Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 153

• 100%

  coolrayfruge2 months ago

  It's obvious our country is run by organized crime.
  The very people who defended mob bosses ,are now making the laws.
  Things like loansharking ,bribery , extortion ,that were once illegal is now just business.
  Our own court system even uses it.

  Reply

  8 Replies

  • 21%

    newbie04202 months ago

    What a POS liberal blog opinion rag this is.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 90%

      Lurch2 months ago

      Get over yourself, face reality, you`re not the only one to have been suckered by these crooks, and become part of the solution. You are welcome to join the team any time.

      Reply
    • 100%

      wtagg1 month, 4 weeks ago

      Do you respond in kind when a republican blog or the national enquirer are used as sources?

      Reply
    • 100%

      obiefrommuskogee1 month, 4 weeks ago

      Except that it isn't a POS. It's well known, just recently appearing on the Lehrer news hour story tonight about the death of newspapers with a few other political sites.

      Reply
  • 100%

    cosmogenium2 months ago

    http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/08/04/thomas-franks-indictment-of-conservatism/
    
    Read "The Wrecking Crew" by Thomas Frank. It's all about this subject and why the conservatives do what they do and why it sucks for all of us.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 100%

      donald512 months ago

      Read 'Conservatives Without Conscience' by the former legal counsel to Nixon and see why today's right wingers/evangelicals fit the same profile developed by psychologists after WW2 on the followers of Hitler .

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 100%

        Eagle_Eye1 month, 4 weeks ago

        Now that's scary!!!!!

        Reply

  • birddog54Comment removed: User banned.
• 73%

  doppich2 months ago

  Two years ago we hired some new guys to run the Congress and start getting this corruption under control. Instead, they took their duties "off the table," and joined in the feeding frenzy.

  Reply

  49 Replies

  • 90%

    Charlson2 months ago

    Not enough dems were voted in to do the job. But this will be rectified in November.

    Reply

    32 Replies

    • 69%

      highlndr2 months ago

      This is rich indeed. Certainly there have been problems with the Republicans and they are paying the price. But to claim the Democrats will not or have not had their own corruption problems is naive. Let's not forget that Abramoff was a lobbyist and solicited many Democrats as well---Harry Reid Senate majority leader being just one.

      Reply

      19 Replies

      • 86%

        Charlson2 months ago

        Rich indeed! Exxon with it's record profits that has directly contributed to America's dependency on oil. And rich indeed that there were no oversight or constraints on how our money was to be spent in Iraq, not for the military, but the private contractors milking American tax dollars. And rich indeed it was that billions of dollar disappeared in Iraq and we don't know where it went. And richer is the fact the all these private contractors had no bid contracts and ties to Bush/Cheney. And the richest yet is that the republicans had years to do something about it and didn't.

        Reply

        14 Replies

        • 100%

          willottica2 months ago

          billions disappeared: I still am baffled by the fact that pallets full of shrink-wrapped money were sent.
          I am baffled that anyone could POSSIBLY think that all the money would have arrived intact.
          I am baffled that billions were 'lost', and people just accepted that as something that happens.
          I am baffled that people accepted the 'explanation' that it wasn't Americans' money, it was Iraqis' money, so that makes it okay.
          I am baffled that no-one questions how the Iraqi government could possibly be okay with suddenly losing billions of dollars of their money.
          I can't conceive of that kind of loss to be shrugged off. If it was, indeed, Iraqi money that went missing, then surely the American government probably replaced it for them. (Which then makes it Americans' money)
          
          I am completely astounded that no officials were fired for losing billions of dollars. Who should have been fired for gross incompetence? The guards charged with care of the pallets. The shippers who were transporting it. The idiot who hired the shippers and the guards. And even the idiot who hired that idiot.
          That's assuming that it was genuinely lost. And that kind of assumption only works if you and me are both asses. The guards, the shippers, their bosses - likely all in on it. There's plenty of motive there to go around.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 100%

            Lurch2 months ago

            A whole he!! of a lot of Dems have questioned the corruption for years and even tried to impeach Bush and others for it.
            
            But the obstructionist Republicans and their politicized DOJ have blocked them every step of the way.

