cover soaring prescription drug costs. Subsidies to farms soared under Republican rule too, as have annual federal budget deficits.

And Bush and Congress didn’t just bring back big government, they brought back big, dumb, ineffective, inefficient government and put it in charge of the most important aspects of American society.It seems like for every problem that Bush recognizes, he has a new program or bureaucrat to sit in an office and do nothing to actually fix the problem. And let’s not even talk about the fact that Bush hasn’t actually come up with a way to pay for any of this bigger government. He doesn’t worry about things like that, preferring to trust the Reagan adage that the government deficit is big enough to take care of itself.

The war not included, discretionary spending has jumped 27 percent under Republican control; budget hawks complain Congressional pork is up more than 40 percent. Some of that money has gone to buy the allegiance of wavering party members in the closely divided House and Senate, but much of it is directly tied to the demands of big business. Agriculture subsidies to corporate farms have swollen to new heights, while energy policy has been reduced to a miserable grab bag of special benefits for the oil, gas and coal companies.

The current war and the Patriot Act are both illegal and unConstitutional. As such I refuse to allow my rights to be subject to government action. Benjamin Franklin wrote, “They that can give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” You get neither because, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” To give up any of your liberties or freedoms for security, or safety, means to give someone else, or the collective, or law enforcement, or Government, or all of the above, power over you and others, that power can be corrupted and used against you, and you can lose your safety, your security and your Freedom.

The Government was supposed to protect us, by protecting our Rights and freedoms. Not by enforcing it’s morality, or ethics, or by protecting us from ourselves, or by saving us from ourselves, like we were children, and could not choose for ourselves, what is right for us, or what is wrong for us. Protecting our Rights is different from enforcing ethics and morality, or trying to protect us from ourselves, and the choices we might make, or the chances we might take, through laws, legislation and Government. We do not have a Right to enforce our morality or ethics, on anyone else. People have the free-will and Right to choose for themselves, to choose their own morality and ethics, and their own way of life. There is a Fundamental Human Right for us to live free from harm, for our family, our property and everyone as individuals. Harming other people and their property may be immoral but is also violating the Right to live free from harm. There is no fundamental human Right to enforce morality or ethics upon others, or for the Government to be our parents and choose what is best for us, or try to protect us from ourselves, or the chances we might take with our lives, through Regulations, Laws, and Legislation. People should have the right to choose for themselves individually, what is best for them as adults and should not be told to the live their lives, or have their choices made for them, or have their choices taken from them, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter if it keeps them safe or not. We should have the right and power of self-determination, over our own bodies, lives, minds and souls, to be free.

By Ken

July 26, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Eaton… There are very few folks who do not care at all about what you refer to as the “bottom rung” of society. The question is whether or not the government is the best institution to provide that relief.

I believe any discussion on welfare, or care for the poor needs to include that as a discussion point. I believe that the organizations to whom I contribute provide more assistance to the needy than the government ever could.

And the problem with progressive taxing is who decides the proportionate shares? The wealthiest in our society are the smallest of minorities. That leaves them the most vulnerable. What was the highest tax rate before Reagan took office…? 70%…? 80%…? I do not remember the exact number but it was ridiculous. Why not have a flat rate, no deductions and simplify everything…? I suspect you would get more tax revenue and with a reduced IRS would have reduced a significant cost.

And you’re right about the Howard Dean quote… He is the only person who said anything, but there are very few Dems who came out to chide that remark. Some would say that silence is consent.

By taboga

July 26, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Spartacus,

The “CIA” didn’t decide anything. Underlings in the CIA sent Wilson. And as the VP nor the CIA Director was aware of any of this…

By Brian Curtis

July 26, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

I’ll remember that at the next rape trial.

By Archie

July 26, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

“To be honest, Kyle, I DO find you less than compassionate. I DO think that your position is coldhearted. I find it almost incomprehensible that there are so many conservative Christians out there who feel the same way, considering that compassion and assistance to the less fortunate is pretty much a cornerstone of that religion.”

Eaton, I agree with that paragraph because my church is going to disburse school supplies for the neighborhood and the church organizes dinners and prison visits. Compassion and assistance are the cornerstone of church’s such as mine. That’s the reason I defended the church from atheist-leaners not because of I sympathize with any right-wing. Many in the church aren’t well off themselves and I agree people should not pay for a person’s mistakes but Jesus never asked for money when he fed the 5 thousand. I agree we do benefit as a whole when we cut down disease and do things to discourage crime. I don’t think everyone on welfare has the same chance to succeed. There is still discrimination in our society. No one should pay for foolishness of grown folk or even some not so grown but since so many people never know when they will laid off or become disabled you need things in place to offset what life brings sometimes. A lot of republican philosophy is connected to the superiority complex that runs through American society. We buy the biggest,gas-guzzling cars in the world because we want to be better than the other guy. Having said that not all republican philosophy is bad. Everyone should earn his way and spend responsibly.

By taboga

July 26, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

I’ll remember that at the next rape trial.

Don’t you mean the next: “I had sex with him and he has money - so I will holler rape” trial…?

By taboga

July 26, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

I don’t think everyone on welfare has the same chance to succeed. There is still discrimination in our society.

In case we haven’t noticed, we have illegals crossing the borders with nothing to their name - and can’t speak a word of english.

They’re going to work though - and doing quite well for themselves. Imagine that!

By Eaton

July 26, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Ken, how many derogatory comments have the Republicans made about democrats in the last few years, and how often has the White House either remained silent or gone so far as to defend the speaker?

And sorry if I disagree with you on who can help the needy the most. Before we had welfare systems, there weren’t groups stepping up to the plate. What makes you think there would be now? And if some did, how many would require religious obedience of those they assist?

As for the wealthiest being the smallest minority, oh poor poor them…they also hold most of the power. Who protects them? If you consider that the average Senator or Congressman falls into that wealthy category, I think they are pretty well protected.

By Rhonda Hammond

July 26, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

I believe this administration(Rove/Bush) is the most blatantly evil administration ever. The facts will never come out because of twisting and manipulating. What master manipulators they all are. It amazes me that as many people believe and voted for him that did. He manipulated his way into the White House to serve the top 2% of this country and protect his friends and business associates. He doesn’t give a damn about the rest of this country and doesn’t mind saying so. He proudly does what he wants to do whether the rest of the country likes it or not.

By taboga

July 26, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

I believe this administration(Rove/Bush) is the most blatantly evil administration ever. The facts will never come out because of twisting and manipulating

If the facts will never come out - how do you supposedly know them…?

By Lee

July 26, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

Sooooo, back to the topic…

Karl Rove tells a bunch of jounalists classified information, and isn’t even being put on “administrative leave pending an investigation”?? I think that in any company, if any type of wrong doing is suspected, the person is put on leave until things are cleared up.

Of course, this does go against “innocent until proven guilty” that our country abides by (well, except in the Patriot Act…)

I will reserve my final judgement for the outcome of all the facts, and findings of the investigation. Until then, my current judgement is that Rove should be put on leave, his clearance revoked, and reporters let out of jail (if any are still there).

By taboga

July 26, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

I will reserve my final judgement for the outcome of all the facts, and findings of the investigation. Until then, my current judgement is that Rove should be put on leave, his clearance revoked, and reporters let out of jail (if any are still there).

And I’ve no doubt, that in the end, when Rove is of course cleared of all these silly allegations - your position will be: The Bush Administration covered it up!

By taboga

July 27, 2005 07:44 AM | Link to this

Comrades,

Did you happen to read Cynthia Tucker’s piece?

Now, she has it, the Religious Right wants to take away your right to privacy! We’re going to all be brought back into the 10th century! And government agents knocking down your bedroom door to monitor your sexual activity!

Almost beyond belief. We’ve got Muslim terrorists lopping the heads of innocent people and killing children indiscriminately on buses and trains - all happening as we speak.

And a good ol’ Leftist fretting over Christians becoming the Taliban.

If there’s ever a way to Barney Fife it - you can always count on the Left!

By Brian Curtis

July 27, 2005 07:54 AM | Link to this

Have you noticed that, the less people respond, the more Taboga babbles? Sure sign of a brain-dead troll.

Hush, child. The grownups are talking.

By Mary Carey

July 27, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this

Karl Rove, affectionately known by fellow white house staffers as “The Maggot” if my bestest friend and the White House “Pimp-Madam. He and Jeffy Gannon, his toy boy, along with myself and F-You Cheney provide the entertainment for the monthly White House Dinners & Sex Orgies. He is a wonderful Christ-like man and serves as Baby Bush’s brain. truly yours: marycarey@GOPpornqueen.com p.s. I am jealouds of Mary Carey: anniecoulter@NEOCONvirgins.com

By Ken

July 27, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this

Eaton… I guess we’ll agree to disagree on who can help folks the best… I know my church, and several others provide much to the less fortunate and require nothing in return. Far more per dollarthan the government could ever dream. In fact, most churches do.

As a secular individual, it appears you simply do not want to admit that private charitable organizations, most of which are sponsored through religious organizations, can actually do a better job than the government. They provide more service at a lesser cost.

BTW… Tell me when our welfare system actually came into being…? I would reverse your question and womder whether or not conditions are any better now that we have a welfare system in place. I suspect not, but would not be able to confirm.

And forgive me if I call you out on the sarcastic response feeling sorry for the wealthy… That type of rhetoric reaks of class warfare…

No one one wants you to pity the wealthy, but don’t they deserve to be treated equally? What gives anyone the right to justify progressive taxation b/c “they can afford it”. They do not deserve to be fleeced by the majorities in this country simply b/c they have wealth.

And, please, the fact remains that the populous still has the power in this country. They can vote for whomever they choose. Look in DeKalb county where they voted for Cynthia McKinney rather than a more temperate individual like Cathy Woolard.

By Archie

July 27, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

Ken I agree churches do provide things for the less fortunate but I don’t think they do a better job than the government. I defend Eaton’s position and I go to church 3 out 4 Sundays a month. I defend Eaton’s sarcasm because the wealthy are so far above most people in terms of money that things like 21,000/month in child support won’t change their lifestyles. (I mention that because of Willie Gary and P. Diddy stories). People do not need to be penalized for being wealthy but some have so much,so much more than others until it is obscene. It does seem as though the Christians that Eaton describes are less compassionate even though Mr. Bush talks about being a compassionate conservative. Does $2.50/gallon for gas hurt people in Mr. Bush’s tax bracket compared to someone earning less than 50 grand/per year? At my job someone’s asking for help because a relative doesn’t have enough insurance to cover a life-saving operation. Lack of money forces people to things they wouldn’t ordinarily do and yet people such as the convicted World Com executive cheat to get more money.

By taboga

July 27, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

Ken I agree churches do provide things for the less fortunate but I don’t think they do a better job than the government.

Archie,

If the government is doing a better job - then what’s all the fuss about?

By taboga

July 27, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

And forgive me if I call you out on the sarcastic response feeling sorry for the wealthy… That type of rhetoric reaks of class warfare…

It comes from the Proletariat vs the Bourgeoisie - centerpiece of Communism.

By Kyle

July 27, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

Archie, just because a person has so much more money than others that it is “obscene”, this fact doesn’t give the gov’t a right to take a higher % from the wealthy. They have more money for a reason - they earned it. And yes, there are some who have not earned their wealth and fallen into their riches through inheiritance or something, but that money is still theirs, not the government’s. The individual should have the right to choose what to do with his/her money. People feel much better about GIVING to charity than having the gov’t TAKE their money from them.

By Jackie

July 27, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Our republic (USA) has traditionally used taxation to pay for defnse and government services for the people. Our taxes are supposed to be progressive, that is, the more you earn, the better your ability to pay for those services provided by everyone’s taxes, albeit taxes paid by wage earners of lesser means are included in paying for those roads, bridges, guns… I would ask any of you, if you were in a situation where someone in your family needed medical assistance and you did not have the money to provide the assistance, knowing your loved one could possibly die, what would you do?

By Eaton

July 27, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Ken, I have no doubt that there are many churches involved in good works for the needy. That does not change the fact that a large, national organization is better suited for distributing welfare-like funds to a large number of people.

Churches might do an excellent job caring for a specific segment - abused women, the homeless, etc. but a small organization simply doesn’t have the resources to ensure that everyone in a large geographic area - a county, a city, a state, whatever - are cared for appropriately.

And Ken, my sarcasm was directed at you, not the rich. Your comment about “who defends the wealthy” was absolutely hilarious. The wealthy in this country hold the strings of power - if you aren’t rich, the odds are you can’t run for office, at least succesfully. McKinney is most certainly not the norm.

That’s not “class warfare” by the way. It’s merely an observation that right now our elected officials as a group do not truly represent the people they, well, represent.

By Bruce

July 27, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

Eaton,

I believe you have stated you are a Christain. Maybe you could start a ministry in your church to provide help to these folks without strings attached.

By Eaton

July 27, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

I’m not worried about me, Bruce. It’s people like you that scare me.

By taboga

July 27, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

Our taxes are supposed to be progressive, that is, the more you earn, the better your ability to pay for those services provided by everyone’s taxes…

“A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

-Communist Manifesto.

By Kyle

July 27, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Didn’t I read several comments yesterday about how this administration is spending way too much and creating too many gov’t agencies to oversee certian problems - but that these agencies are largely ineffective? Why then would a gov’t program to fight poverty/hunger be any different? Sounds like another step towards big government.

-and, yes, one church can only make so much of a difference, but there are several churches in every community in this country - not to mention charity organizations that are not owned by the gov’t

By taboga

July 27, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Ken, I have no doubt that there are many churches involved in good works for the needy. That does not change the fact that a large, national organization is better suited for distributing welfare-like funds to a large number of people.

The Soviet Union was a “large organization” trying to do that very thing.

By Eaton

July 27, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

Those of us with the brains to understand matters of degree and to distinguish subtle shades of meaning will continue to understand that a welfare program designed to help the lowest rungs of society climb higher on that ladder and a nation devoted to totalitarian rule and the suppression of Capitalism are two totally different things.

Those of us who are almost psychotically obsessed with 1950’s McCarthyism will continue to vomit forth uninspired nonsense that does nothing but make the vomiter look stupid.

By Jackie

July 27, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

Taboga,

Why does the word “Communism” cause you so much grief?
In your world, you would not pay taxes, therefore you would not have a government, is that true?

By Jack

July 27, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Children, children watch where you go, and don’t you eat that yellow snow.

By Bruce

July 27, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

No need to worry about me Eaton, I am harmless. But before you rant and rave about some ideology of a welfare system that works please look around your neighborhood and tell me just how much better these folks on welfare are than if they had jobs.

And also tell us just WHO provides those jobs. How many of those on welfare are providing jobs to folks like you and I. Before you condem the rich to higher taxation just for being wealthy ask yourself, if these folks can’t pay their employee’s because they are being taxed so much how many more citizens will be on welfare. And once we are all on welfare who pays for that? I can’t understand why the liberals want to bite the hand that feeds them.

By taboga

July 27, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Eaton,

Sorry about that. I missed the subtleness of — A large national organization distributing welfare-like funds to a large number of people.

I really should be paying for this entertainment!

By Archie

July 27, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

“The S.C. Department of Transportation paid Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer significantly more for his land than it paid other property owners who were forced to sell as part of plans to widen Lake Murray Boulevard, according to agency records.

In 2004, Bauer was paid $130,000 for a 0.10-acre parcel near Irmo, more than double what the agency initially offered.”

This is an example of the power of the wealthy. Bauer only paid 52,000 for the land. Again I don’t think the wealthy should be penalized for being wealthy. I don’t think the wealthy should be penalized for being wealthy. However, this guy made a 100% plus profit off of the state of SC and he works for the state of SC. Yeah, I defend Eaton’s position and not just because he’s writing the posts.

By Harry

July 27, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

I won’t comment on the good intentions of most churches or people of faith. But, George Bush, Ralph Reed, and most of the conservative Republicans in politics wear their Christianity like protective armor. Bush in particular, had no religious leanings, prior to entering Texas politics. In fact when he first ran for congress as a pro-choice candidate, religion was not part of his repertoire. After a losing run, he learned he merely had to CLAIM a miraculous religious conversion to excuse all his past and future indiscretions and guarantee him a large block of voters.

The Republican Party learned quickly that conservative Christians are so goal oriented, that manipulating them as a group was easy. Terrorist has replaced communist as the buzz word to focus hate and fear. The fear of loss or hope for gain motivates people.

