I'd rather call them transparently corrupt. How about a rubberstamp government, like those we lately seem to be
suggesting oughta respect democratic principles, etc. (so long as they represent the right democratic principles, unlike
all those heathen socialists in South America.)
I'm one of those old enough to remember quite a few of Richard M. Nixon's shenanigans and I'm absolutely amazed how much
dirtier this administration is and profoundly disappointed that people just don't seem to
I was a newborn when Nixon was doing his thing, but I have read my history. The difference between NIXON and Bush is that NIXON knew what he was doing was wrong. Bush seems to think anything he *CAN* do is fair. The republicans are drunk on power right now and are creating the circumstances from which the instrument of their downfall will arise -- corruption beyond imagination.
I am reminded of a famous investigator (whose name I've forgotten) who cracked the CIA selling drugs in LA thing in the 80s I think?. He said, "People get lazy when they think they are playing in a fixed game." And tahts what is happening here -- they aren't even BOTHERING to hide their corruption -- because they think nobody can do anything about it.
and are creating the circumstances from which the instrument of their downfall will arise -- corruption beyond imagination.
Acutally it'll be the attempt on Social Security Reform -- it really is the third rail of politics and anyone in his party in the House or Senate who endorses his dangerous and crazy proposals will politically die.
I think it'll never get anywhere anyway, it'll all peter out as he's getting something like 10% support wherever he goes. If it does show up in the House or Senate it'll b
What's ironic is the Bush's Social Security reform isnt really all that much different than Clinton's first proposed Social Security reform. But back then the Republicans decried it as unnecessary and horrible, and the AARP came down squarely on their side. There are tons of quotes of Republicans praising and glorifying how wonderful AARP is and and equal number of Democrats railing against it.
Fast forward 10 years and its literally the same situation reversed, with the AARP squarely on the side of anti-
Social Security runs into a "crisis" every 10 or 20 years because the funding assumptions it works under are set by legislation, and doesn't automatically change in the face of changing economic reality.
The fix now is the fix that's been done at every "crisis", a few minor tweaks (change the taxable base, change benefit amounts) and forget about it for another decade, everybody will be paid.
If NOTHING is done, the Social Security Trust Fund would have to start reducing benefits below it's projected level
When its all said and done I hope Social Security reform quietly dies and the real issue, which is Medicare reform, sees the light of day. Medicare is projected to run out of money in something like 2012, making it much more of an immediate threat, not just to people who need it, but to everyone that pays taxes.
It won't for one simple reason: its part of a bigger problem. In order to fix medicare, Bush would have to fix a medical cost crises that is currently happening in the U.S. No one has any ideas tha
they aren't even BOTHERING to hide their corruption -- because they think nobody can do anything about it.
Well, can anyone really do anything about it?
From the looks of things, the majority of people are very easily satisfied, and accept whatever the government is doing as right or perfectly acceptable. The media certainly isn't helping people think for themselves.
Never heard the Nixon quote, to the effect of "it is not illegal if the president does it" which seems to show that his mindset was unclear about the difference between unethical and illegal as well.
No, he was quite clear, in exactly the same sense as Clinton was (Clinton is the man who said "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is.") Nixon was playing with semantics. The Congress makes the law, the President enforces it. Only the President can choose to enforce the law, and if he chooses not to enforce a law, then violating that law is not illegal. I am not making the argument very well, but it is a sound argument. As long as you throw common sense out the window. Of course, in the legal professi
Clinton's DID answer "no." Under oath, and under penalty of perjury, he was asked "Are you having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." He answered "No." His ridiculous justification came later, when the truth about that relationship came out, and he was under the threat of perjury; he implied that what he meant was "No, I am not at this very instant engaged in sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." This of course is absurd; this was NOT the meaning of the question, and he knew it. He chose to provide an
He committed suicide at the end of 2004 after 20 years of being called a crazy conspiracy theorist. But what he really reported (that the CIA did not care whether their LA informants sold drugs) turned out to be true. The CIA admitted it in an internal investigation prompted by Webb's report and subsequent book.
Linkage [gwu.edu] to documents obtained by FOIA (which is up there with civil rights acts in the Steps Towards Democracy department). The upshot: The Contras ran drugs into the U.S. to fund their war against the Sandanistas, and the CIA was cool with that.
The nation that controls magnetism controls the universe.
-- Chester Gould/Dick Tracy
Send in the Clones! (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd rather call them transparently corrupt. How about a rubberstamp government, like those we lately seem to be suggesting oughta respect democratic principles, etc. (so long as they represent the right democratic principles, unlike all those heathen socialists in South America.)
I'm one of those old enough to remember quite a few of Richard M. Nixon's shenanigans and I'm absolutely amazed how much dirtier this administration is and profoundly disappointed that people just don't seem to
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:3, Insightful)
I am reminded of a famous investigator (whose name I've forgotten) who cracked the CIA selling drugs in LA thing in the 80s I think?. He said, "People get lazy when they think they are playing in a fixed game." And tahts what is happening here -- they aren't even BOTHERING to hide their corruption -- because they think nobody can do anything about it.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:1)
Acutally it'll be the attempt on Social Security Reform -- it really is the third rail of politics and anyone in his party in the House or Senate who endorses his dangerous and crazy proposals will politically die.
I think it'll never get anywhere anyway, it'll all peter out as he's getting something like 10% support wherever he goes. If it does show up in the House or Senate it'll b
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:3, Interesting)
Fast forward 10 years and its literally the same situation reversed, with the AARP squarely on the side of anti-
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:2)
I think that what you're trying to say is that Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia [wikipedia.org]
actually... (Score:3, Informative)
The fix now is the fix that's been done at every "crisis", a few minor tweaks (change the taxable base, change benefit amounts) and forget about it for another decade, everybody will be paid.
If NOTHING is done, the Social Security Trust Fund would have to start reducing benefits below it's projected level
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:2)
It won't for one simple reason: its part of a bigger problem. In order to fix medicare, Bush would have to fix a medical cost crises that is currently happening in the U.S. No one has any ideas tha
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:3, Informative)
Well, can anyone really do anything about it?
From the looks of things, the majority of people are very easily satisfied, and accept whatever the government is doing as right or perfectly acceptable. The media certainly isn't helping people think for themselves.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:1)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:2)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:2)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:1)
The president cannot be charged with a crime until he is impeached.
He also, incidently, cannot pardon himself.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:2)
What a sad commentary that today's "plausible deniability" is straight-up sociopathy.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:4, Interesting)
He committed suicide at the end of 2004 after 20 years of being called a crazy conspiracy theorist. But what he really reported (that the CIA did not care whether their LA informants sold drugs) turned out to be true. The CIA admitted it in an internal investigation prompted by Webb's report and subsequent book.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:1)
he's even pretty skilled when killing himself.
neat guy.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:2)