            Reply
          • 100%

            mesodude2 months ago

            But the attitude of those on the right seems to be that one should never criticize instances of waste, fraud, and abuse when it involves tax dollars spent for war. I guess it's easy for them to be so permissive (when they screech bloody murder most other times about their tax dollars going to waste) when others are dying and they don't want attention called to the fact that they're not willing to sacrifice anything. Their mindset is "Give the war department anything it wants and don't worry too much about minding the store" just so long as *they* don't have to put their lives or their loved ones' lives on the line. ;-(

            Reply
        • 25%

          BB642 months ago

          Why do you guys always bring up the highest tax paying company in the world when you try to attack Republicans. Exxon for the last 2 years paid over $30 billion in income tax. That doesn't sound like someone "screwing" anyone. Before you call the kettle black, lets talk about the Kerry or Kennedy moneys.

          Reply

          4 Replies

          • 100%

            Lurch2 months ago

            Gimme a break. That`s global taxes amigo.
            
            Why do you guys always defend the worst war profiteers and price fixers by bringing up their global taxes? How much did they pay in America after the $15B tax handout given to them by the cons? How much did they make off of us? What did you pay in taxes?
            
            You know, after paying record taxes to other countries, Exxon still made record profits. Do you think they care about the taxes, since all of that money comes from our pockets anyway? Of course not, they just screw us to pay off others so that they can get away with screwing us even more.
            
            Kerry (ketchup), Kennedy (prohibition), don`t even compare to the riches and corruption of the Bush and Cheney clans who have directly and indirectly made mega fortunes off of the taxpayers and through govt mandated private taxes/handouts.
            
            Kerry`s wealth is no better or worse than McCain`s, except of course that Kerry was already divorced when he bedded his current wife. Cannot say that about the `family values` nominee.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 100%

              mesodude2 months ago

              Because those who yak, yak, yak on and on about "socialism" are some of the biggest hypocrites on the planet and if we scrutinized military spending the way cons want us to train a microscope on so called "socialistic" program spending, the result would likely be that more chicken hawk cons would have to enlist in the military and risk their lives. What amazes me is that cons apparently have no clue as to how transparently greedy and self-serving their motives are. ;-(

              Reply
          • 100%

            Beau78902 months ago

            Exxon's gross income in 2007, according to p. 40 of their annual report (which can be found online), was $404.5 billion.
            
            Oddly enough, the annual report doesn't list total tax liabilities, though it does list "deferred" tax liability for 2007. Assuming your $30 billion that ExxonMobil paid in taxes over the past TWO years is correct, they pay a FAR smaller portion of their income in taxes than most individuals.
            
            Since you didn't break it down by which fiscal year, I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and say they paid the entire $30 billion in income tax in 2007, and just throw out 2006 completely.
            
            That liberal estimate of how much ExxonMobil paid in taxes last year puts their effective rate at 7.4%. I wish I could pay that kind of tax rate.

            Reply
          • 100%

            wtagg1 month, 4 weeks ago

            Who do you really think pays for Exxon's taxes? Hint, it isn't Exxon. The taxes become part of the cost of doing business. The taxes are passed on to the consumer of those products, whether it be other business or directly to consumers.
            
            Maybe you need to analyze who is actually paying the taxes before determining who is doing who.
            
            Now, if taxes are reduced, will the reduction be pass on to the users of the product in the same proportion? Wouldn't that be an interesting experiment?

            Reply
        • 33%

          greekdish2 months ago

          yeah, Exxon's profits are the problem. Meanwhile, ignorant Liberals ignore the fact Exxon paid $30 billion in taxes to the government. Not to mention the government taxes us consumers 18 cents a gallon. Thats $24 billion a year. Not to mention our states ALSO tax us per gallon, but I cant find the individual state's gas usage numbers. the Federal government gets $54 billion form both us and Exxon, and you Liberals are whining because Exxon made $40 billion in profits. First of all...we should be PROUD an American company is doing well.....especially since 75% of their profits are coming from foreign sales. Only $10 billion is coming from the US. Second of all....the better Exxon does, the more money the government gets. the $30 bln Exxon paid was more than the entire bottom 50% of American taxpayers...over 65 million people. ONE company is carrying the load.