Claiming to be pro-life, while carpet bombing civilian populations has become perfectly acceptable. Hatred of homosexuals is OK because they are judged sinners. The Republicans have managed to turn middle class, working Americans into zombies who continually vote against their own best economic interest, just to spite a group they hate. The GOP has always been the party of the rich, this will never change. Hopefully, their attempts to steal Social Security from working families will finally open their eyes.

The greatest failure of national security (9/11) didn’t wake them up. Squandering a massive surplus and running trillions of dollars in American debt didn’t wake them up. Killing 1700 of our kids for nothing has not opened their eyes. What will it take?

By Netbanker

July 27, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

A couple of thoughts/questions before I’m back to my meetings…

If the wealthy have more to lose, why aren’t they willing to pay more to protect their investments? Those payments are in the form of taxes to pay for national defense, needing healthy and educated citizens to work for the companies they own, etc. It’s the same as insurance…the more coverage you want/need the higher the premiums. And no, I’m not a poor liberal…I’m quite well off so you can forget trying that argument to discount my point that those with more should pay more to protect their wealth. I’m willing to pony up more to bring down the debt because ultimately it’s going to KILL our economy and nation.

Who else sees the irony that we’ve brought democracy to Iraq and in their draft constitution are choosing an Islamic state based on Sharia law and have a Shiite majority population? Hmmmm…let’s see who else is just like that? Oh yeah…IRAN! Good job, George in bringing democracy to the middle east!

Winning the war on terror…the attacks in London show that the terrorists are able to fight on more than one front. Are we able to do the same given our current military staffing? Highly unlikely! And just what is going there…hmmmm…successful terrorist recruitment UP…U.S. military recruitment DOWN (WAAAAAYYYY Down). Fewer of us to fight more of them. Gold star for W in the war on terrorism!

By Ken

July 27, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Actually Jackie, the government didn’t start taxing our income until the twentieth century. Lincoln tried to and it was declared unconstitutional.

The point about progressive taxation is this… Who are the folks that detemrine the progressive increments? We are at the whim of the government to say who should pay more based on their income. That is a load of crap. B/C like anything else, people will make those decisions based on their constituents. Do you really believe that Jay Rockefeller or Robert Byrd will vote in any way other than to ensure their mostly poor state does not have to pay more taxes? Of course not… They’d get kicked out of office.

Does the state of Georgia progresively tax…? If I remember my last tax return, the first 20K or so is not taxable and then everything else is taxed at the same percentage. I’m a little fuzzy so someone help me out.

As for Eaton’s sarcastic remarks aimed at me… Forgive me for wanting to ensure that the government acts equally to everyone. I’m not “rich”, nor will I ever be, but I still don’t believe they should be forced to pay a disproportionate amount of tax. I believe that everything in this country should be equal, including tax brackets. 10% of 100K is still a heckuva lot more than 10% of 20K.

And since when was it a fact that a large national organization can distribute welfare-like funds? I don’t know that has ever been proven. Again, I ask the question, are we actually better off now than prior to when these wonderful organizations were established?

By taboga

July 27, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Winning the war on terror…the attacks in London show that the terrorists are able to fight on more than one front. Are we able to do the same given our current military staffing? Highly unlikely! And just what is going there…hmmmm…successful terrorist recruitment UP…U.S. military recruitment DOWN (WAAAAAYYYY Down). Fewer of us to fight more of them. Gold star for W in the war on terrorism!

The attacks on London show the terrorists ineptness — the Brits have had more people killed at a soccer game!

The terrorists are floundering and you Leftists still want to hand over the world to cave trash!

Amazing indeed.

By Bruce

July 27, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Netbanker,

I believe that if you were to send the government more in the form of tax money I am sure they will take it, so pony cowboy. How much OVER the required are you willing to give? Why wait to be asked for it just start sending it in. You can even attach a little note, ” I though you guys could use a little extra this year so I am sending you more that you required”. I am sure you will also be able to convince those in your social circle to do the same, right?

By Eaton

July 27, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Taboga, you couldn’t afford to pay me for entertainment. I cost more than your chosen pay-per-view wrestling events. Please get back to me when you actually have a grasp on economic theory, OK?

Bruce, I’m familiar with the arguments you’ve put forth, but they just don’t hold water. First, there is no evidence to suggest that the personal income we’re talking about goes into job creation. There are plenty of incentives for companies to create jobs - our personal income tax structure doesn’t enter into it.

There is an argument that may or may not have some validity that suggests that progressive taxation may decrease overall savings, as people with higher incomes tend to save more or invest more. Decreased savings = decreased money supply as banks have less to lend. However, I’m not big on that one right now, either. The Fed uses t-bills and manipulation of required reserve rates to expand or contract the money supply as they see fit.

Also, you’re only seeing the negative, which is not uncommon, I’ll grant. Yes, there are people on welfare who abuse the system, and yes there are people on welfare who will probably never get off, and believe it or not, liberals aren’t thrilled about abuses of the system any more than you are. BUT…how many people has welfare helped get a job? How many people have gotten off of welfare? How can you say the system isn’t working if you only look at one side of the equation?

By Tim

July 27, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

10% of 100K is still a heckuva lot more than 10% of 20K

the person earning 20k suffers much more not having that 2k than the person earning 100k not having 10k

By Tim

July 27, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

was it your goal to sound like a condescending a***** or did that just come natural Bruce?

By taboga

July 27, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Bruce, I’m familiar with the arguments you’ve put forth, but they just don’t hold water. First, there is no evidence to suggest that the personal income we’re talking about goes into job creation. There are plenty of incentives for companies to create jobs - our personal income tax structure doesn’t enter into it.

Eaton,

There’s no “evidence* that personal income goes into job creation?

Take a look around you nit-wit — how the hell you think the millions of jobs in this country WERE created!

It is mighty dark where you live partner - mighty damn dark!

By Bruce

July 27, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

If wealthy company owners draw their personal income from their company and that company has to pay more for taxes, insurance, job safety, etc then it hurts their personal income. So in a round about way you are taxing their personal income through their company. Or they drive up the price of their wares to offset these cost. It is all connected.

There are many more still on welfare and more coming on than there are those getting off of it. I do not know the statics but just look around.

By Tim

July 27, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

There are many more still on welfare and more coming on than there are those getting off of it. I do not know the statics but just look around

if you don’t know the statistics than how can you state that as fact? simply by ‘looking around’… paaalease

By taboga

July 27, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

For all you rubes out here who think that taxing the rich is the way to go - consider this:

A man makes $20.00 profit and is taxed at 10%. After the taxing — $18.00 total profit.

Raise his taxes to 20% now.

He raises the cost of his goods or services to offset the tax increase and still have the $18.00 profit. Who has actually paid for that tax increase?

If you Useful Idiots on the Left weren’t so naive - the Charlatans of your beloved Liberal/Communist Party would never be able to raise taxes on US by disguising it as a tax on the wealthy!

This ignorance is absolutely astounding!

By Bob

July 27, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

just b/c Bruce speaks his mind and sticks up for a group of people you insult him - f@@k you Tim

By Ken

July 27, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Tim… The same rationale was used to institute the “marriage penalty.” It was assumed since a married couple lives in the same household, they would share expenses and could therefore be taxed at a higher rate. This is an even bigger crock of crap.

You are correct, 2/20 may be more impactful than 10/100, but I do not believe it is role of government to level that out.

By Eaton

July 27, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Taboga, since you apparently have NO grasp of economic theory, what do you think qualifies you to make statements about my understanding of something I’ve studied at the Graduate level?

Let me make this simple for you, moron. The corporate structure, be it LLCs, S-corps, whatever, is the most common form of business entity in the country, and separates personal assets from company assets. COMPANIES engage in capital investment and job creation, knucklehead. Do you have a grasp of the distinction between PERSONAL income and Corporate Income?

The only jobs that the average person creates with personal income is hiring someone to cut their grass. And just so you don’t get all carried away about expenditures driving the economy and creating jobs - the portion of income affected in proportional taxation is typically that income over and above what the individual taxed would normally consume in a year. Consumption is not affected.

Please STFU and learn about what you prattle on about before you spout off, you ignorant git.

By Eaton

July 27, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry, t**, but exactly what goods or services are being produced with PERSONAL income?

Moron.

By Netbanker

July 27, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

thank you everso for the sarcasm without addresing my point in any meaningful way.

“The attacks on London show the terrorists ineptness.” That’s interesting seeing as how the terror warning levels for the UK had just been LOWERED. The British governmnet had absolutely no clue that the original attacks were coming. Who was inept?

I’d ask what proof you also have for the statement that terrorists are floundering, but seeing as how T never actually provides a source and only attacks what other say that’s a useless question. Our own State Department reports significant increases in worldwide terror attacks….if the terrorists are floundering that much then the numbers of them must be exponentially higher than we realize for such an inept group to have any success let alone being able to increase the numbers of successful attacks.

By Kyle

July 27, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

Harry, exactly how is the GOP attempting to “steal” social security from working families? This is a prime example of the irresponsible accusations from the left that cause many undecided voters to side with conservatives - which, btw, hasn’t helped too much in recent elections.

By Tim

July 27, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Bob… haha… no thanks I already have someone to fill that role

Ken… but I do not believe it is role of government to level that out. we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one

Eaton… that ‘T’ word was just nasty lol

By vince

July 27, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Things I’ve learned: Jet fuel burns black at the WTC (even when desks, wood, computers are burned along with it), and yet burns light grey when the same things are consumed by fire. Boeing 757’s have always left parts at crash site, except at the Pentagon. G.W. Bush can go on record talking about watching the first plane smash into the WTC on live tv, when NOBODY saw that event live, and nobody questions it. Anthrax letters from anti-American terrorists are only mailed to Democrats, and not Republicans, and that is not to be questioned either.

Thanks for the education folks.

By Eaton

July 27, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

I don’t bust it out too often, Tim, but in this case I thought it was warranted.

Kyle - irresponsible accusations? Like…if you vote for Kerry we’ll be attacked again? That was Cheney, I believe… Or…Democrats will take away your Bible? That was the Republican Party in West Virginia.

I don’t see you getting upset and crying foul over those. I guess only Democrats can make irresponsible accustations. Or maybe you just approve of scare tactics?

By Brian Curtis

July 27, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

Eaton, Netbanker: You’ve got to quit responding to Taboga. Taboga’s a troll, and a fairly stupid one to boot. None of Taboga’s posts have displayed any ability to read, comprehend, debate, or even make/defend a single point.

Some folks are so brain-dead that discussion with them is pointless. Focus on rational posters like Bruce, Ken, etc. At least they’re smart enough to engage in actual debate rather than childish and cowardly taunts.

By Brian Curtis

July 27, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Ummm, Vince? You’re really WAY off-topic here, and nobody’s responding. Can you save the 9/11 speculations for a 9/11 topic? Otherwise you come across like… well, like Zack. (“Abortion! Abortion! Abortion!”)

By Eaton

July 27, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Brian, you are right on all counts. Trying to curb my temper and ignore the idiot…counting to…100.

By Tim

July 27, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Eaton… well it made me laugh… I think it was pretty accurate

By taboga

July 27, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

In all your illustrious “graduate” studies - from where, were you taught, that the capital to form LLC’s and S-corps - come from?

I simply cannot believe, even from someone as dense as you, that it is not easily understood that, no matter how you try and slice the pie, that job creation comes from the accumulation of personal wealth!

You simply cannot be so incredibly stupid that you cannot understand that!

By Ken

July 27, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Eaton… Doesn’t it stand to reason that more personal income gives consumers more money to spend, which then requires more goods and services, which then puts more people to work, which then increases the tax base, which then increases the amount of dollars going into the government coffers?

By Harry

July 27, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

STEAL: the act of being dishonest; to act without honesty; to cheat, lying or being deliberately deceptive; lacking in integrity; to be corrupt or treacherous; quackery.

Pretty much describes the Bush plan for private accounts. Money would be taken from one account that has relatively low administrative cost and transferred to millions of other accounts with extremely high administrative cost. The additional cost would be passed on as debt. Benefits would be reduced. The profits would be distributed to a small group of obscenely rich Wall St. bankers and brokers.

By Eaton

July 27, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Ken, I don’t know how to break this down any more than I have. Microeconomics tells us that there is an inversely proportional relationship between income and percentage consumed. In other words, someone making $30,000 a year may consume 95% of his or her net income each year, while someone making $200,000 a year may only actual spend, say, 55% of his or her net income, leaving the remainder unspent. This income goes to either savings or personal investment. If you understand the concept, that the wealthy who are most affected by progessive taxation will reach the threshold of their yearly consumption BEFORE factoring in the tax rate, you’ll understand why consumption does not stand to be increased.

That said, there are some arguments for the other side that have some validity from a purely economic standpoint, even though they tend to come from supply-siders.

Savings increase the amount of money available for banks to lend, but Fed manipulation can have the same effect. The reserve rate is monitored and changed if the Fed feels it’s necessary.

Investment moves money around and indirectly affects capital investment. Most people don’t invest on the primary market, they buy already issued stock from the secondary market, so that effect is indirect as well.

The problem is, it’s not just about the pure, mercenary economics of it all. There’s a philosophical question on which you and I differ and frankly that’s not going to change. You think that everyone should pay the same, regardless of ability, and I think that a greater share of the burden should be absorbed by those able to do so. It’s a philosophical difference, plain and simple.

By Bruce

July 27, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

If the owner of a company is not receiving the share of profit he thinks he should several things will happen.

Rasing taxes on those that provide the jobs certainly is not the way to go IMO. The only FAIR tax is a same rate tax. That way everyone shares the burden equally. The only time I would agree to tax someone at a higher rate would be those companies that send their jobs to other countries. To those I say make them pay dearly!!!!!

By vince

July 27, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Thanks Brian Curtis,

Actually I did that posting on purpose, as a few days ago I asked about those topics in relation to how Rove manipulates the media, and the few replies were so inane, I wanted to thank those folks.

Rove and Murdoch constantly manipulate the media. Notice when Dumbya is up in the polls, no terrorist bombing. When SS issues and then Rove issues soured Bush’s popularity, off when the bombs.

By taboga

July 27, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Everyone around the country take all your personal wealth out of every financial institution and/or investment mechanism available.

While we’re at it - sit on all your real estate holdings (personal wealth).

Now, let’s have Eaton explain to us where the capital is going to come from to create business - and thus jobs…?

By Kyle

July 27, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Harry, in Bush’s plan isn’t it up to the individual as to whether or not he/she would partake in any private accounts? Giving a person a choice in how they plan their retirement hardly seems like stealing, and they say that nobody over the age of 55 would be affected. I am 24 years old and am concerned about paying into a social security account for my entire working career that may very well be bankrupt by the time I am allowed to collect. The left certianly doesn’t like Bush’s “privatization” plan, but from the numbers I’ve seen, social security does need to be adjusted/changed somehow - and I have heard no proposals from the left. All I hear is how much money it will cost. If you are faced with a problem that will cost you a lot of money to fix now, but even more money to fix the longer you wait, why wait? Fix it now.

-btw, here is an interesting question: If there is nothing wrong with social security, which many on the left claim to be the case, why did congress (both dems and reps. alike) set up an entirely different program for themselves. Why are they to good to participate in the same plan that they set up for everyone else? I think this should be an issue in the next election. If we could get the congress to be paying and drawing from social security, just like the rest of us, I think they may be a bit quicker to fix the problem.

Eaton, I never said that irresopnsible accusations don’t come from the right as well - they do. When Chaney made that comment I knew it would send the left into an uproar, and probably rightfully so. On the other hand, Kerry didn’t exactly seem like the poster child for defense.

By Archie

July 27, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

“I think that a greater share of the burden should be absorbed by those able to do so. It’s a philosophical difference, plain and simple.”

Eaton, I share your philosophy especially as a peron who at one time earned 30,000. Someone like Arthur Blank,Sean Combs, and Tom Cruise could shell out thousands for alimony or child support and taxes and it doesn’t affect their lifestyle. No person should have money that they have earned honestly gouged from them but I used the word obscene because to have 330 million dollars in assets and yet end up being convicted over 50 grand, it shows some serious philosophical differences with 99 percent of the people. I heard Oprah say there’s only so many planes you can buy. In other words there’s only so much one can want and need. If I had 50 million dollars I definitely would not want to pay 45% tax rate but a 10% tax rate would be unfair. I’ll bet Gates,Bush,Kerry,Combs,or Oprah would not want to trade places with me.

