It Ain't Just Halliburton and NeoCons Making Money Off Of War!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Feb 28, 2006.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  2. scratch

    scratch Least Best Moderator Staff Member

    This article says that the most liberal anti-Bush Senator in Washington, Diane Feinstein, recently bought a sixteen million dollar mansion in San Francisco. Her husband owns seventy-five per cent of a company that has won over a billion dollars worth of contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder how much Kennedy, Kerry, and hillary are making off the war; see, Dick Cheney and Halliburton isn't getting it all!
     

  3. Now wait a minute, last year Kerry was the 'most liberal' Senator. Who is it? You can't have more than one 'most liberal'. You say that her husband's company 'won' the contracts. Since when is it illegal or unpatriotic to bid on services required by our armed forces in time of war? I think some have argued that it is a patriotic duty.

    You'd have to be a fool not to invest in companies that profit from war in time of war. Look at the history of the Bush (Prescott) family back to the Civil War days. Where do you think their money and power came from? Look at the Dubai deal, did you ever think that maybe there is money behind that as well? Remember Neil Bush? Check it out. You are very naive if you believe that our interests are behind decisions made by our government.

    In the meantime, you want to get rid of Feinstein? No problem, just get rid of every other politician with ties to blood money or 'tainted money'. There's an election soon, show your resolve, vote those out of office that you don't see fit.
     
  4. scratch

    scratch Least Best Moderator Staff Member

    Gosh TS,
    My previous post was made a little bit toungue-in-cheek. My main point was that everytime I see Senator Feinstein in the news, she is attacking everything that the current ruling party is doing. She comes across to me as a hypocrite since she says one thing but doesn't mind living off her husbands investments. I am a capitalist, I have no problem in investing your money and increasing it wisely. I used to vote Democrat a long time ago, they used to be for the working class at one time. This changed about twenty-five years ago when I took a look at all the taxes I paid over a monthlong period. By the time you take out deductions on your paycheck, sales tax, property tax, utility bills, etc., etc., I figured out I was loosing about fifty cents out of every dollar I made. Most people don't realize this, we are numb and void to how wasteful our tax money is spent.
    We used to have a lot of conservatives in the Democratic Party. Down here in the Southern United States, it used to be that everybody was a Democrat. Being a baby-boomer, my parents grew up in the Great Depressions of the Thirties, to this day my mother is a product of the policies that Franklin Roosevlt enacted. But over the years, the party changed. I often hear the phrase "the Democratic Party left me". Living in the "Bible Belt", this means the changing morals or lack of has left a lot of people fed up, thus the shift going to the Republican Party.
    I'm personally not too happy with either party these days. I do vote every election, you can't gripe about politics if your too lazy to go out and vote. It seems like the last few elections, your just voting for the lesser of two evils. Neither one today seems to stand for what they used to.
    My other comment about Kennedy and Kerry were more or less aimed at the fact that the Kennedy family made its fortune during Prohibition by smuggling illegle whiskey. I like Kerry's retirement plan, he marries rich women. Oh well, I wish we had viable third party choice.
     
  5. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Yea , Yea we know. Its ok if the democrats do it. Only if.
     
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Scratch King,
    I understand your "voting for the lesser of 2 evils" as I think many Americans are very much like you. There are numerous so-called 3rd parties out there and quite frankly none have a chance but sometimes what you have to do is vote the idea rather than the person with the goal of getting 5 to 10% to vote the idea also. That 5 to 10% will first off in our highly divided political evironment today keep someone from a clear majority victory. It also will capture media attention and maybe, just maybe the idea itself get out to more people. Being from Georgia you may remember it was a libertarian Senate candidate that stripped away enough votes in a federal Senate race to where nether Republican or Democrat carried a clear majority and it was the libertarian endorsement of the late Sen. Paul Coverdell in the runoff that allowed Coverdell to beat entrenched Wyche Fowler for the Senate job. As an aside Wyche should have been made Baseball Commissioner as he's a fair man and a great baseball man too!

    You might find an idea you like and then go for it. You can also do what I did last election and write in "None of the Above". I've actually done this more than once in the last 30 years and after the last election I wrote several letters to not only Congress members but also Federal and State Election officials. Just a few weeks ago my 2 daughters who are musicians performed down at the State Capitol and while I was down there with some time to kill I paid a visit to the Sec. of State's office who oversees the elective process in the State and had a very nice conversation with an official in that office. She was aware of my letter and she admitted she hadn't responded because she had to only say no but her reason surprised me. She admitted after some thought that the real reason for saying no to this idea is that if it was on the ballot it's likely that in some if not many elective races that "None of the Above" would get the majority of votes and therefore the entire process would be threatened. The irony that I told her I saw was our 2 perspectives. She saw that as a threat whereas I saw that as a good thing that would not only send a message to the powers that be but open a huge door of public debate on just what a good elected official is and what we think they should be.