          Reply

          5 Replies

          • 88%

            willottica2 months ago

            You don't find it just a tad frightening that ONE company has more earning power than the bottom 50% of American taxpayers? ONE company has all of that concentrated power and wealth - greater power and wealth than 160 MILLION individuals. It's not the profits that are the problem, it's the size of the company! It is not in the public's best interest to allow ONE company to become so large and powerful. For when a company has more power than the government, the government can be controlled, thus the people can be controlled.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 25%

              BB642 months ago

              Perhaps it's because conservatives find the glass 1/2 full, I think it's great. 150-200 years ago, oil was nothing. It was considered a nuisance by most people. Whale oil and coal were king. Today, neither are. Only in America can this happen.
              
              BTW-Exxon is a publicly traded company with thousands of stockholders. This isn't the old Standard Oil story.

              Reply
            • 14%

              DropkickaLib2 months ago

              We should nationalize it and redistribute its wealth. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right?

              Reply
            • 0%

              capecoralM2 months ago

              1 company that has millions of people who own the stock. STFU about a company making money. Companies are in business to make a profit.
              
              Stock Price History
              Beta: 1
              52-Week Change3: -10.89%
              S 52-Week Change3: -21.59%
              52-Week High (21-May-08)3: 96.12
              52-Week Low (04-Aug-08)3: 76.14
              50-Day Moving Average3: 83.95
              200-Day Moving Average3: 86.97
              Share Statistics
              Average Volume (3 month)3: 28,800,200
              Average Volume (10 day)3: 33,087,800
              Shares Outstanding5: 5.19B
              Float: 5.17B
              % Held by Insiders1: 0.05%
              % Held by Institutions1: 52.00%
              Shares Short (as of 10-Jul-08)3: 43.50M
              Short Ratio (as of 10-Jul-08)3: 1.5
              Short % of Float (as of 10-Jul-08)3: 0.80%
              Shares Short (prior month)3: 42.07M
              
              TOP INSTITUTIONAL HOLDERS
              Holder Shares % Out Value* Reported
              Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd 233,115,404 4.41 $19,716,900,870 31-Mar-08
              STATE STREET CORPORATION 188,101,163 3.56 $15,909,596,366 31-Mar-08
              VANGUARD GROUP, INC. (THE) 166,300,305 3.15 $14,065,679,796 31-Mar-08
              FMR LLC 94,945,334 1.80 $8,030,476,349 31-Mar-08
              Bank of New York Mellon Corporation 88,398,007 1.67 $7,476,703,432 31-Mar-08
              AXA 85,433,348 1.62 $7,225,952,573 31-Mar-08
              BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 77,956,397 1.48 $6,593,552,058 31-Mar-08
              JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY 72,014,974 1.36 $6,091,026,500 31-Mar-08
              NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION 67,672,792 1.28 $5,723,764,747 31-Mar-08
              PRICE (T.ROWE) ASSOCIATES INC 43,644,037 .83 $3,691,412,649 31-Mar-08
              
              TOP MUTUAL FUND HOLDERS
              Holder Shares % Out Value* Reported
              VANGUARD 500 INDEX FUND 50,854,598 .96 $4,301,281,898 31-Mar-08
              VANGUARD TOTAL STOCK MARKET INDEX FUND 38,804,488 .73 $3,282,083,595 31-Mar-08
              SPDR TRUST SERIES 1 32,298,611 .61 $2,989,559,434 30-Sep-07
              VANGUARD INSTITUTIONAL INDEX FUND-INSTITUTIONAL INDEX FD 31,190,056 .59 $2,638,054,936 31-Mar-08
              COLLEGE RETIREMENT EQUITIES FUND-STOCK ACCOUNT 30,589,383 .58 $2,865,919,293 31-Dec-07
              WASHINGTON MUTUAL INVESTORS FUND 21,590,000 .41 $1,826,082,200 31-Mar-08
              FIDELITY CONTRAFUND INC 21,442,537 .41 $1,903,239,584 31-May-08
              FIDELITY EQUITY-INCOME FUND 17,360,317 .33 $1,540,901,736 31-May-08
              SPARTAN U.S. EQUITY INDEX FUND 12,119,729 .23 $1,075,747,146 31-May-08
              SELECT SECTOR SPDR FUND-ENERGY SELECT 10,205,569 .19 $863,187,026 31-Mar-08

              Reply
          • 0%

            amazed1 month, 4 weeks ago

            http://www.ct.gov/drs/lib/drs/Ifta/ratetable2q2008.pdf
            
            Above is a link to the amount of tax per gallon for each state -- both gasoline and diesel. In addition, for trucks, some states have a surcharge.
            