By Eaton

July 27, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

Since certain people seem to have problems with fine shades of meaning, allow me to share my quote with you again: “First, there is no evidence to suggest that the personal income we’re talking about goes into job creation.”

To anyone with a brain, or at least to anyone interested in actual, reasoned debate rather than hysterical disintegrations into absolutism and absurdist illogical extensions, clearly we were discussing the increases in personal income that would theoretically emerge should we transition from a progessive proportional tax to a flat one.

Second, lets consider the possible effects of a flat tax on the Capital markets and on aggregate savings in the US. The likelyhood is that by instituting a flat tax, we’d be decreasing the burden on the top 2% of the population. In order to make up the lost tax revenues, we could either hope that the supply-siders are right and that marginal revenues would increase, or, more likely, the burden on the middle class would increase.

Now, despite what the Republican party would have us believe, the backbone of any free market economy is not the rich - it’s the middle class. Without a vigorous and active middle class, our economy collapses. So - if we increase the tax burden on the middle class, the aggregate savings nationally goes down, which decreases the amount of money that banks have to lend. On top of that, consumption will decrease as money becomes tighter and the money supply contracts. There will be less incentive for company’s to expand because there will be no demand for their goods or services. Less incentive to expand = sluggish job growth.

Believe it or not, if the wealthy were left completely untaxed, we would not have a healthy economy. There has to be CONSUMPTION to support EXPANSION. It’s a balancing act.

By Ken

July 27, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Archie… I think most folks agree with you, but the question lies in the determination of what that appropriate percentage is on the ultra-wealthy. We range from the point of where I don’t think it should change, all the way to some who think it should be as high as 50% or 60%.

Let’s also keep one other thing in mind… In progressive taxation, it affects folks who make far less than Gates, P Diddy and Oprah… Those are not the examples we should be using. We should be talking about the family that has 70K-80K paying a premium. At the very least, even if I agreed with progressive taxation, we should be looking to redefine those brackets…

Eaton… Forgive me for being over simplistic, but I knew that would get an answer out of you. Any way you slice it, unless people take their extra money and stuffs it under their matress, it helps the economy.

Harry… I like your definition of STEAL… I kinda feel like that is what’s happening with social security right now… The whole system is dishonest in the fact my future “benefits” are based on monies that have not yet been collected.

By taboga

July 27, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

And in all that rambling, you have basically stated:

The best way to help an economy grow - is to have the government take more money out of it!

By Tim

July 27, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Ken… what about the fact that there is a cap on how much of one’s income is taxed for social security… looking at percentages I am taxed a much higher percentage than Bill Gates… or if you don’t like that… I am taxed higher than someone making 300k

By Harry

July 27, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Kyle- If you allow money to be deferred from one general account to private accounts everyone’s benefits will decrease and the cost (debt) will increase. Not exactly voluntary. You seem to think their goal is to fix SS. Their goal is to make billions for their friends and contributors. The system could be easily “fixed� as it has been numerous times in the past without trashing the whole system. It’s worked well for 65 years. Raise the tax! SS is a TAX, not a retirement plan or insurance plan… it’s a tax. Don’t increase the percentage, but eliminate the income ceiling for SS withholding. Why should millionaires be exempt from paying the tax on all their income? Ninety-five percent of the working families pay SS TAX on 100% of their income. Why should the rich get another break?

By Eaton

July 27, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

Your reading comprehension fails yet again, teabag.

By Bruce

July 27, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

I think I am reading something wrong so please clear it up for me.
At 1:24 today you told Ken that it is the wealthy that use their upspent income (45%) to save and invest, therefore providing a healthy economy. Then at 2:20 you said it is the middle-class (5%). I am no math major but if you have 40% more for banks to loan and for investment wouldn’t that help the economy more? Wouldn’t cutting the 45% hurt things a great deal? Or are you factoring in that there are more people saving and investing 5% than there are 45%?

Then on the other hand if a person is accustom to having 45% of their income as throwing around money and you start cutting that wouldn’t it make sense that they would make adjustments so they would remain at 45%? Wouldn’t it make sense that those adjustments would come in the form of job cuts, benefits to worker cuts, or even shipping the jobs elsewhere? How can that help our economy?

Please do not get your feathers ruffled I am really trying to understand your point of view. Some of what you are saying does make sense but I still have a had time understanding the logic behind making someone pay more of THEIR earned money just because they have more money. And so far that is the only reason given to tax the wealthy more than everyone else.

By Eaton

July 27, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Bruce, feathers not ruffled. I do want to clarify that I never said that the portion saved by the rich were the cause of a healthy economy, only that there are arguments made that those savings help contribute. That said…

It’s about aggregate saving and consumption. I don’t have the exact figures in front of me, but say that there are 150 million working citizens in the US, of which maybe 80% fall into the lower to upper middle class category, 15% below and 5% above. Again, I don’t know the exact distribution.

Which is more - 85% of 150 million saving 5 or 6% of their income, or 5% of 150 million saving maybe 40%?

By Sandy/Sanhan

July 27, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Hi all. Have been enduring personal and family issues and thus not able to post in any thoughtful way, but have been reading along. Economics is definitely not my subject, but I would like to pose this question: Just what is the government’s role and responsibility, and what should it be regarding the indigent, underpriviledged, underemployed, underinsured, undereducated?

If the government can’t be trusted to to manage funds to help people, with the ultimate goal of enabling them to help themselves, then whose responsbility is it? How do we ensure that folks get a fair shot at aid when life does not give them a fair shot, sometimes from mistakes made, but often because of circumstances beyond their control? Remember that children don’t vote and don’t choose their familial circumstances, and that they generally don’t inherit gobs of wealth.

In earlier posts, there was concern about who was defending the rich; I am far more concened about who is defending the poor who have little or no voice. Who will ensure that the underclass has what it needs to first survive, and then pull themselves out of poverty; these things don’t happen in a vacuum. Ignoring the problem of poverty and joblessness does not make the situation or the poor citizenry die out, as suggested by Scrooge before his enlightenment; it just drags everyone else farther and farther down with them, except for the very rich, who are connected with the very powerful.

If our government is too inept to help take care of our citizens, to guide us through social problems of our own making (intentional or not) in our own socioeconmic realm, what makes us think it is qualified to declare and orchestrate a war, and even install a new government in another country responsibly?

A national health care plan discussion here is often declared un-American, a stepping stone to communism/socialism, to paraphrase Linda Chavez. But here we are, invading and occupying a country, and forcing them to create a new consitution that will ironically be based on religious law and thus unfair to women, while providing them troops and money to do this in the name of spreading democracy. Is that American? The Iraqis will likely get their national health care plan before we do, but on our nickel, while our own citizens fall between the cracks with no relief in sight.

I ask the readers to take this as a whole discussion and not deconstruct each and every statement with rebuttal. I am very curious to hear responses from all sides in the interest of dialogue and not one-upmanship. Namaste, all.

By Jackie

July 27, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

The present Administration and the majority of those legislators elected do not have the best interest of all the citizens of this country, in my opinion. You hear them rant and rave about a nationalized medical insurance system, like that of Canada. They say the adoption of a system like that would bankrupt the hospitals and drug companies. Most folks don’t realize that 70% of the research and development in drugs is provided by US government. As for the Canadian model, have you seen the Canadian’s streming to this country for medical services and for drugs?

By lozen

July 27, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Kyle, you have been taken in by an e-mail urban legend. Here’s the actual information according to Snopes:

By kimberly

July 27, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Hi Sandy, Sorry about the issues. Your thoughtful, intelligent post is lost here this week, I’m afraid. I’m laying back to regroup, and fight evil again another day! {;->

By Les

July 27, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Right now, members of Congress in the Federal Employees’ Retirement System plan must pay 1.3% of their salary to FERS and 6.2% in Social Security taxes.

They pay 6.2% of their salary in Social Security taxes UP TO $90,000

By lozen

July 27, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Sandy! Very, very good points. Good luck on getting what you ask for in your last paragraph though.

By Archie

July 27, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Good Luck Sandy and Jackie as I have debated the national healthcare issue in the past and people talk as if the government is an alien. People actually talk as if the government is something seperate from the rest of America. The government represents you,me and every American citizen. If your government is incompetent then that means your neighbors,friends, and relatives that work for the government are incompetent. You can’t love the Bush administration yet hate the federal government because the Bush administration runs the federal government.
I think Eaton is saying in a roundabout way that to whom much is given much is required. Yes there does need to be a balance. I mean does a CEO need to earn 6000 times what his lowest employee earns? Maybe so but there is an American company called Kingfish(I think but could be wrong) that ties management’s pay what the lowest paid guy makes, and the managers won’t get 6000 times the earnings of the lowest paid guy. Perhaps more time and research needs to be devoted to what is just and fair to tax the rich.

By lozen

July 27, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Yes, Les they pay 6.2 percent on their salary up to $90,000 just as everyone else does. Bill Gates, Ophrah, Bush Sr and Bush Jr, Donald Trump, et al only pay 6.2% on the first $90,000!

By Thomas

July 27, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

As a government employee myself - I know that if I reveal anything that is a security matter to any public source such as a single social security number even if it’s my own SSN, I will be instantly FIRED!, and most likely investigated, and may even be sentenced to jail.

Leaks at that level can do far more damage to this country than anything I could ever possibly leak and these men have been in the government well long enough to know this is “taboo”. It doesn’t matter how they came to have this information whether it be from another reporter source or an inside government source. They committed a Federal “Crime” in THEIR disclosure of this information to any outside source. This is Fact!

As to Wilson’s wife and what she did at the CIA, well that really doesn’t matter. The disclosure itself was a violation no matter what capacity she worked in. That especially applies to Government Employees and Elected Oficials. We may never know (and should not know) if she was a field agent or not as that is part of classified material designed to protect us all. What she did or did not do is irrelevant to what was disclosed as it is has very serious implications.

If she was a field agent then enemys and other international secret service agencies may now know other operatives that had contact with her. Karl Rove and Scooter may have endangered others in their reckless indiscretion. And for that alone they need to be removed from office, and especially from an office that is associated with the President. Their actions were wrongful and they should be replaced in their positions.

Now as to the exposure, the reporters are also not innocent in this misconduct of office. They too were directly responsible for the clasified info that they had obtained and the when, where and how they used this confidential and national security based info. Their disclosure of Valerie was just as un-ethical as the capitol gang’s disclosure. These Journalist not only exposed her, but also who knows whatever others and the secrecy they may have undermined that the public may never know.

I myself have had the honor of having Robert Novak as a college instructor and I do respectthe man as a journalist. However, I do know that his role in life is to push republican politics as much as he possibly can. This is not Illegal or even Immoral as he is a Journalist and has announced many times that he represents the right in his journalism. But even he should have known not to disclose classified info especially if the info was not in the public’s safety interest or declassified.

As to the other journalist, well they too had a moral responsibility as well. Although they were directly involved in releasing classified information to the public, and therefore also guilty of a crime, they also had the responsibility to protect their sources. But a federal inquiry concerning clasified materials is justified in obtaining those sources when it does directly effect national security. These reporters had an obligation to surrender these sources on that basis. On the other hand if it had been a whistleblower case, then they would have been responsible for keeping the source secret from the Government. This was not the case here at all. In fact the duty of the reporter was to reveal the source that had committed the wrongful and illegal act! And that would be Karl and Scooter!

It is now our President and our Justice System’s responsibility to make sure that this is investigated, un-biasedly judged, and corrected. This must be disclosed to the American People in open debate or else they too will be considered at guilty and at fault thenselves for not seving the interest of this country and the people they represent.

Tom

• It was about 200 years of the existence of the glorious republic of Rome before they surrendered their rights in a crisis for security of their country and then became the Roman Empire! One wonders if the same fate is not now befalling the glorious American Republic. *

By taboga

July 27, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Ken… what about the fact that there is a cap on how much of one’s income is taxed for social security… looking at percentages I am taxed a much higher percentage than Bill Gates… or if you don’t like that… I am taxed higher than someone making 300k

And Bill Gates has created thousands and thousands of jobs in this country so that mortgages can be paid, cars bought, on and on…

And what have you done?

By Kyle

July 27, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

lozen, actually, I did hear about that through an e-mail. I read that email and believed it as truth, and it really p** me off - thanks for clearing it up.

-but I still like the idea of having the option to invest my money, that would otherwise go to SS, into private accounts

By Jackie

July 27, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Archie,

On your point about the CEO earnings, I think the amount is now 17,000 to 1. This means that the CEO and his pay could pay the salaries of 17,000 of their hourly employees. There was a time when the hourly employees of a company - our mothers and fathers - earned $15 to $30 per hour working in a manufacturing facility. Now, it has been determined that those wages are not competitive and those jobs have been taken away.
It appears that we no longer bring the salves to the jobs, we take the jobs to the slaves.

By taboga

July 27, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

I think that all the wealthy folks in this country should just take their money and go home.

And then we could all go to work for Eaton, Tim, Harry, Archie and all the other experts that have never created a damn thing - but are self-proclaimed experts on how to.

By taboga

July 27, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

Jackie,

I have an idea for you. Why don’t you go out and start a business?

Then, you could pay all your employees as much as you want!

By lozen

July 27, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

I think all the wealthy in this country with their tax attorneys working around the clock for them are taking their money and going home! And I’m sure you have created a thriving, successful business that supports hundreds, maybe thousands, right? NOT!

By Netbanker

July 27, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Let’s see….the bulk of our current investment capital is coming from CHINA. Their purchase of T bills is one of the reasons that our rates have remained so incredibly.

In SouthEast Florida just over 30% of the homes being purchased are by foreign nationals. That’s keeping that market rolling and hot.

Sheesh…as if capital only comes from within the country. Try again Taboga

By Jackie

July 27, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Taboga,

If I had the necessary capital, I would start my own business and would ask that you come to work for me as the janitor. What do you think? Research shows that the average weekly wage for CEO’s is $155,000 per week, the average bring home for the average worker is $551.

By Les

July 27, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Perhaps this job announcement should be forwarded to Karl Rove:

OGE SEEKS MANAGEMENT ANALYST, GS-0343-07/09

The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) seeks Management Analyst, GS-0343-07/09. This position is in the Office of Government Relations and Special Projects (OGRSP). The incumbent reports to the Deputy Director, OGRSP and provides assistance to the Intergovernmental Programs Officer and the Congressional Liaison Officer. This position is a primary resource in the Agency’s efforts regarding international ethics and anti-corruption.

Please see the Vacancy Announcements & Other Information section for more information regarding Job Announcement Number AR366561 and AR366558,

By Harry

July 27, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

No one…Bill Gates, Sam Walton or any businessman started with the intention of creating a job. They said; I have an idea how I can make some money! Now who can I get to do the dirty work for the least amount of money? Minimum wage means they would pay you less but there’s a law against it!

Poor ol’ rich folks…they sure have there problems…creatin’ jobs…paying ALL them taxes!!

That’s the ‘cotton mill mentality’ sold to and preached by the average working class…Redneck-Republicans…Reagan Democrats!

By Netbanker

July 27, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Small Business Statistics from the SBA web site

Total approximately 23 million in the United States, with roughly 75 percent of the firms having no employees.

Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.

Employ half of all private sector employees.

Pay 44.3 percent of the total U.S. private payroll.

Generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually.

Create more than 50 percent of nonfarm, private grossdomestic product (GDP).

Are employers of 39 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer workers).

Made up 97 percent of all identified exporters and produced 29 percent of the known export value in FY 2001.

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Advocacy-funded research by Joel Popkin and Company (Research Summary #211); U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey;U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration.

Is there a link between entrepreneurship and economic activity? There is a strong correlation between national economic growth and the level of national entrepreneurial activity in prior years, according to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM).

In GEM countries, 71 percent of nascent or would-be entrepreneurs expect to create 1 to 20 jobs, and 21 percent expect to create at least 20 jobs in their new ventures.

Colleges and universities with high levels of R&D expenditures lead to increased firm formations in the surrounding metropolitan areas. Such R&D expenditures contribute to economic growth via these new firms.

Sources: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor; Advocacy-funded research by BJK Associates (Research Summary 222).

The above info shows the fallicy of pointing to Bill Gates and the Wealthy as generating jobs. THEY AREN’T!! It’s small businesses who are creating jobs. OUr current administration policies are hurting the middle class who make up the bulk of our population.

By Glenn

July 27, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

All the White House is trying to do is change the discussion away from what Karl Rove did or did not do. This is the smoking gun to all the lies leading up to Iraq. Rove compromised our national security by outing a covert operative. If she wasn’t an operative, the investigation wouldn’t be ongoing- it would have ended by now.