    Below is an op-ed piece I'll throw at you not to present libertarianism as an alternative but the author does a comparison of the republicans and democrats on several issues. I just come away from it with the idea there really is no difference between the 2 at the end of the day.


    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory109.html

    Take care and good luck.
     
  7. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    What's a liberal to do? TS what does the liberal mantra call for here? Do we investigate fienstien for war profiteering or do we discredit the news source an obvious liberal anti war site for reporting fienstiens war profiteering?
     
  8. I must have missed something. Is Senator Feinstein accused of doing something illegal? BTW, the site linked is a Libertarian run site. Next we'll hear that Kerry is a war profiteer because you have to put ketchup on an MRE to make it edible!

    She (Feinstein) is up for re-election this year. Cindy Sheehan has considered a run against her. In the end, it's up to the voters in California who they choose to represent them.

    Do you think anyone who profits from war should be barred from politics?

    Scratch_king,

    Are you happy with the direction that the Republicans have taken us in? They control both houses, and the executive branch, as well as the Supreme Court. It's their field, ball, bat and umpire. If you are happy with the course of the country, keep on supporting them. I think the 3rd amendment is about the only one they haven't tossed away yet, and I figure that if we keep them around much longer they'll get rid of that one too.

    BTW, I think we get a pretty good deal for the taxes we pay.
     
  9. scratch

    scratch Least Best Moderator Staff Member

    Wkmac,
    I do like your idea about voting for "none of the above". This would be great if a majority of the voters went this way, and if they won, the two other candidates would have to step aside and their parties would be forced to come up with someone else! I have voted third party before, I voted for Ross Perot even though he dropped out, as a protest over who the Democrats and Republicans put up. Bill Clinton won his first term that year, with 49% of the vote.
    I believe strongly in less taxes and government, that is what originally got me to start voting for the GOP instead of the Democrats like I used too. While the Libertarians stand for that too, they also want too much freedom, by that I mean the legalization of drugs. This one item will keep most people away from them. You have to have some laws to protect the idiots in society from themselves.
    I believe that all forms of government are wasteful. I used to work an area in downtown Atlanta. I used to deliver to Federal, State, City, and Fulton County buildings. These were the worse run organizations I have ever dealt with. When you compare them to private and public owned businesses, the differences are amazing in the wastefulness. So, no TS, I don't believe I get a good return on my taxes. When the IRS was originally founded, the Federal tax rate was something like 2-5 %, the politicians at that time were worried it was too high.
    I do urge everyone to vote though. Around here the polls open 7AM to 7PM on Tuesday and are difficult to handle with my work schedule. If I vote in the morning, I'm late for work and get stuck in horrible Atlanta traffic. I usually get home about 7:45PM if I'm lucky. Now I just request an Absentee Ballot from the County Courthouse, I vote by mail as soon as the local primary elections are over.:thumbup1:
     
  10. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    yep you did. Legality had nothing to do with supreme court nominees having their good name destroyed as part of the liberal confirmation process.
     
  11. Tie, you've lost it. Either you posted in the wrong thread, or you are just totally full of it, or both. Whose 'good name' was destroyed? If someone slandered a Supreme Court Justice, don't you think they would be in just a bit of jeopardy?

    What happened to you on Yahoo?
     
  12. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I'm not going to explain it to you. Its too complicated for you to understand. Try not to burn yourself or burn your house down when you cook the ribs.
     
  13. Give it try. I have an exceptionally high IQ and above average reading comprehension.

    Ribs are slow smoked over a low heat (if done correctly), the danger of fire is very low; the biggest concern is keeping a bit of charcoal smoldering. Your concern is touching, however it is misplaced.
     
  14. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Not in your case. You will find a way.
     
  15. Too embarrassed to tell us, beegtieguy?
     
  16. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    alright if you insist. Even cooking ribs slowly I think you're too stupid to accomplish the task without burning yourself and the house down. Be careful.
     
  17. When the name calling begins, I take it as an indication that the opposition has no valid argument.
     
  18. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Don't confuse my concern for your well being and the well being of your property with name calling. Pay attention before its too late.
     
  19. Tie, please read what you wrote again very slowly and out loud. I highlighted your name calling to make it easier for you.

    The point stands.
     
  20. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Tyrone thanks for reinforcing my point.