            And, btw, each truck must pay the taxes for the gallons of fuel used in each state regardless of where the fuel was bought... Each truck (over 26K lbs) must keep track of all mileages by state, figure it's average mileage and pay taxes on the fuel that is burned in the state. The tables are how one knows how much tax to pay.

            Reply
      • 0%

        DropkickaLib2 months ago

        In West Virginia, the Republican Representative in Congress gave back the Abramoff money while a Dem Congressman kept it. It's funny that neo blames all corruption on Republicans. I work in North Carolina and just saw a front page story discussing how another top level state Democratic politician, one of many during recent years, is going to the big house for taking bribes. So far five top level Dems including the Speaker of the House, the Executive Director of the state lottery, and others have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar and gone to prison. There have been so many state and local politicians who have gone to prison during recent years and since the Dems dominate more state governments, they are disproportionately represented in these scandals. There's corruption on a large scale at every level of government. Don't be fooled into thinking that the scandals you see on TV are all that occur or even the most significant.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          amazed1 month, 4 weeks ago

          Here in CT, three out of four politicians in prison are democrats -- Newton, ex-state senator from Bridgeport, Ganim, ex-mayor of Bridgeport (great place that Bridgeport!), Giordano, ex-mayor of Waterbury -- all democrats, Rowland, ex-governor, republican.
          
          Also, the democratic mayor of Bridgeport who replaced the democratic mayor of Bridgeport who went to prison for graft and corruption, admitted in a teary-eyed speech that he DID COCAINE WHILE IN OFFICE! So HE went to jail, too, right? No, don't be silly. He apologized after he got caught, so he was lauded for his honor and bravery, went on to be a character witness in a child molester's trial, and then was given a $100,000 per year job in the Bridgeport school system working with kids.
          
          You can't make this stuff up!
          
          and, btw, speaking of personal responsibility -- all three dems pled "not guilty" and insisted on a trial where they were convicted, Only Rowland, the republican, copped a plea, admitted his guilt and more or less apologized.
          
          But this all can't be true, because we all know ONLY republicans are corrupt and never democrats.

          Reply
      • 100%

        Lurch2 months ago

        Speaking of rich, Abramoff was a GOP lobbyist through and through. Don`t even try to rewrite history and claim any Dems were involved.
        
        No Dems in jail, only Republicans.
        No Dems under investigation (even under the completely politicized Bush DOJ), only Republicans like Ralph Reed, Tom Delay, Ney, John Doolittle, Conrad Burns, and Grover Norquist.
        
        Abramoff = GOP corruption poster boy
        
        To try an even paint that as bipartisan corruption is a joke.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 100%

          highlndr2 months ago

          Lurch,
          I suggest you read up on Abramhoff with an emphasis on his dealings with Harry Reid and tribal issues. He was a bloody lobbyist. His job was to influence those in power whether Republican or Democrat.
          It is you that is attempting to rewrite history.

          Reply
    • 89%

      cosmogenium2 months ago

      Not enough progressive dems were voted in to do the job. Hopefully, this will be rectified in November.

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 29%

        BB642 months ago

        Over the last 20 years, progressive is the new/old term for socialist liberal. You have the house and senate yet nothing promised has been done. Troops are still in Iraq and... oh, that's right. Your one and only promise failed. What else were you planning on doing? I mean besides the non-binding resolutions, tax increases, raises for yourselves and 5 week vacations so you don't have to vote up or down on drilling?

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 80%

          Ratskii2 months ago

          You don't seem to remember Amendment XXVII of the U.S. Constitution. No pay raises for congress can take effect until after the following election. I also notice that you seem to have no real take on what the term 'socialist' means or the various permutations of the term. Nothing but the usual name-calling for you, hey BB?

          Reply
        • 100%

          mesodude2 months ago

          "You have the house and senate yet nothing promised has been done."
          
          --And you've held the GOP to the exact standards you're judging Democrats on, correct?

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 100%

            Lurch2 months ago

            Not a freakin chance.
            
            Republican stds change almost as fast as their political stances, ala John The Flipper McCain.