By taboga

July 27, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

Jackie,

I see. So you, who doesn’t have the capital to start a business and therefore cannot create a job for anyone and pay them anything, are in the perfect position to tell those who are providing jobs what they should pay? And since they might not be paying what you; who isn’t paying anything, thinks they should - then they don’t care about anyone else?

By Gregory

July 27, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Taboga certainly knows how to pile the s** up deep, Jackie. I’m sure he would make a great janitor.

By spartacus

July 27, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

read what wilson originally wrote in his op-ed piece…

hard to get “cheney sent me” out of that…

never mind those little things, like the fact wilson was right, or that the original document in question was proven to be forged, or that bush sr. sent him an apology after plame’s status was exposed. as an old cia man, he knows the real score there.

we’ll see what happens when fitzgerald has his day.

By Janet

July 27, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this

Randy, I can’t believe there is still someone out there who thinks we haven’t been attacked because Bush is in the White House! Because of our unprovoked occupation of a Muslim country, our chances of being attacked again went up about 1000 percent. Wait for it. Shauti, are you getting your talking points directly from the White House or is God speaking to you?

By Paul

July 27, 2005 05:08 PM | Link to this

Just stopping by the say HELLO!!!!

By taboga

July 27, 2005 05:13 PM | Link to this

Netbanker,

Let’s start a small business. Pick any type of business you can think of.

For the sake of discussion, I will pick one from a hat: Small Landscaping business.

Now, in order to go into business, what will we need?

Is it a small or large business that makes the Bobcat that we will need for grading?

Would it be Briggs and Stratton/John Deere that will make our mowers for us - or a local engine shop down the street?

Would we have our trucks made by a local mechanic - or maybe General Motors?

We could go on and on, but hopefully you get the picture, that without the large companies producing the materials that we need, we couldn’t even get into business!

By Virginia Reynolds

July 27, 2005 05:34 PM | Link to this

This Federal Grand Jury probe isn’t just Dem.vs Rep. this is about outing a CIA agent for what purpose? Was the information Wilson reported wrong? No. He told the truth and in doing so he incurred the wrath of thoes who were not telling the truth to the American people. They knew before they were claiming WMD, that Hussein did not have any! It seems the plan was to drive up the hiway to Bagdad, grab the old reprobate Saddam, become instant liberators to the Iraqi people and the Americans would be loved for our good job. How can this tangeled web of lies be tossed off as a tempist in a tea pot? The more this jury gets a look at the players the more concerned I become. What is the White House stonewalling? It took 2 years to get to Rove? What? What Rove knows so does Bush. GinnyMaryR@AOL.com

By taboga

July 28, 2005 07:27 AM | Link to this

Virginia,

And I guess all the lies and deceit were all because of “oil” and “Halliburton”, right?

BTW - I heard reports of sharks in the water off the beaches in the Florida Panhandle. So Joe Wilson and I went down there this past weekend and didn’t find any. Proving of course - that those reports are absolutely false!

By Ken

July 28, 2005 07:41 AM | Link to this

Jackie and Archie… Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is a capitalist country, isn’t it? People get paid based on how valuable their skills are, not on a bell curve.

Netbanker… I liked your last post. Very informative, but can you tell me how the current administration is hurting small business…?

It may also be of benefit to define wealthy. It is far to subjective. If you make 20K, everyone else is wealthy.

And to say that someone like Bill Gates DOESN’T create jobs, is preposterous. He created a company that employees thousands of people directly and thousands more indirectly. Wealthy people like the KENNEDY’S create no jobs.

To All… Look… It is obvious that many people in this country have differing views across the spectrum on this issue. That is why we have the comprimise that is currently in place. People like myself typically speak out not b/c we don’t want to pay our fair share, but b/c we feel our tax dollars are being spent foolishly (by any adminsitration in office).

BTW… I do believe that the wealthy should contribute more. I simply don’t believe that the government should impose it. I view that type of government imposition just like any other.

I do not believe any citizen deserves any type of preferential treatment from the government. We should all be treated exactly the same. Once any hint of partiality leaks in, the government begins to lose credibility. It becomes embolden to those groups and will begin to make decisions as such.

By taboga

July 28, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this

BTW… I do believe that the wealthy should contribute more.

Why? And how much are they contributing now?

By Steve

July 28, 2005 08:00 AM | Link to this

All the Dems have to offer is “get”. Get Nixon, Bork, Newt,Lott (whose comments were not as blatently bigoted as Robert Byrd’s)Bush, DeLay and now Rove. What you need to “get” are a few new ideas and some intellectual integrity. The only thing “get” will get you is a seat on the outside looking in.

By Ken

July 28, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this

Taboga… As a Christian, I believe that I should assist those less fortunate than me. In fact, I enjoy bringing assistance to those less fortunate than me. It brings me great joy to bring hope to those individuals and to know that I am working the will of Christ.

Pretty strait forward.

By Ken

July 28, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

Steve… The Republicans have done their share of “getting” as well: get Clinton, get Carter, get Dukakis, get Kerry…

EVERYONE needs to move past that mentality and discuss the issues, rather than launching personal attacks. I truly believe that deep down, nearly all of the politicians have the best of intentions, as I do for most people in general.

By Jackie

July 28, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this

Taboga,

I, like you, work for a living because I do not have the means to secure the necessary funding to create a business. I ask you, how do you think these folks that started small businesses were able to obtain funding to launch their business? After their business was started, do you understand that the government provided them incentives and the environment that allowed that business to grow and prosper in the way of infrastructure and business rules and regulations that allowed for fair competition. No, I do not have the money to start a business and I would like to know what the name of your business?

By Archie

July 28, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

Ken, people don’t get paid based on how valuable their skills, they get paid based on how much money is available and how much someone decides to pay for their particular job. Heck someone could do the same job and get paid thousands more or less. I am not the only one discussing Ceo pay vs worker pay. “According to the Towers Perrin worldwide pay report, U.S. CEOs are paid more than twice as much as Canadian CEOs, nearly three times as much as British CEOs, and four times as much as German CEOs.”

There are articles that say the minimum wage would be 15.86 if it went up as quickly as CEO pay. I am not mad anyone rich, but let’s frame the discussion properly for this capitalist society. In this country there exists a superiority complex based on race sometimes and sometimes money. It’s not enough to earn a good living above the average, you have to cheat and steal because you must get all you can to be better than the other guy and you have to let him know you’re better than he is. For examples see Worldcom,Enron, and the former comptroller general for the state of SC who has been convicted of a crime involving money(Earle Morris).

By Archie

July 28, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this

Good job Ken on your 8:10 am post. ‘Nuff said.

By Ken

July 28, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

Archie… Perhaps I need to rephrase… People are paid based on how much revenue the employer believes an individuals skills will generate.

Athletes get paid millions because they generate billions in revenue.

CEO’s get paid large salaries because they are expected to generate large revenues and profits.

Tradesmen (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc.) get paid based on the skill level, experience and the need for their services or goods (i.e. the revenue they generate).

Very few companies in the country would survive by purposely overpaying a employee(s) or by purposely not hiring someone do to a particular prejudice. The goal of virtually every business is to produce products/services and to sell for the greatest profit.

Sure there will be biases. Sure there will be golden parachutes. Sure there will be corruption. But I do not believe this is the prevailing wind. I have worked for too many quality companies and individuals as an employee and contractor to think otherwise.

And to be perfectly honest, I don’t care what CEOs get paid in Canada, Britain or Germany. I live in the U.S. and would move over there if I thought it were better.

By taboga

July 28, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

Jackie,

First - It is not I that is out here complaining about what someone else is not paying their employees.

As to how people start their businesses — there are many ways. Whether it is from money that they have saved, loans from financial lenders, partnerships, or whatever…

People do not go into business because of government incentives. The incentives are built-in to the idea of business: Making money!

I suspect that you couldn’t care less what all is involved in business. I do suspect though, that you are just another of many, whose envy and jealousy of the wealthy - is really what is at the heart of your complaints.

Stop complaining about what others are not doing and do it yourself!

By taboga

July 28, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

“According to the Towers Perrin worldwide pay report, U.S. CEOs are paid more than twice as much as Canadian CEOs, nearly three times as much as British CEOs, and four times as much as German CEOs.�

Someone who doesn’t live in the paradigm of: U.S. Corporations are evil - might look at that statement and wonder what is wrong with the Canadies, British and Germans!

By Roxane

July 28, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Does Shaunti have opinions of her own, or only repeat the same tired, stale talking points we get from the Republican Party every day on the Rove/Plame issue? Wilson never said Cheney sent him to Niger, he said the CIA told him Cheney’s office had questions on the issue and asked him to use his considerable expertise and diplomatic contacts in the country to get answers. He was not sent by his wife, Valerie Plame, although there is evidence she suggested to her superiors he be sent based on his experience and expertise. If Valerie Plame was just a “desk jockey” as the Republicans are claiming, then how would she have the authority or power to authorize such a trip? Give me a break, Rove is a nasty little man who needs to be punished for what he did. It’s time this administration starts answering for their mistakes and outright lies.

By Tim

July 28, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

actually taboga… there are already three successful businesses within my family… do you need a job? I am sure I could put in a good word for you

By taboga

July 28, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

EVERYONE needs to move past that mentality and discuss the issues, rather than launching personal attacks. I truly believe that deep down, nearly all of the politicians have the best of intentions, as I do for most people in general.

There is no point in “discussing” the issues - the issues have been discussed to death!

And it is totally irrelevant what someone’s “intentions” are. It is what is being done - that matters!

By Jack

July 28, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

The intentions the politicians have is staying in office as long as they can while padding their wallets. 99% of CEOs are way over paid. It would benefit everyone if they were paid on performance.

By Jackie

July 28, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

Taboga,

Of course your are not complaing about pay because you do not care about your neighbors and fellow Americans; you have yours and they have theirs to get! What happens when your friend or neighbor loses their source of income?; as you know, most of us are 2 paychecks away from being homeless. You keep saying that businesses are started by obtaining financial resources. What about those of us that are not able to obtain those resources that are required to start a business. I would submit to you, that if you look at the Return On Investment (ROI) doctrine being used by Wall Street, you will understand what is being done to the American worker.

By taboga

July 28, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

The fact that you may be “2 pay checks away from being homeless” - is the problem.

“2 paychecks away” is proof-positive of financial mismanagement. And further concludes, that no matter how much you were paid - you would be in the same predicament.

And if you were homeless as a result, that would be a testament to your character. If no parent, brother, sister, other relative or friends and neighbors would be willing to help you stay off the street - what would that say about you…?

By TT

July 28, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

It’s no use, Jackie. It’s obvious from Tabooger’s post that he’s not capable of being a CEO. He’s never even alluded to his education or employment status on this blog because he knows it won’t hold water compared to the jobs and degrees held by the liberal-thinking capitalists he ignorantly refers to as communists. He’s like your typical, stupid schoolyard bully with an inferiority complex. But despite Taboga’s dependency on his EBT card, he’s just one of the minions of working-class Americans that the GOP has convinced to vote against his own economic best interest. He’s a talking points reciter, a “let’s tell other what to do with their lives” Republican lemming that actually buys into the “culture of life” and “mainstream American” rhetoric that gets right-wingers foaming at the mouth. He’s a Bushbot (imagine, T-bag, using a buzzword in its correct interpretation). So, do what the rest of us do. Don’t try to debate him on the issues; he can’t grasp them. Just get your rocks off poking fun at his misconceptions, conspiracy theories, and delusions of American grandeur.

By Archie

July 28, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

The most amazing psychology is how you can get people to think they are superior yet hamper themselves to maintain some sense of superiority. I say that because people always talk of moving somewhere else when someone makes a legitimate complaint about things here in USA. People may say we’re losing ground to the Chinese technologically and programs are put in place to make up that ground. Politicians cite worldwide reports to support their positions but you mention something like Ceo pay and or national defense and it’s back to the arrogance of “we don’t care what they do”,rather than examine legitimate data objectively. “U.S. CEOs’ pay rose 313 percent from 1990 to 2003, UFE said. By contrast, the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index rose 242 percent and corporate profits gained 128 percent.

During the same period, average worker pay rose 49 percent while inflation climbed 41 percent”

The reason that paragraph means something is because there are many individuals paying thousands for their children to attend college and if average worker pay were greater then you might not have people looking to play the lottery or working two jobs, or going into debt to do that. Complaints are not about hating a country, it’s about change so that people can truly be fit to survive.

Back to the previous forum topic I saw John Dean practically accuse Bush of a crime,lying to Congress, so the people here haven’t been saying anything that’s not on the minds of a lot of people.

By Jack

July 28, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

With you attitude Taboda, if hard times were to fall on you,you would probably end up on a park bench.

By Eaton

July 28, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

There’s no point in arguing with taboga - he/she/it is a heartless, nasty, mean-spirited, bitter SOB who can do nothing but attack other people’s points of view. He/she/it has offered nothing constructive since he/she/it slithered onto this blog. Obviously, he/she/it cares absolutely nothing about anyone or anything other than itself.

Ignore it, and maybe it will crawl back into the hole it crawled out of.

By Kyle

July 28, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Back to the issue at hand, hasn’t Fitzgerald assured Rove that he is not the focus of the investigation? I was just checking out a few articles, and there are several references to Fitzgerald making these assurances to Rove and/or his attorney. If this is true, the simple fact that the investigation is still ongoing does seem to imply that there was wrongdoing by someone - but not necessarily by Rove.

-I also came across several reports that many of the claims made BY Wilson in his article were later found to be untrue. To be honest, I have never read the ny times article written by Wilson. Does anyone have a link that I can go to read this entire article , not just quotes? I tried the ny times web site, but apparently I have to be a member to read articles in the archive - and I’m not a member.

By Roxane

July 28, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Here is a link to the original Joe Wilson editorial:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

By taboga

July 28, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

actually taboga… there are already three successful businesses within my family… do you need a job? I am sure I could put in a good word for you

Tim,

If I had to depend on a nit-wit like you for my livelihood…

By Lee

July 28, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

taboga says “There is no point in discussing the issues”

So, umm… what are you doing here then? If you feel it is pointless to discuss the issues, then don’t bother us here as we discuss the issues.

Issues: Rove was directly involved in exposing an agent. That calls for a suspension at the very least until the investigation is over.

“Anyone involved in the leak will be fired!” is now “Anyone found guilty in court will be fired!” So, how can we believe the administration on anything now? “We will withdraw our troops when Iraq asks us to!” will become “We will withdraw our troops when we tell Iraq that they don’t need us!”
Other items where the administration has “changed its tune?”

try:

“We are attacking Iraq because they present a credible threat with WMD! They attacked us on 9/11!” is now “okay, we didn’t really say they attacked us on 9/11! Regime change has always been our policy on Iraq!”

or

“The Patriot Act should only be used on people suspected of terrorist activities” has become “The Patriot Act opens up law enforcement tools to catch anyone doing any crime.”

By taboga

July 28, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

Eaton,

You’re like a cat chasing its tail!

How many times are you going to tell people to ignore me - then you turn around and reply to me?

I’ve gotten you so dazed and confused; not to mention frustrated, that you don’t know whether to pee in your pants - or have someone else do it for you!

And I know what you’re really thinking: “…I should never have accused him of being a religious nut when he’s not religious at all. Or called him a Gay-Hater when he didn’t say a damn thing about Gays. If I could have just kept my childish and wise-a$$ Liberal mouth shut…”

By Ken

July 28, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

TT… What is a “liberal-thinking capitalist”? And why do you assume that Taboga has no education, simply b/c he doesn’t make it known?

You do not need any formal education to succeed in running your own business and to think otherwise shows a great deal of arrogance.

Archie… The reason I made that comment about other the other countries is that I do not believe we should compare our society to others. Does that mean we do not have issues? Of course we have issues, but we need to determine our own solutions.

One more thing… Forgive me for being a bit naive but it appears that salaries rase greater than inflation and although CEO salaries increased a great deal, profits and the markets also rose a great deal. Doesn’t look so bad to me. And before you hammer or congratulate any administration for those results, just remember that both parties controlled our government, each for half of that timeframe.

By Eaton

July 28, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

Lol tobago, touche. The problem is, I just can’t resist pointing out your obvious flaws to the world. It’s so obvious that you are a pathetic, uneducated, ignorant little man who has such low self-image that he needs to prove his superiority by attacking others non-stop. You don’t have me frustrated, loser, you have me irritated and disgusted. You so obviously hate EVERYTHING and EVERYONE that I don’t know why we’ve bothered pointing out your individual hatreds.

Oh, and you are so collosally STUPID that you seem to think that your rant about “them” taking away religion and “attacking Christmas”, not to mention your “I thought marriage was invented about 6000 years ago by God” line DOESN’T IMPLY that you are a religious fanatic.

How about you follow your own advice and shut your childish, ignorant, uneducated, ultra-conservative, neo-facist mouth and leave the complex discussions to those better able to handle them?

By Tim

July 28, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

awwww… taboga thinks I am a nitwit… pretty amusing coming from a p** ant… you talk about people being confused… you don’t whether to scratch your watch or wind your butt (Steele Magnolias)

By Lee

July 28, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

CEO pay went way up, profit went way up, worker compensation went… steadily up.

I think the point that is being missed is that the ones who are generating the revenue are not the ones receiving the bulk of the revenue, unless bonuses are paid to everyone based on the profits.

But, most companies just don’t congratulate the workers with huge bonuses during profitable years, they usually just congratulate the executives only. I encourage business owners and CEO’s to congratulate ALL workers with bonuses during those profitable times. (everyone getting an equal share, from stockroom clerk to CEO)

By Eaton

July 28, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

The purpose of a corporation is to increase SHAREHOLDER wealth. And, while CEOs are often partial shareholders, they are generally not the majority shareholders. The concerns about CEO pay, over and above the differences in worker salaries, etc. is that those enormous salaries take money away from the shareholders. The Ebbers case, etc. were more about violations of fiduciary responsibility that anything else.

There ARE good CEOs out there, a lot of them. When my company was going through a rough patch a while back, the CEO/President (husband/wife team) not only dipped into their personal bank account to give everyone a holiday bonus, but they voluntarily suspended their own salaries for a year.

By Mara

July 28, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

Hey Ken. You wanted to know what a “liberal-thinking capitalist” is? How about Jim Sinegal, the founder and CEO of Costco, which is sometimes known as “the Anti-Walmart”. Here’s a link(http://www.drudge.com/news/71129/costco-antiwalmart)if you’d like to see how a successful business model can be filtered through liberal thinking.

And Kyle: How could Fitzgerald be considered an impartial investigator if he warns Rove that he’s the focus? Of course he’s not gonna tell a possible suspect that they’ve got most of the evidence they need to indict. It’s only give the suspect a chance to, uh, “wash the blood off his hands”…so to speak.

By Kyle

July 28, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

thanks for the link Roxane

By Jack

July 28, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

How bout the compensation package the ex-ceo of Delta got. Talk about a pot of gold. I’m sure he was well worth it.

By taboga

July 28, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Eaton,

There you go again! You want others to stop replying, but yet you - never fail to!

And it was “6,000 years ago” - period. No mention of “God”. You didn’t think I would notice, did you? Spotting Liberal lies is second-nature to me!

I am also very adept at spotting fakes - and you stick-out like the sore thumb! Prancing around out here throwing your “education” in everyone’s face as proof as your self-proclaimed expertise on everything. Or your Daddy’s education - I can’t remember which…

Truth is, your nothing more than an unemployed little arrogant twit - still living at home with Mommy and Daddy. Little dips like you are a dime-a-dozen on message boards - the only place where you can pretend to be someone and impress - as you have nowhere else.

Now amuse me some more with your childishness.

By E. Lewis

July 28, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

After the Paula Jones fiasco, the Whitewater/Travelgate “investigations”, you want to know if the possibility that the President’s, and now Vice President’s, closest political advisers outed a CIA agent and her cover company, thereby destroying what it took the CIA 2 decades to build up, is being overblown?

By Eaton

July 28, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Oh taboga, you are so right, and I told you why I keep replying to you, moron,…I’m an unemployed little twit living at home with mommy and daddie. So right! I’m not educated at all, I’m a big fake! You are SO good at spotting fakes. Well, I’m good at spotting them too, tweeter, and you’re a big one.

Tell me, tobaga, what qualifies you to criticize every single opinion on this board? What qualifies you to attack every single person who isn’t you? It certainly isn’t your grasp of issues, since you STILL can’t succesfully distinguish between Communism and anything that you define as liberal.

Let me describe YOU for you, hmm? You listen to right-wing talk radio and have never actually read a book in your life. You have a high school education and are angry that others are smarter and better educated than you. You are completely unable to frame an argument that doesn’t involve simple negation.

I may be arrogant, but you are a spiteful, mean, vicious, pathetic little weasel who deserves absolutely no happiness out of life. Of course, you probably HAVE no happiness, which is why you’re so critical of everyone else.

Keep it up, scumbag. Insulting pathetic human waste like you keeps me entertained. At work.

By Jack

July 28, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

It is quite amusing the assumptions posters on this blog make about other posters. Watch out Eaton, he has his sword out….signed the uneducated bigot troll under the bridge.

By sue

July 28, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Name calling and the placing of people into categories will not resolve the major issues in our country. Liberal? Yes. Liberal is not an a bad word. Liberal. I am liberal in my views of the rights of the individual that do not oppress the rights of others. Examples: Sex between consenting adults, good. Sex between an adult and a child, who by definition is not able to give an inform consent to sex, not good.

Karl Rove desiring to serve his country, good. Karl Rove desiring to serve his political party at the expense of his country, not good.

If this story is not buried I am sure the truth will come out unspun. We have too much occuring at this moment in time for us to allow a continuation of the untruths that have proiferated our media. It is time that we as citizens of the U.S. behave as so. We must take a stance against the unlawfullness that is begining to strip us of our freedoms.

Some say it is necessary to give up individual rights in order to be free of terror. I say trust fully in the God you say you serve in order to live terror free. Freedom is a state of mind.

I have yet to make a preemptive strike on my gun buying, Conferderate flag waving, and “n**** this and n**** that” neighbor. I trust God will prevail in on things.

By Eaton

July 28, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

Jack, by comparison to Tobemort, you’re positively enlightened.

By Archie

July 28, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Thanks Ken. I was trying to make the point that Americans don’t want to compare ourselves to other countries because of arrogance and a psychological thing that has people thinking against their own economic interests. Funny thing is we do compare ourselves to other countries when it is in our favor. C’mon people corporate profits went up 128 percent and inflation 41 percent but average worker pay went up 49 percent. The average guy’s pay went up just enough to cover the increase in health insurance premiums. It speaks to the mentality of some. 313 percent increases are obscene and that needs to examined. The upper 2 percent can make you believe you need to stay where you’re at economically but they really earned 313 percent pay increase. Man that’s pure snake oil. The reason you have 45 million people without health insurance is because they’re not earning enough to pay for it and as someone said would it not benefit society as a whole if people had good healthcare, as far disease,etc. This isn’t about being jealous or just complaining it’s about society as a whole and why we allow someone to tell you’re not worth as much they are to the point that it’s obscene.

By Tony

July 28, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Six humans trapped by happenstance In black and bitter cold. Each one possessed a stick of wood, Or so the story’s told.

Their dying fire in need of logs, The first woman held hers back For on the faces around the fire, She noticed one was black.

The next man looking cross the way Saw one not of his church, And couldn’t bring himself to give The fire his stick of birch.

The third man sat in tattered clothes; He gave his coat a hitch. Why should his log be put to use To warm the idle rich?

The rich man just sat back and thought Of the wealth he had in store. And how to keep what he had earned From the lazy poor.

The black man’s face bespoke revenge As the fire passed from his sight, For all he saw in his stick of wood Was a chance to spite the white.

And the last man of this forlorn group Did naught except for gain. Giving only to those who gave Was how he played the game.

The logs held tight in death’s still hands Was proof of human sin. They didn’t die from the cold without, They died from the cold within.

Author Unknown

By Ken

July 28, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Mara… Excellent example. I have only ever been to Costco once, and it was a bad experience. However, it is good to see that Mr. Sinegal is running his business in such a fashion. But, in my mind, he is simply being a good-old fashioned capitalist… Better pay equals more productivity. More productivity = more profits. It is very obvious from his quote that he does it for business reasons, not altruistic ones.

I would still like to know how that is “liberal-thinking”?

By lozen

July 28, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Ken, just out of curiosity, why do you believe we should not compare our society to others? Don’t you think we can learn from others?

By Eaton

July 28, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Try this one Ken.

http://www.hersheypa.com/townofhershey/history/

There are many altruistic entreprenurial capitalists out there and many companies that put their employee’s needs on an equal footing with the customer and the profit motive.

Maybe you’re cynical enough to think that it’s all about increased productivity, and no doubt that is part of it. I like to think there’s more to it than that, however.

By Kyle

July 28, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Ok, I’m sure that I am probably the last person on here to actually read Wilson’s article, but I finally did, and I agree with those on the left. Wilson never DIRECTLY said that the VP’s office sent him on his trip to Niger. However, what he did do throughout his article was IMPLY that he was on his trip to answer a question posed by the VP’s office - thus indirectly working for the VP’s office. Did the VP’s office ever pose such a question (honestly, I don’t know)? I have heard many from the left shoot down the republicans “talking points” by saying that Wilson never claimed he was sent by the VP. Technically, that’s true - but he said everything he could short of making such a claim and certianly implied that he was there as a result of the VP’s office. Here are the parts of the article that I am referring too.

“The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.”

“Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador’s report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally).”

“Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president’s office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer.”

-To be clear, even if Wilson did wrongly say that the VP office sent him to Niger (which he basically did), I don’t think this justifies outing an undercover CIA agent for political revenge - but they are currently investigating the latter and none of us know for sure who, if any, are guilty of such a crime.

By Les

July 28, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Tony, very profound “poem.” I’ve already passed it along to some friends.

By Jack

July 28, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Yes. A very good poem Tony. Everyone should read it.

By Kyle

July 28, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Mara, as a person still in school, I love Costco. Buy in bulk, at really low prices - sign me up. But you also made a reference to Costco being the “anti-Wal-Mart”, and seemingly proudly boasted that Costco was produced by liberal thinking. But how is Wal-Mart and Costco really that different? They both buy and sell large amounts of products, which enables them to sell at very low prices - prices that smaller companies can’t compete with. I’m not sure, but I would guess that Wal-Mart is an example of corporate America big business that many on the left complain about. But I just don’t see that big of a difference between the two. Wal-Mart has just been around longer. Do you really think that Costco doesn’t desire to have the percentage of the market that Wal-Mart now enjoys?

By Eaton

July 28, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

For once, Tony, good show.

By lozen

July 28, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

And you might want to check out The Body Shop at this address for a different way of looking at business.

www.thebodyshopinternational.com/web/tbsgl

By Jack

July 28, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Yeah. Walmart goes into a small town forcing all of the Mom & Pop stores out of business. Then, if they don’t make enough from the small town, they close up leaving a big empty box and big void for the town to fill. Home Depot does this too. That is why I don’t mind paying a few more cents for my goods at Mom & Pop’s. I get better quality and service.

By taboga

July 28, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Yeah. Walmart goes into a small town forcing all of the Mom & Pop stores out of business. Then, if they don’t make enough from the small town, they close up leaving a big empty box and big void for the town to fill. Home Depot does this too. That is why I don’t mind paying a few more cents for my goods at Mom & Pop’s. I get better quality and service.

You know how to fix that problem?

You get the local communities to rescind the laws that require all citizens to shop at Wal-Mart.

Simple as that!

By peter hudson

July 28, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

you so deftly mention that we’re “a nation at war”. would that be the case if bush had listened to wilsons (regardless of who sent him) warning that there was no niger connection. isnt it your job to make those elementary connections?

By Les

July 28, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

But doesn’t Wal-Mart hire more people than the mom & pop shop?? With more people working that’s more people spending money and the community earns more tax dollars. So, isn’t Wal-Mart good for a community? Doesn’t K-Mart do the same thing?

By Jackie

July 28, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

The largest employer in the state of Pennsylvania is Wal-Mart and the average salary of those workers is less than $9 per hour. How does one go from a job in a manufacturing environment making $20-25 per hour to less than $9? The fastest growing homeless population is working families, with the largest homeless population being military veterans! One further bit of information about the Bush economic policy. Unemployment is reported to be going down; if you look at the “real” numbers this is impossible. Just to look at the number of colleges graduates in this country each year - 2 million - it requires that the economy product more than 150,000 jobs each month to maintain current employment levels.

By Eaton

July 28, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Wal-mart does bring in tax dollars and jobs, but it also helps to quash entreprenuership, especially in smaller communities. So you have to ask yourself which you would prefer - Wal-mart stores return the bulk of their profits to the company, while the bulk of revenues generated by “mom and pops” remain within the community. Wal-mart creates a lot of unskilled labor positions while M-&-P hardware stores, auto places, etc. produces skilled labor and create multi-generational businesses.

It’s a trade-off, and as a reluctant wal-mart shopper I admire Jack’s shopping at those places. As with so much of our consumer behavior, we have to decide for ourselves whether it’s a moral choice or not.

By Jackie

July 28, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

As part of the deal to attract Wal-Mart stores to move to rural GA communities, Wal-Mart was given an incentive where the state would subsidize a portion of the minimum salary Wal-Mart pays to some of their workers. Wal-Mart says that 30 hours per week is fulltime and is therefore not required to offer “benefits”, but, it will offer to help those new employees to complete the necessary paperwork to receive Peachcare or Medicaid.

By taboga

July 28, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Wal-mart does bring in tax dollars and jobs, but it also helps to quash entreprenuership, especially in smaller communities

Wrong again Skippy! The Wal-Mart’s and Home Depot’s of the world increase entreprenuership greatly.

Pay close attention and let me try and explain this to you.

Mom and Pop have limited capital as well as limited space - restricting the availability of a wide variety of products. Because of that, they will traditionally carry only the best selling items - which are normally produced by the large manufacturers. Examples: Proctor & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, etc. (you can fill in the rest - possibly).

Because of that, it is extremely difficult for start-up businesses to market their products - not impossible - but difficult.

Now take Wal-Mart. Because they deal in large volume with a large amount of capital - they can better afford to promote new products. If the product’s test run shows promise in a few test areas, they’ll market it in many, if not all of their stores. If the product is not a seller, Wal-Mart can absorb the loss whereas Mom & Pop are not in that position - in most cases.

Smaller companies now have a better ability to compete with the larger industries, IF their products are worthy.

By Lee

July 28, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Kyle, I also read Wilson’s article. I agree that he never directly says that the VP’s office asked him to go. At each step, he says that the CIA requested him to go to clarify questions in the VP’s office. He never communicated with the VP’s office. Now, if the VP’s office didn’t request this, and the CIA (via Wilson’s wife)did request it, wouldn’t it be prudent for the VP’s office, Karl Rove, -or whoever else in the administration leaked his wifes name - to say “we did not request this information, the CIA acted on its own in this regard.”

Now saying that Wilson’s wife was involved, that is directly blowing “the cover story” as Wilson understood it. Of course, the tone of the article was a bit anti-Bush, because Bush still used the Uranium sale myth as a means to support the war.

Now, I don’t know why the VP’s office would want to “clarify the source of the uranium sale.” Why not the Presidents office?? Of course, neither office listened to the results of the research, except to say that yes, it was researched in depth.

… kind of like the lack of reading comprehension by some on this blog… we say “The issue was researched deeply, and it was found to have no merit. It was a fraud.” They hear “The issue was researched deeply” and conclude there must be a great amount of evidence.

By Eaton

July 28, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

taboga, SKIPPY, let ME explain it to YOU, and please pay special attention to my “particularly in small communities” qualification.

As even a pig-ignorant hillbilly like yourself must know, in a small community there is more limited consumption than in large communities. Wal-Mart, as the largest retailer in the world, exerts significant influence over its suppliers. WM commands low prices from its suppliers in return for its high-volume orders, prices that, even with high volume, create tiny margins for the producer. Those producers would tend to increase margins for non-Wal-Mart orders in the hopes of meeting their profit expectations.

Now - are you still with me, farmer? - when Wal-Mart moves into a small community it undercuts the prices of all the Mom-and-pop type stores. Naturally, given the low prices, the residents of the community start shopping at Wal-mart. Unable to compete, the M-a-P stores fold.

I can spell this out in See-Dick-Run fashion if you need me to, troglydyte. By the way, your entire conclusion was flawed - if Wal-Mart is better able to test new products and absorb the loss, that makes it harder, not easier for small companies to compete. Moron.