            Reply
      • 0%

        DropkickaLib2 months ago

        How many regressives does it take to sink the Congress...the world may never know.

        Reply
    • 20%

      normallysilent2 months ago

      "Not enough dems were voted in to do the job"
      Charlson,
      
      If all the libs worked together there still wouldn't be enough gray matter to get the job done.

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 100%

        Ratskii2 months ago

        For someone who calls themselves normallysilent, you sure seem to be one of the more prolific posters on this board. I wouldn't mind that if it weren't for the fact that most of you posts involve name-calling and ad hominem attacks.

        Reply
      • 100%

        Lurch2 months ago

        > If all the libs worked together there still wouldn't be enough gray matter to get the job done.
        
        Yeah, Republican corruption is that deeply embedded in our govt now, after 8 years of Bush in the WH and six years of do-nothing, rubber-stamp 3-day-work-week, wheres-my-cut Republican rule of Congress.

        Reply
      • 0%

        Shadowolf1 month, 3 weeks ago

        ...if all the Republicans were laid end to end I wouldn't be surprised...

        Reply
      • 0%

        danmcgrew1231 month, 1 week ago

        What a joke.
        With the latest GOP misadministrations gang comprised of documented draft dodgers, Permian Basin "Village Drunks" and shills for the oil industry, with big business puppet masters pulling the strings.
        Recently, you have had the glories of the Nixon Administration, where damn near every member of the inner circle served prison time and it took a Jerry Ford pardon to keep Nixon out of prison. Then Danny Quayle dodging the draft as a HERO of the Indiana National Guard.
        DubYah getting by with flagrant violation of SEC "insider trading" rules with Harkins Petroleum. Neil avoiding prison by signing a consent order to never again engage in any regulated financial business. Jeb forfeiting his real estate license and heavily fined for RE Fraud.
        Such Marvelous Leaders and Genius.
        I started as a Republican in a solid democratic state, but Ike made an independent of me when I personally saw the Gettysburg Farm as a distribution center for G.M. mid-size trucks., with GM COB Charlie Wilson in as Sec. of Defense, without resigning at GM or placing his stock in a blind trust. GOP leadership has tragically been largely stupid, venal, corrupt and greedy for a half century.

        Reply
      • 0%

        danmcgrew1231 month, 1 week ago

        What a joke.
        With the latest GOP misadministrations gang comprised of documented draft dodgers, Permian Basin "Village Drunks" and shills for the oil industry, with big business puppet masters pulling the strings.
        Recently, you have had the glories of the Nixon Administration, where damn near every member of the inner circle served prison time and it took a Jerry Ford pardon to keep Nixon out of prison. Then Danny Quayle dodging the draft as a HERO of the Indiana National Guard.
        DubYah getting by with flagrant violation of SEC "insider trading" rules with Harkins Petroleum. Neil avoiding prison by signing a consent order to never again engage in any regulated financial business. Jeb forfeiting his real estate license and heavily fined for RE Fraud.
        Such Marvelous Leaders and Genius.
        I started as a Republican in a solid democratic state, but Ike made an independent of me when I personally saw the Gettysburg Farm as a distribution center for G.M. mid-size trucks., with GM COB Charlie Wilson in as Sec. of Defense, without resigning at GM or placing his stock in a blind trust. GOP leadership has tragically been largely stupid, venal, corrupt and greedy for a half century.

        Reply
  • 90%

    Blackacereturn2 months ago

    i don't think they did, i think we failed to remove enough of the bad guys and now the good guys cant do anything because their leader has the final power. We the public didn't do our job, we can point fingers all we want but if we had remove enough to give the dems the 61 votes needed to override the president we would not be here talking about the crap we are.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 100%

      Ratskii2 months ago

      Also, if you take Lieberman into account, the dems don't have a majority in the Senate.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 100%

        Eagle_Eye1 month, 4 weeks ago

        Now that's true.

        Reply
  • 100%

    Lurch2 months ago

    What do you mean `took their duties off the table`?
    
    You mean like how the Republican DOJ ignored Enron`s rape of the consumer for years while it stole billions from us and we all knew it?
    
    You mean like how the Republican Congress denied Dems committee meetings, threatened the `nuke option` if they couldn`t ramrod through more corruption, etc? You mean how the Dems had to hold hearings in the hall cause the cons locked the doors on them?
    