By Jack

July 28, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Taboga my man, you are a lost cause. I feel sorry for the others in your household. (if there are any)

By TT

July 28, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

The answer is for Mom and Pop to serve a niche market, selling items that Walmart can’t quite get their hands on. In the city, there’s been a backlash against big box retailers, and communities are fighting to keep Mom and Pop stores, which are run by their neighbors and which excel at customer service. It’s only in the suburbs that people want that one size fits all, buying Bubba Burgers experience. If Mom and Pop stores offer unique goods and basic necessities at a reasonable price, people will shop there instead of Walmart, where they must get in their cars and fight hordes of SUVs to buy groceries. Think about how expensive Whole Foods is. But people in town choose it over Kroger because of the shopping experience, the superior quality, and its excellent customer service. Think about what you really need to survive. If everyone in America stopped trying to one up the Jones, then we’d have a lot less need for Home Depot and Lowe’s in every suburb. If Americans valued quality over quantity and uniqueness over the mundane then perhaps we would not have to export our textiles from China and our cars from Japan. By the way, I can’t believe CAFTA was passed because Bush played the “national security” card. He actually told legislators, “You don’t just represent your districts, you represent the nation as a whole.” Really?? Because I can’t recall being able to vote for representatives in other states in recent years. It amazes me how the GOP continues to sell out American workers at the expense of businesses who thrive on cheap, illegal immigrant labor. And these same workers vote for the Republicans because they do a little “hellfire and damnation” number, hype up gay marriage, say the liberals want to take away their Bibles, and personify a clump of cells. With opinion polls showing that the American public is worried about the economy, you would think they would vote accordingly. Sometimes I think there must be something in the water and I’m glad I have a Brita filter.

By taboga

July 28, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Lee,

I see an elephant standing in the middle of the room.

If the Administration planned to trump-up a charge of uranium sales - why would they have requested that someone go and investigate the issue?

If they had wanted to make the case for the possible uranium sale, they would have simply taken the British Intel as gospel and that would have been the end of it. Why would they have suggested someone be sent to investigate the claim, knowing all along that they were going to play that card regardless?

By Mara

July 28, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Ken - this is only my opinion on what “liberal thinking” is, not necessarily “liberal capitalist” though…Liberals tend to believe that we are all in this together. That all people are created equal, but not necessarily all peoples’ circumstances will allow them to reach their potentional and it becomes incumbant on society to help them succeed. That the state has no right to dictate how I persue happiness as long as I do no harm to another. In the context of “Liberal thinking Capitalist” I would say that the business model would be have to be socially aware, environmentally friendly, and egalitarian. That’s only my interpretation though.

Alright, Kyle. You asked how Wal-Mart and Costco differed as businesses and since started it, guess I should put in the primer: It’s only cut&paste though, so Google Wal-Mart or Costco if you want more… COSTCO: CostCo’s Chief Financial Officer Richard Galanti explained: “From day one, we’ve run the company with the philosophy that if we pay better than average, provide a salary people can live on, have a positive environment and good benefits, we’ll be able to hire better people, they’ll stay longer and be more efficient.â€? By compensating its workers well, Costco also enjoys rates of turnover far below industry norms. Costco’s rate of turnover is one-third the industry average of 65% as estimated by the National Retail Foundation. Wal-Mart reports a turnover rate of about 50%. With such rates of employee retention, Costco’s savings are significant. “It costs $2,500 to $3,000 per worker to recruit, interview, test and train a new hire, even in retail,â€? said Eileen Appelbaum, Professor at Rutgers University’s School of Management and Labor Relations. “With Wal-Mart’s turnover rate that comes to an extra $1.5 to $2 million in costs each year.â€? Costco’s average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its fiercest rival, Sam’s Club. Besides paying considerably more than competitors, for example, Costco contributes generously to its workers’ 401(k) plans, starting with 3 percent of salary the second year and rising to 9 percent after 25 years. ITS insurance plans absorb most dental expenses, and part-time workers are eligible for health insurance after just six months on the job, compared with two years at Wal-Mart. Eighty-five percent of Costco’s workers have health insurance, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart and Target. Costco also has not shut out unions, as some of its rivals have. The Teamsters union, for example, represents 14,000 of Costco’s 113,000 employees. “They gave us the best agreement of any retailer in the country,” said Rome Aloise, the union’s chief negotiator with Costco. The contract guarantees employees at least 25 hours of work a week, he said, and requires that at least half of a store’s workers be full time. As owner of Costco, Mr. Sinegal’s salary is just $350,000, although he also received a $200,000 bonus last year. That puts him at less than 10 percent of many other chief executives, though Costco ranks 29th in revenue among all American companies “I just think that if you’re going to try to run an organization that’s very cost-conscious, then you can’t have those disparities. Having an individual who is making 100 or 200 or 300 times more than the average person working on the floor is wrong.” WAL-MART: In 2003, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861.The 2003 poverty line for a family of three was $15,260. [“Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?â€?, Business Week, 10/6/03] A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This brings in annual wages of only $11,948. [“Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart’s Workforceâ€?, Dr. Richard Drogin 2003] The estimated total amount of federal assistance for which Wal-Mart employees were eligible in 2004 was $2.5 billion. [“Harper’s Index,â€? Harper’s Magazine, Vol. 310, No. 1858, 3/2005] One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year. This cost comes from the following, on average: $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families. $42,000 a year for low-income housing assistance. $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families. $100,000 a year for the additional expenses for programs for students. $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children’s health insurance programs (S-CHIP) $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance. Wal-Mart, which in the late 1980s and early 1990s trumpeted its claim to “Buy American,” has doubled its imports from China in the past five years alone, buying some $12 billion in merchandise in 2002. That’s nearly 10% of all Chinese exports to the United States. Carolina Mills, a 75-year-old North Carolina company that supplies thread, yarn, and textile finishing to apparel makers—half of which supply Wal-Mart. Carolina Mills grew steadily until 2000. But in the past few years, as its customers have gone either overseas or out of business, it has shrunk from 17 factories to 7, and from 2,600 employees to 1,200. Carolina Mills customers have begun to face imported clothing sold so cheaply to Wal-Mart that they could not compete even if they paid their workers nothing. “People ask, ‘How can it be bad for things to come into the U.S. cheaply? How can it be bad to have a bargain at Wal-Mart?’ Sure, it’s held inflation down, and it’s great to have bargains,” says Steve Dobbins, President and CEO of Carolina Mills. “But you can’t buy anything if you’re not employed. We are shopping ourselves out of jobs.”

By Jackie

July 28, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

Taboga,

Let me explain something to you SKIPPY! You don’t know your hip from a hole in the ground. Please take a course in economic, marketing, accounting and marketing and you will begin to understand that your logic is so backward, you make George Bush look intelligent. All the examples you gave of major corporations today were once small businesses themselves, or did you not know that, dipstick? But, as was my mother would say to me, “how does one rationalize with an idiot?”

By Eaton

July 28, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Just for kicks, here’s a paper by a Professor of Economics at Penn State on the effects of Wal-Mart on entrepreneurs.

http://cecd.aers.psu.edu/pubs/PovertyResearchWM.pdf

By Archie

July 28, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Thanks Jack and Eaton. I was going to respectfully respond to Taboga but you guys beat me to it. There have been articles about the impact of Wal-mart just as Eaton describes it.

By Kyle

July 28, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

on a sidenote, the Braves just finished up a sweep of the Nats - Francouer had two bombs

By Archie

July 28, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

I didn’t read the article on Wal-mart verbatim but it was interesting reading thanks Eaton. I shop there as well because of the low prices and I do try to be buyer-conscious like Jack is,but I am not always as conscious of Mom-and-Pop as I should.

By Just Opinions

July 28, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

two things, a view I had prior to 9/11. 1. Bush will go down in history as the worse President in the past 100 years.(for the future of America).. 2. Wal-Mart will go down in history as one of the worse things that happened to the USA in the past 50 years.

most public blogs it seems have a ‘defender of the blog’ where most are jumped on. here it is the great intellectual, Taboga.(SNORT)

By Lee

July 28, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

taboga asks the relavent question: If the Administration planned to trump-up a charge of uranium sales - why would they have requested that someone go and investigate the issue? Answer: If it turns out to be true, it’s the “smoking gun.” They can research how the sale was made, who it was made to, and find the uranium in Iraq. Thus “WMD!”

taboga follows up: If they had wanted to make the case for the possible uranium sale, they would have simply taken the British Intel as gospel and that would have been the end of it. Why would they have suggested someone be sent to investigate the claim, knowing all along that they were going to play that card regardless? Answer: So you admit that they were going to going to use the information, whether it was true or not?
America needs to confirm the intel in any way that it can. It can’t depend on other country’s intel completely, or else you end up with (at best) incomplete information, or (at worst) falsified data that aims to deter you from the real information.

When our CIA analysts reviewed data, came up with conclusions, and advised the administration, the administration didn’t want to hear it. The selectively chose intel that they would use. Don’t you remember hearing the push after 9/11? Bush said “get me anything that would relate this to Iraq.” He didn’t say “Get me the truth.” and unfortunately, we are where we are today because of it.

By taboga

July 28, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

Let me give you some advice. The next time you have a chance, walk through a door and look up. If you see a sky (the blue thing you’ve probably seen in a book) - look directly below it.

Below that sky - exists the real world. And in this real world, Wal-Mart has existed for several decades now.

Now, in this real world, entreprenuership is at an all-time high. In this real world, privately-owned business is at an all-time high. In this real world, privately-owned businesses are popping-up faster than ever before, in large part due to the affordability of products and materials needed FOR businesses that are bought a at places like Wal-Mart and Home Depot.

In this real world, we have people starting-up businesses out of their own home everyday. We even have illegal immigrants coming to this country and many of them are starting businesses.

Anyone who could look out here and claim that Wal-Mart is “quashing entrepreneurship” is a blithering idiot!

Or a Liberal - same difference.

By Eaton

July 28, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Oh toboggan, the blue sky is actually blue and sometimes red and sometimes purple, and streaked occasionally with grey and white and black and other colors. It’s complex - something you are unable to comprehend. You’re such a simple man who needs such simple answers.

Big corporations all good. President Bush all good. Liberals all bad. Conservatives all good. Grunt. Snarl. Scratch.

Well, tadummy, the real world doesn’t work that way, and no matter how much you try to batter everyone else down with your hamfisted negations and denials, that’s not going to change.

There are countless articles, papers, etc. outlining the effects of Wal-Mart and other Big Box stores on small and medium sized communities. No matter how much you chant your Big Corporate Monarchy Mantra, those articles, written by MUCH smarter and MUCH better educated men and women than you, will remain.

Now, run along back to your cage like a good dog. Woof.

By Bruce

July 29, 2005 07:20 AM | Link to this

I too read the Wilson article and what caught my attention was the next to last paragraph. Apparently Iraq didn’t buy it’s uranium from Niger but it did get it from somewhere.

By taboga

July 29, 2005 07:40 AM | Link to this

There are countless articles, papers, etc. outlining the effects of Wal-Mart and other Big Box stores on small and medium sized communities.

I Tell the nit-wit to open his eyes and take a look around at the real world - and he comes back talking about what is written in “articles” and “papers”!

Eaton reads a paper written from one of his fellow tribe members - telling him that it’s sunny outside.

He’s now standing in the pouring rain telling everyone that it IS sunny outside - throwing the paper in their faces as proof!

This comedy is priceless!

By Ken

July 29, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

Eaton… Thanks for the entertainment. You do just enough to keep Taboga agitated.

Mara… Thank you for your definition. I would very much like to see all businesses work in such a fashion. I, however, do not believe the government should force any business to do so.

I do not believe I or myself am entitled to anything other than the ability to choose a vocation. I also do not believe the government should impose restrictions unless they protect the safety of the populous or the workers (i.e. health from pollutants, occupational safety, etc.).

I absolutely believe in the free market. Which includes your choice to not patronize a particular store if you do not approve of their business dealings.

By Jack

July 29, 2005 08:33 AM | Link to this

I’ll bet when school starts, we won’t be seeing any posts from Taboga until after 3:00pm.

By taboga

July 29, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

I’ll bet when school starts, we won’t be seeing any posts from Taboga until after 3:00pm

Taboga doesn’t care for “school” - or are you unable to read, JACK!

By Jim Mercier

July 29, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Re: Carl Rove.

Keep up the good work.

Don’t let the truth interfere with the facts.

Jim

By Tim

July 29, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

lol @ Jack

By Eaton

July 29, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

Oh Taboga, what’s really entertaining is your willful ignorance, claims of intellectual superiority, and apparent complete lack of education.

Just out of curiosity, what would be “my tribe”? Educated people? Working Businesspeople? Just curious. Please, enlighten the rest of us as to the credentials that allow you to dispute experts in the field with such authority.

By the way, there was an interview during NPR’s morning business report with an editor of the Wall Street Journal (please don’t show even MORE ignorance by suggesting that the WSJ is Liberal, OK toby?) about the fact that Capital investment and expansion is at a 50 year low. Hmm, about those tax breaks…

By TT

July 29, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

No, Taboga, you don’t care for school and you don’t particularly like facing the facts about the Iraq war either. How much Fox News are you spoon fed that you cannot see that this administration is spending its way into an economic crisis? You couldn’t even build enough Wal-Marts to cover our irresponsible LIBERAL spending habits. We’re up to our necks in debt with Asian nations, we tried selling arms to the real Communists (China, not Western liberals), and we’re mired in two different hellish conflicts. We’re worried about National Security, but not enough to secure our borders or prevent the closing of important military bases that are vital to local economies (such as our own Fort Benning). And we’re trimming the fat off the budget by slashing healthcare to the veterans who have fought for their country. Imagine, putting your life on the line for a profiteering war and then coming home and having the GOP Congress and our cowardly President spit in your face. There’s still no sign of Bin Laden and the Iraqis are going to exercise their new freedom to build an Islamic theocratic state much in the vein of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan under the Taliban. It’s like we’re the hyperactive child in the nursery, stomping all over everyone else’s blocks and political systems, carelessly leaving discarded allies in our wake, taking the world’s toys for our own, and bossing other nations around. We’ve basically taken the wreck that was the Middle East and made it even messier. What has this administration done right, besides give a few tax breaks to the upper 1% of the country? You accuse Eaton of needing a reality check, but you’re to stupid to turn off the rightwing radio shows and Fox Watch (which only affirm your own opinion and give you very little information) to look at what’s really happening in the world. They don’t call the television an idiot box for nothing. Why don’t you elax your grip on the remote, put down your Natural Light, spit out the chew, pick up a few newspapers (from a variety of political views, and see for yourself. Or better yet, wipe the drool off your chin and keep your ignorant mouth shut.

By Jack

July 29, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

Spoken like a true scholar Taboga.

By Jack

July 29, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

I was listening to Savage the other night. The scary thing is that the ones in control of the Iraqi govt. are the same as those in Iran. This war will facilitate the creation of a giant Islamic state who’s goal is to bring Jihad to fruition. Scary indeed.

By Chilao

July 29, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

I have to ask, this is such a comical blog-site.

The keeper of the blog, Taboga, was he also on a Ten-Commandments blog? (when it was in the Supreme Court lobby in AL, and the Chief Justice Moore was removed from office)

There was an individual on that blog who really had nothing relevant to say, but merely attacked/jumped-on any poster who had an opinion other than HIS.

the similiarities are eerie….LOL

so whatever Woman to Woman comes up with next week, one thing we CAN be assured of, regardless of actual topic, our learned scholar Taboga will be here to ATTACK everyone whose view is not HIS.

Like I said once before, kinda 5-6th grade-ish.

It is the SECURE person who can allow others to express views that are different. Yes, implied in that is it is the INsecure person who has to attack/attack/attack. Kinda like a scared dog(why they are usually barking at something)

By taboga

July 29, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

For all you Comrades hand-wringing about “Wal-Mart” - where were you when:

McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy’s were putting “Mom and Pop” hamburger joints out of business?

Sears and K-Mart were putting “Mom and Pop” out of business?

Eckerds, Walgreens and CVS were putting “Mom and Pop” drug stores out of business?

Pizza Hut, Dominos and Papa John’s were putting the local pizzerias out of business?

Jc Penney, Rich’s, Macy’s and all the rest in the “Shopping Malls” were putting the local merchants out of business?

Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Wachovia were putting many of the local community banks out of business?

B Dalton and Barnes & Nobles were putting the local bookstores out of business?

Sports Authority was putting the “Mom and Pop” sporting Goods stores out of business?

Office Depot was putting “Mom and Pop” out of business?

Home Depot and Lowes were putting “Mom and Pop” hardware stores out of business?

Georgia Mall, 400 Outlet, Northlake, Southlake, et al - were putting “Mom and Pop” out of business?

Bill Heard was putting local car dealers out of business?

Costco was putting “Mom and Pop” out of business?

Yellow Freight and all the large carriers were putting the local truckers out of business?

Best Buy and Circuit City were putting the “Mom and Pop” electronnics stores out of business?

And on and and on and on it goes…!

And the truth is - you were nowhere to be found! The reason for that is that no one TOLD you to be upset about it!

The difference now of course, is an agenda by someone against Wal-Mart. And as usual, they can rely on you “Useful Idiots” to spread their propaganda!

By Jack

July 29, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

taboga, putting you on ignore for good. Hows the foot taste?

By Kyle

July 29, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Bruce, I agree, the second to the last paragraph in Wilson’s article is somewhat contradictory to his conclusion (that Iraq had not bought uranium from Niger, therefore they have no WMDs). Obviously he was aware that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and even a nuclear research program - all of which were in violation of UN resolutions. Wilson instead chooses to focus on the fact that the alleged Niger sale to Iraq did not happen. But even if the sale didn’t happen, doesn’t the more important question pertain to what Iraq did have, what Iraq was seeking to obtain from any willing seller? By focusing on the fact that this particular sale didn’t go through, Wilson detracts the focus from the bigger issue - the actual danger that Iraq presented to many.

Also, I think it is wrong for Wilson to assume/accuse the administratinon of practicing a “selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq” simply b/c his report was not automatically taken as fact. Wilson himself puts forth another explanation - that his info could have been deemed inaccurate - but he quickly discards this notion. I may be wrong here, but didn’t a senate committee later find that several of the claims made in Wilson’s article were simply not true?

-Lee, yesterday you said, “if the VP’s office didn’t request this, and the CIA (via Wilson’s wife)did request it, wouldn’t it be prudent for the VP’s office, Karl Rove, -or whoever else in the administration leaked his wifes name - to say “we did not request this information, the CIA acted on its own in this regard.” I thought that was exactly what Rove said?

By Mara

July 29, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

Morning Ken. I agree that the government has no business dictating how a company is structure or mandating its trade practices…other than to insure that, as you say, existing laws are scrupulously adhered to. But if a community looks at how much a new Wal-Mart is going to cost them in corporate welfare, social welfare, poverty, infrastructure etc, shouldn’t they be encouraged to lobby their local councils not to provide the finacial incentives (i.e. tax breaks, taxpayer funded infrastructure improvements targeted to the company, expedited building permits, etc) that seem to welcome such a poor corporate citizen? As for your “free market”…if the well-documented Wal-Mart effect has driven it’s competitors out of buisiness, how much “free market” is left? If the only place left to buy bread in your neighborhood is Wal-Mart, aren’t you pretty much forced to shop there? When Wal-Mart becomes the largest employer in a community, but their payscale dictates that their employees can only afford the very cheapest of products, is it really still “free-market”? Perhaps it is a philisophical difference where I may value the civic and humanist aspects of Costco, while others may admire the Wal-mart model where the profit and welfare of the corporation is more important than the well being of the ones who toil in the trenches.

By Kyle

July 29, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

I was reading a few articles on the Iraq constitution process from several different papers, and I came across something pretty interesting. Many people from the left on this blog are claiming that Iraq is making a constitution based solely on Islam, and that this constitution will take away several, if not all, womens rights. The bloggers on the left use this claim to debate anyone who says we are bringing democracy to Iraq. But this claim from the left is just false. Yes, there is one DRAFT that has been done that does make Islam the basis for the constitution. But it is only a draft. There are several drafts that have been done, and only one uses Islam for the sole basis for the constitution. These drafts will be voted on in August to decide which one they will use. To say now that Iraq is going to have a permanent constitution based solely on Islam is pure speculation.

By taboga

July 29, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Oh Taboga, what’s really entertaining is your willful ignorance, claims of intellectual superiority, and apparent complete lack of education.

You still have problems reading. I have made no “claims” of intellectual superiority - it’s just evident.

Just out of curiosity, what would be “my tribe�? Educated people? Working Businesspeople? Just curious. Please, enlighten the rest of us as to the credentials that allow you to dispute experts in the field with such authority.

Your tribe? Why the “Useful Idiots” - of course. As to your “education” - it is meaningless! Some of us are born with high IQ’s - and others such as yourself have to be told how, when and what - to think. And when you are then lead down the wrong path you don’t know it because you have turned over the thinking to someone else! And it is clearly evident in you as you continually site someone else’s “articles” and someone else’s “papers” and someone else’s “conclusions”

By the way, there was an interview during NPR’s morning business report with an editor of the Wall Street Journal (please don’t show even MORE ignorance by suggesting that the WSJ is Liberal, OK toby?) about the fact that Capital investment and expansion is at a 50 year low. Hmm, about those tax breaks…

And yet again, you cite someone else’s information — one man from one newspaper on one TV show. And that’s your “proof”.

“Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see” -John Lennon.

By Jack

July 29, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

Now I’ll be singing Strawberry Fields all day. That’s ok. My favorite group.

By JonFromDTAtl

July 29, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Hey all, I met taboga this week and he ranted about this blog and his postings; so I just had to out him. (Surprise taboga!)

As I am sure you all know; he has no position on any issue - he admitted that he is not even informed (googles everything - he was quite proud of a communism post he stole that you all might have read). I hung out with him for an hour+ , and all he could do is ask for free beer and talk about how his Trans Am attract the “chicks”; and then he offered his rablings about how hard it is to reach his bottom when the custodians are not around (hence the smell?).

I figured after hearing him rant about the blog and his postings (he does really get a childish kick out of poking fun on here - and he really thinks he is doing something significant - SPOOKY!!).

He was a short squaty man with greasey skin. The thing that floored me the most though, was the incredibley rancid smell coming off his persons. I do not know if he likes animals, or just does not bathe for weeks at a time; but it is beyond funny and pretty much plain sick.

There you all go. Have fun knowing that he is quite the repulsive backwater idiot and pretty gross to boot.

Just thought you all should know who you were dealing with. It seams apparent how retarted he is, but wanted to provide you all with concrete testimony.

(Told you I would show up on here buddy!)

By Archie

July 29, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Condi Rice has said she didn’t know how issue of uranium from Niger and Iraq were included in a speech Bush gave September of 2002 since it was known that the information was false as far back as March. I saw Cia experts on the Sundance channel documentary and it was embarrassing to watch them talk about the mistakes and lies(in my opinion). The satellite photos used by Powell were possibly pictures of fire trucks. These experts which included an American inspector said they didn’t find anything. If Iraq were really trying to obtain Wmd’s they would have had a hard with the inspectors and the no-fly zones and the basic watchdog nature of the world in the 90’s directed at them. The individuals on this documentary in essence called the current administration — liars,especially John Dean.

By taboga

July 29, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

taboga, putting you on ignore for good. Hows the foot taste?

Jack,

Please don’t scare me like that!

By Eaton

July 29, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Tabooger, let me explain this to you. Educated people use source material to help draw and defend conclusions. Just making it up and claiming it as fact doesn’t make it true. We understand that thinking is more than just vomiting forth “opinions” that we claim as gospel.

I realize that you are too stupid to understand this, and I pity you for it.

And seriously - I’m sure that John Lennon is currently twitching in his grave just knowing that you had the gall to quote him.

By taboga

July 29, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Tabooger, let me explain this to you. Educated people use source material to help draw and defend conclusions.

No, rubes hide behind education and use other people’s opinions and conclusions because they don’t have any of their own.

By Bruce

July 29, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

Ken,

But there are those on this blog and around America that believe there were no WMD’s, yet they quote Wilson’s report and want to hang Rove and others based soley on his words at the beginning of the report and ingore that rest of it.

Could it be that Wilson’s report WAS used to justify going into Iraq based on his statements at the end of his report? Is there anyone out there now that disputes Iraq had WMD’s? If you do you must forget about the rest of the report and stop using it to condemn the Bush Administration.

By Earl P

July 29, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

When is everyone in the Democratic Party going to grow up and get over themself? The Nation is at war and we need to act like it.

I used to vote for Democratic Candidates but no longer. What a bunch of babies. What ever happened to the conservative wing of the Dem. Party. Get a backbone and tell Chuckie S., Eddy K., Nancy P., Hairball Reed, to take a hike.

All the evidence is out and Rove is guilty of nothing. Apologize to him and move on.

By Chilao

July 29, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

LOL @ JonfromATL - like we needed confirmation of those Taboga Facts but thanks…LMAO….TransAm, huh?

(yes, we HAD suspected, nice to know we were right)

I still think once school starts, no post from Taboga until after 3p, like someone said…

By taboga

July 29, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Eaton,

And BTW - In case you wonder why I cite John Lennon - it’s because he was a genius. He was original. He had his own ideas. He reached his own conclusions.

And while I may not agree with some of his conclusions - I have a tremendous amount of respect for people who can think for themselves.

And let me give you a quote from John Lennon on Education:

“Learning to read and write is all well and fine, but beyond that I can’t see much use for schools…”

You can hear him say it on video. I bought my copy at Best Buy. You know - those people who are putting “Mom & Pop” out of business…

By TT

July 29, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Tabooger, John Lennon must be turning over in his grave to think someone with your hatred and ignorance is using his words to justify ignorance. Unless you are a deemed expert on the Middle East, economics, capitalism and communism (pause for laughter) then why would you not want to become better informed about the world around you by pulling information from a variety of different sources (across all political spectrums)? Eaton is just doing what one should do BEFORE reaching a logical conclusion, studying the evidence, discarding less sound information, and then forming an opinion. People like you despise the scientific method and education because you don’t want anything to challenge what your daddy told you. Facts get in the way of your preconceived notions. So it seems to me that you are the one cruising through life blinded by your own arrogance. You have made no worthy contributions to any of our topics, because you have no factual basis to your arguments. And frankly, the true entertainment from this blog is observing everyone taking you to task. Folks, we’ll just have to let it go because he’s a lost case. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

By Jackie

July 29, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Earl P,

I Karl Rove is innocent, explain why the CIA initiated an investigation into the activities of his action(s)? Those folks that call themselves conservatives seem to have lost their direction and seem to believe that EVERYTHING can be solved with force and speaking loudly!

By taboga

July 29, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Tabooger, John Lennon must be turning over in his grave to think someone with your hatred and ignorance is using his words to justify ignorance

TT,

Tell what let’s do, you tell us all what you know about John Lennon - and we’ll go from there. Whatta ya say?

By Jack

July 29, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

I’m surprised he can type.

By Ken

July 29, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Bruce… I think you were sending that response to someone else.

Mara… Again, it has nothing to do with valuing one position over the other. It is all about whether to have the government do anything about it.

Here’s a perfect example… I was going to buy a new piece of lawn equipment and I could either buy it Home Depot, or drive 20 miles out of my way to buy it from a private vendor. I chose the altter b/c I despise Home Depot. The same can be said for any other goods, including your example of bread.

In a free market, people have to ability to choose where they shop. If folks don’t want Wal-Mart, don’t shop there and they won’t come. If you want to keep the mom and pops in business, shop there instead of Wal-Mart.

Sure we can lobby our politicians to not grant “incentives” to Wal-Mart or other businesses, but we should never, EVER prevent Wal-Mart, or any other business from opening. Let the consumers decide.

By Chilao

July 29, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

was Taboga even born when Lennon was killed?

By Tim

July 29, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Some of us are born with high IQ’s

there are plenty of people out there with high IQ’s that are dumb as dirt… all an IQ tells us is ones learning potential… if you were intelligent you would actually know that… a high IQ means nothing if you haven’t actually put your brain to work… and I highly doubt you even have a high IQ… what did you do go online and take one of those ‘IQ Tests’… what a joke

I think that is the best quote of the day though folks… hahahahahahaha

By taboga

July 29, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

JonFromDTAtl,

How you been, Eaton…?

By Jack

July 29, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

He’s probably one of those who claim they were at Woodstock having not been born yet.

By Eaton

July 29, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

tabouleh is absolutely hopeless - it’s so amusing to hear him tell people to think for themselves when he sounds like a talking-doll version of Rush Limbaugh. Pull the string - out comes another predictable statement.

Opinions without evidence are not even worth the paper tabouleh (possibly) wipes his arse with, but hey - keep “thinking” for yourself, drone.

By Eaton

July 29, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

And…wrong again, moron!

By TT

July 29, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

I’m no expert on John Lennon, but I do know that his songs spoke of a shared responsibility for the poor, pacifism, abolition of religion, free love, drug use, personal freedoms, challenging the status quo. GASP!!!! He sounds like a Communist in your book, T! Or a liberal. Pick your poison.

By taboga

July 29, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Comrades,

Just forewarning you, Eaton is going to lecture you all again about how you shouldn’t be responding to me - so I’ll go away.

By Jack

July 29, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Don’t go away mad, just go away.

By Eaton

July 29, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Nah toetag, I’m finding more and more humor in your posts. I could write a textbook on logical fallacies just using your silly nonsense as examples.

By TT

July 29, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

It must be time for lunch at the bait shop. Go on, Tabooger, the RC Cola and pigs feet are a callin.

By Tim

July 29, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

lol @ Jack and TT

By taboga

July 29, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

I’m no expert on John Lennon, but I do know that his songs spoke of a shared responsibility for the poor, pacifism, abolition of religion, free love, drug use, personal freedoms, challenging the status quo. GASP!!!! He sounds like a Communist in your book, T! Or a liberal. Pick your poison

You’re right - you are no expert on him.

John Lennon was not a “pacifist”. He was one of the most confrontational people of our time. He deplored violence - that’s not the same as being a “pacifist”.

He NEVER advocated the abolition of religion, in fact - just the opposite. He tried desperately to get Christians (mostly) to adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ rather than only worshipping him.

He did do drugs, but then learned the destructiveness of it and spoke out against it time and time again.

He did believe in a “shared responsibility” for the poor - but not as you think. When asked if he would agree to a Beatles reunification concert as a charity event to feed to the poor, he stated that: “Money is not the solution for the poor, if it was, the amount of money given to the poor by the United States alone - would have eradicated poverty.”

So, just as I suspected, you know nothing about John Lennon. But just like a good Liberal - making statements about something you know nothing of - doesn’t hinder you in the least!

By DasKrait2

July 29, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

and has Taboga ever been outside the US? Or outside of Europe if he has? Ever seen the effects of American foreign policy on a Third-World country, especially a non-Christian based country?

Does Rush Limbaugh even discuss those types of issues? Saw him, Rush, for awhile when I had cable. Seemed to be the Master of Misinformation.

yes, I realize the general perspective here in the USA is that us Americans OWN the world.

well, that will change later when CHINA dominates… Think they might help a down-trodden America out?

By Eaton

July 29, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

I’m not sure which is more ironic - “But just like a good Liberal - making statements about something you know nothing of - doesn’t hinder you in the least!” coming from what is possible the most ignorant creature to grace this blog with it’s presence in ages, or that same ignorant, liberal-hating non-critical-thinking idiot claiming to respect John Lennon at the same time he’s attacking liberals.

I guess the idiot doesn’t realize that no matter how he tries to twist it, John Lennon was a screaming LIBERAL, you MORON…

By Jack

July 29, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

You said you were going away. Liar.

By Bruce

July 29, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

I am sorry Ken that post was for Kyle.

And just an observation but it seems that Taboga is reeling you guys in one at a time…….

By Kyle

July 29, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

DasKrait2, what the hell are you talking about? Could you be a little more specific as to the “effects of American foreign policy on a Third-World country”? I may be wrong here, but doesn’t the US donate more money to these countries than anybody else? Maybe the current state of some of these third world contries are not a result of US’s foreign policy, but rather a result of the decisions and actions made by that country’s own people.

Also, I think it is somewhat of a double standard that a lot of people on this blog associates anyone who listens Limbaugh, Hanity, O’Reilly, etc…, with a mindless drone that is just accepting misinformation as truth. Yes, these radio and T.V personalities are right leaning. But just b/c they are right leaning doesn’t mean that whatever they say is false. As many of you often say to right leaning bloggers, don’t let the facts get in the way of your preconcieved notions. You can’t simply discard something that a right leaning personalitiy says simply b/c it doesn’t fit with your ideas. Some of the stuff they say may actually be true. It seems to me that the stance that many of you take with Limbaugh is the same position that you have been making fun of taboga for taking agianst anyone who disagrees with him. I’m sure if I was to discard everything I read in the NY Times or heard on NBC, CBS, ABC, or CNN, that you guys would no doubt call me ignorant and narrow-minded.

-Can we stop talking about Lennon now? He made great music, but I don’t really give a damn about is political beliefs.

By Jack

July 29, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

I agree Kyle celebrity’s political views are totally irrelevant. They don’t live in the real world.

By kimberly

July 29, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Kyle, can we discard someone who goes on television and refers to a 13-year-old girl as “the White House DOG?” It’s one thing to pull that self-righteous attitude with issues, like Rush Limbaugh always has, and it’s one thing to pull that self-righteous crap while attacking the personal character of a public figure, like he always has, even though he’s a great big hypocrite if you peek into his OWN private life, (serial marryer, drug addict, not that I care, but when you deride others for the same thing…) But when you publically humiliate a CHILD, who has done nothing to anybody, and who had no choosing of her parents, then that is someone I can NEVER view with anything but complete and utter revulsion.

By taboga

July 29, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

I guess the idiot doesn’t realize that no matter how he tries to twist it, John Lennon was a screaming LIBERAL, you MORON…

Yes he was - in the true sense of the word!

And so now you know why I call you people: Communists…!

By Eaton

July 29, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Lol tobago, no I really don’t, but, then, since you don’t know what a Communist actually is, that doesn’t really mean much, does it?

Let’s face it, tobago, you’ve gone in so many different directions since you popped on to this blog I’m starting to think you suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder. First, all Liberals are communists, but then Lennon was a true liberal and that’s why we’re all Communists…

Is anyone else as amused by this tobozo as I am?

By Brian Curtis

July 29, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Kyle: It’s true that dismissing anyone right-leaning as a mindless drone is unfair.

Those who listen to talk-radio blowhards like Hannity, O’Reilly, and Limbaugh, however—and believe them, when so much of their gibberish has been proven false time and again—well, those folks really ARE mindless drones. And they deserve to be told and treated as such.

If you want real information and valid arguments—you don’t get them from talk radio. Or, as in taboga’s case, TransAm bumper stickers.

By Archie

July 29, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Ken I have to agree with your 11:33 am post. Heck, I can’t have my cake and eat it too. As a consumer I have to make a conscious decision to support certain businesses if I want them around. There are two mom-and-pop restaurants that I make a conscious effort to visit every 2 weeks and they do a great job.

By taboga

July 29, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else who is stating fact or making a point, are doing just that. It’s irrelevant as to what kind of person you think they are. Obviously, if you perceive someone as being a bad person - you automatically discount anything they say.

Regardless of anyone’s opinion of Charles Manson, if he states that 2 and 2 equals 4 - he is absolutely right!

If Rush Limbaugh made a joke about Chelsea Clinton, it does not mean that he is wrong about any and every thing that he states afterwards.

By taboga

July 29, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

First, all Liberals are communists, but then Lennon was a true liberal and that’s why we’re all Communists…

Let me try and explain it to you at the kindergarten level - for possible penetration.

If an Atlanta Brave puts on a Yankee jersey and calls himself a Yankee, he is not - he’s still a Brave but wearing a Yankees jersey. And just because the Brave in the Yankee jersey is a fake - doesn’t mean that there aren’t real Yankees.

John Lennon was a real Liberal. You folks are Communists - wearing a Liberal jersey!

If need be, we can find a first-grader to assist with you understanding simple reasoning.

By Tim

July 29, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

so are the Braves communists or the Yankees?

By Jack

July 29, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, welcome to the fray. Today’s entree’ is Toboga.

By Roxane

July 29, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

…the second to the last paragraph in Wilson’s article is somewhat contradictory to his conclusion (that Iraq had not bought uranium from Niger, therefore they have no WMDs). Obviously he was aware that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and even a nuclear research program - all of which were in violation of UN resolutions.

My take on this paragraph was that he was referring to Iraq prior to the previous Gulf War and the fact that Saddam at that time did have the capability to make WMDs…I think he explained that in later interviews.

By Bruce

July 29, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Nope Roxane because the UN resolutions were not in place unitl after the Gulf War.

By kimberly

July 29, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

I shall tender no responses to toober-head, the blogboard mutt.

By Eaton

July 29, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

taboga, moron, you don’t even know what a Communist is, you pitiful little man, and calling other people Communists over and over doesn’t make you any more correct.

Let ME use simple reasoning for YOU.

The simplest defining characteristic of COMMUNISM is the ownership and control of the means of production by the state, and the even distribution of resources and income to each member of the state regardless of contribution or degree of labor.

Now…and keep up with me, OK…I and pretty much every liberal I know, favor a Capitalist, free-market economy. We are also strongly in favor of personal liberties.

I realize that this Liberal-Communist thing is so strongly ingrained in your head that not even a sledgehammer could dislodge it, but yet again, I would like to point out that I work in a financial services firm. That’s a company whose sole purpose is to help its clients accumulate wealth. ACCUMULATE WEALTH, nimrod. I’m not sure how much farther away from COMMUNISM that is, YOU COMPLETE CHOAD!

Some people are too stupid to live, tobago, and you’re one of them.

By geechee

July 29, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

I’m not even sure what this discussion is about. It started out about Karl Rove but at some point, that went haywire. I just wanted to make one point.

tobago you said “John Lennon was not a “pacifistâ€?. He was one of the most confrontational people of our time. He deplored violence - that’s not the same as being a “pacifistâ€?.

HUH? Are we talking about John Lennon, now deceased, formerly of the Beatles? The same John Lennon that wrote the songs: “Give Peace a Chance”, “All We Need is Love”, and “Imagine”? Because if we are, you have probably never been more wrong in your life.

The definition of pacifist, the belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully, is also the defintion of John Lennon.

Perhaps you should listen to a few more of Mr. Lennon’s albums. In fact the latest Lennon album just released, which features all accoustic guitar is a great place to start.

aloha

By TT

July 29, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Bear with me, all of you who already know how to use terms correctly in a debate. I just wanted Mr. T to know what the most common dictionary definitions of liberalism and libertarianism are. You see, Tomato, liberalism is very in line with the professionals on this blog who have voiced their support for political and social freedoms, nonviolent solutions to conflict or nonintervention in other states’ affairs and in the private lives of individuals, as well as open, free markets. But then, that would be getting into economics, and we know that’s too deep for our Lennon (or is it Lenin…LOL)-loving friend. Perhaps I should look up communism for you, Toenail. Or maybe you could just use your own fat fingers and google it. Careful not to get any motor oil on your keyboard.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

LIBERALISM

Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty and private property as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters. In this respect, it is sometimes held in contrast to conservatism. Since liberalism also focuses on the ability of individuals to structure their own society, it is almost always opposed to totalitarianism, and often to collectivist ideologies, particularly communism.

The word “liberal” derives from the Latin “liber” (“free”) and liberals of all stripes tend to view themselves as friends of freedom, particularly freedom from the shackles of tradition. The origins of liberalism in the Enlightenment era contrasted this philosophy to feudalism and mercantilism. Later, as more radical philosophies articulated their thoughts in the course of the French Revolution and through the nineteenth century, liberalism equally defined itself in contrast to socialism and communism, although some adherents of liberalism sympathize with some of the aims and methods of social democracy.

LIBERALISM IN THE UNITED STATES

Liberalism in the United States arose in the early 19th century as an alternative to realpolitik, the dominant political ideology of the time. President Woodrow Wilson, one of the first prominent Americans to use the term “liberal” self-referentially, lamented the contemporaneous focus on factional power in the United States Congress, and advocated the building of institutions that would benefit the nation as a whole. At the close of World War I, Wilson advocated mutual collaboration on the international stage, through carefully designed institutions, such as the League of Nations, rather than relying on the threat and use of force. Wilson’s premise was that human beings, when provided the correct institutions, will collaborate to solve problems rather than resorting to war. Twelve years later, President Franklin Roosevelt, Wilson’s ideological successor and self-proclaimed liberal, offered the nation a New Deal that consisted of constructing collaborative institutions that, with the support of the large majority of Americans, would pull the United States out of the Great Depression. In anticipation of the end of World War II, Roosevelt designed the United Nations as a means of encouraging mutual collaboration, rather than the threat and use of force, to solve political problems on the international stage. Roosevelt also laid the foundation, with his inclusion of African Americans in the United States Military and his support for women’s rights, for the emphasis on individual liberty that would culminate in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 drafted by President John Kennedy.

The U.S. brand of liberalism, inherited from Wilson and Roosevelt, emphasizes mutual collaboration and consensus-building, rather than the threat and use of force, to solve political problems both domestically and internationally. A liberal in the United States is likely to favor institutions and political procedures that encourage economic liberty, protection of the weak from aggression by the strong, and freedom from restrictive social norms. Since World War II, liberalism in the United States has often been called new liberalism to pay tribute to its evolution from classical liberalism.

Since approximately the Reagan era, the word “liberal” has lost appeal with some leftist politicians and voters and progressivism has arisen as a competing ideology on the left. Beginning in the late 1960s, those in the U.S. who interpreted 19th-century classical liberalism to favor small government, rejected American liberalism and adopted the name “libertarian”. This political stance more closely resembles American conservatism on economic issues and in their belief in limiting the power of central government, while agreeing with American liberalism on social issues such as abortion and drug policy. Libertarians’ strong advocacy of civil liberties include both freedom of speech, assembly, etc. (issues where they tend to ally with the liberals) and the right to bear arms (where they tend to ally with the conservatives).

By NoNamesPlease

July 29, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

why am I reminded of the Chevy Chase movie “FLETCH” when the Guatamalan military officers(probably fresh from another genocide of their own people, people who just wanted a better share of the pie) are going ‘Communista, Communista’

By Jackie

July 29, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Why is the conversation today centered on taboga’s definition of liberal/communist? These are the same tactics used by the neo-Facists that hijacked our government! Why is there no righteous indignation CAFTA, the Engry Bill give away, the traitorous acts of Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Bob Novak,etc…, the war crime violations of Donald Rumsfeld, the lying to Congress by Condelezza Rice. Shouldn’t this be the object of discussion and not focus on the stalking-horse named taboga?

By Crystal

July 29, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Well, I drop by to see how things are going and—lo and behold—the “regulars” are in a tizzy. So much fumbling, grumbling, web site wallowing, tired old political rhetoric with extensive name-calling and characterless expletives. Why? The “gang” got in a real debate with a real debater. Taboga is the best! What fun!

What is the BASIC bone of contention here? George Bush, of course, the strongest president since Harry Truman. Liberals prefer the likes of McKinny, Kennedy, Hillary, Pelosi and Dean. I have no desire to join that hierachy. The majority of Americans don’t care to join either.

But remember, dear bloggers, STAY SWEET!

By Archie

July 29, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Thanks TT for the education.

“Those who listen to talk-radio blowhards like Hannity, O’Reilly, and Limbaugh, howeverâ€â€?and believe them, when so much of their gibberish has been proven false time and againâ€â€?well, those folks really ARE mindless drones”

I don’t know too much about Hannity but O’Reilly is kind of phony because if he does not have a strong topic for awhile he will just like Limbaugh find some minority to pick on. O’Reilly brought up Ludacris as if that particular rapper created explicit lyrics and just like drones people protested Luda’s concert in SC but the next year another rapper that cusses and a rock band were belting out cuss words easily without protest at the 3 rivers festival held here in South Carolina. All three of those are hustlers in that they say certain things to draw folk in so they can continue to make millions. All three speak some truth but it’s really all about the money and they make lots of it. We all know Eminem is the top rapper in the country and he does explicit lyrics so why pick on Ludacris…well it’s written all over his(Luda’s) face. I don’t care much for explicit rap but there has always been explicit music. If Limbaugh hadn’t made it big you had better believe that O’Reilly and Hannity would not say some of the things they say.

By Jack

July 29, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

I love you Crystal. :)

By TT

July 29, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

George Bush is an idiot. Truman would be insulted to be compared to a man who cannot correctly pronounce the words America and nuclear. Crystal, since you are an admirer of Taboga, maybe you guys can catch a WWF match together sometime. “If this trailer is rockin’ don’t come a knockin’.” Uggh…the thought of so much rampant stupidity in one room turns my stomach.

By Chilao

July 29, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

2004 Presidential Election, popular vote:

51 percent Bush 48 percent Kerry 1 percent “other”

yep, BIG HUGE MAJORITY there….LMAO it is so big, is a MANDATE (Snort)

By Jackie

July 29, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

You see, people like Crystal will come into this forum and use people last name as expletives and call others liberals without having an argument to put on the table and supporting evidence for her argument. It is people like that who support people that DO NOT work in her best interest. Is that called cognitive dissonance?

By Bruce

July 29, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Well, guys it is close enough to knock-off time that I must close out and start my second job. I have really enjoyed this weeks discussion, even though most of you (all but two)avoided the fact the Wilson report confirmed there were/are WMD’s in Iraq. I can’t wait until the next time someone tries to tell us all that there are no WMD’s in Iraq and at the same time ask for anyone head from the Bush administration. Give me a break, give me a break, break me off a peice of that Kit Kat bar……. God bless you all and the great nation.

By Jack

July 29, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Ok Everyone, re-read the poem Tony sent. Take a few deep breaths, and HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND!!! Time to chill. Yeeeehaaaaa!! and yippee eye oh kayaaaa!

By Tim

July 29, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

everyone have a wonderful weekend and a great week next week… I will be sunning myself on the beaches of South Florida… y’all have fun on the blog without me :)

By Brian Curtis

July 29, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Bruce, glad you enjoyed it. I, for one, didn’t respond to the alleged “discovery” of WMDs in Iraq because it has no relevance to the Rove/Plame topic, or indeed to the justifiability of the war itself.

The administration claimed it knew where the weapons were. It did not. That means it was a LIE, clear and simple. Whether anything was uncovered, after months and years of frenzied searching, doesn’t change that basic fact: at the outset, they were lying. Intelligence was ‘fixed around the facts’ to support a preordained objective.

As for Rove: he’s being investigated, as he should be. Immediate declarations that “there’s no evidence, everyone look away now and stop asking questions” aren’t likely to get any farther than they did when Clinton’s team tried them.

By Archie

July 29, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

God bless you too Bruce but Wilson’s report did not confirm anything. It was what he believed to be true based on info from the first Gulf War and even if you disagree with that thought of mine. One thing is true, the inspectors haven’t found anything and the military has not found anything. Mr. Wilson can’t know something that has not been proven. The fact is our intelligence was lousy and that has been stated over and over as far as Iraq. OUR intelligence was lousy,translation, we didn’t know defecation about what Iraq had.

By Kyle

July 29, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Archie, O’Reilly didn’t focus on Luda solely b/c of his lyrics. He targeted Luda, but the main problem he had was that Pepsi (I think?) had just signed Luda to an endorsement deal. Although O’Reilly is against lyrics such as Luda’s, he is aware that it’s a free country and people are free to express themselves through music how they see fit. O’Reilly’s main problem was that he didn’t agree with Pepsi using Luda to push their product b/c he thinks that Luda sends a bad message to the youth.

“We all know Eminem is the top rapper in the country and he does explicit lyrics so why pick on Ludacris…well it’s written all over his(Luda’s) face.” Please tell this wasn’t an attempt to use the race card.

-BTW, I think Luda a pretty damn good rapper, but it may be a little abrasive for younger kids

By Jenn

July 29, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

To Brad Spencer: You MORON. Shaunti was not shifting her opinion. She was simply stating that if, hypothetically, Karl Rove had knowingly blown a CIA’s cover, then chastising him would be the appropriate measure to take. She was trying to emphasize the fact that he didn’t, in fact, do this, and that all he had done was to stop Time Magazine from printing a false news story.

And talking about the pot calling the kettle black…how many times did John Kerry change his position on just about everything?

By taboga

July 29, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

I acknowledged that Liberalism exists, but state that you folks aren’t that.

tt then comes out with a lengthy definition of Liberalism - to prove that it exists!

The next thing you know - someone is going to try and convince me that: Liberalism exists!

By Eaton

July 29, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

No taboga, we just realize that you are unable to define anything with any success.

By taboga

July 29, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

The administration claimed it knew where the weapons were. It did not. That means it was a LIE, clear and simple.

Did Natalie’s parents lie about her being in Aruba?

Obviously so - since no one can find here there, right?