    Gimme a break. More hypocritical whining.
    
    Dems have been trying to pass `Pay-Go` since the day they arrived.

    Reply

    7 Replies

    • 0%

      highlndr2 months ago

      No he means like Pelosi refusing to bring up the drilling bill for a vote.
      The top officers (Ken Lay) at Enron were vigorously prosecuted for their misdeeds at Enron. However, to assume that corporate corruption only occurs when the republicans are in power is naive, you partisan hack.
      The current Democratic Congress is doing exactly what you blame the Republican Congress for.

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 100%

        Lurch2 months ago

        > The current Democratic Congress is doing exactly what you blame the Republican Congress for.
        
        heh,heh. And you call others naive and partisan. LOL with that!
        
        The top officers, including Ken Lay, got off extremely lightly. `Vigorously prosecuted` ...lmao! The Bush partisan/communist DOJ let them steal billions. If they were a minority and had stolen five bucks from a 7-11 they would have been prosecuted more vigorously. Did they return the stolen billions? They/their families living in the lap of luxury off our stolen $ still?
        
        Gimme a break. The Republicans have taken corruption to an all new level. Look at the Iraq reconstruction fund. Seven years after we have known of the Republican/WH/Halliburton corruption and the Republicans still refuse to investigate.
        
        Somebody here is naive and partisan, but it sure as heck aint me.

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          highlndr1 month, 4 weeks ago

          Lurch,
          I, unlike you, am stating both parties play their advantages over the Minority party. That is neither naive or partisan---that is politics.
          "The Bush partisan/communist DOJ"?????? Thats a keeper! So should we also blame the prior Administration because that is when Enron set up their trading program?
          I agree there is a disconnect between white collar crime and blue collar crimes---but to imply that is Bush's fault is again, naive.
          Both Republicans and Democrats have been corrupt. No party has a monopoly on corruption as you imply.
          If the Iraqi reconstruction is so corrupt the Democratic majority should be investigating. Let's not forget Haliburton won many, many no-bid contracts under the Bill Clinton Administration. Haliburton does very difficult jobs under very difficult circumstances.
          "Somebody here is both naive and partisan, but it sure as heck ain't me." The first step in solving your problem is to realize you have one.
          Michael.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 100%

            wtagg1 month, 4 weeks ago

            So, you made so sense. What's the solution? The status quo? The two major candidates are offering nothing in the way of real change in how our government works. The only change they have managed is working the word into speeches.

            Reply
          • 100%

            Lurch1 month, 4 weeks ago

            > I, unlike you, am stating both parties play their advantages over the Minority party. That is neither naive or partisan---that is politics.
            
            Who is the minority? Do you know? Do you understand how the constitution and govt work?
            
            You should know that a 50 or 51 vs 49 majority for the Dems in Congress while the WH is run by Reps does not make the Dems the ruling party, by any means. Tyranny of the Minority is a term often heard when a certain party was ruling and complaining how they could not run roughshod over our rights even more and quicker.
            
            Of course both Republicans and Democrats have been corrupt. But to say that OK, currently 90% of the corruption is Republican but since they`ve both done it in the past we need to go after them equally, is to be unrealistic. Go after the crooks, who coincidentally have been Republican or related to Republican politicians in over 90% of cases in the last seven years. The Iraqi Reconstruction is run by all Republicans and their appointees and their cronies. All. If some of the Dems could have gotten their hands in their, I have no doubt they would have tried. However, the fact is this is a 100% Republican-owned grand theft crime. It would be naive to assume otherwise knowing how politics, entitlements, appointees, committees, and greed works.
            
            Halliburton makes a killing (npi) taking over the duties our soldiers used to do for a fraction of the cost while hiring SE Asian workers to do the job for a fraction of what even the locals would work for. Halliburton execs stole your money to have pizza and chicken wings sent from America to Iraq, claiming it was for the troops when they ate it. They buy G3 phones and use them for personal calls all over the world, and you and I pay for them. Iraqi Reconstruction is the bridge to nowhere x 100,000!
            
            Aren`t you even curious as to why the Bush communist DOJ, that is stocked with kool-aid drinkers who were hired illegally based on their loyalty to Bush instead of credentials, has not investigated? Not even curious a bit? Or is it because I frame this too honestly and accurately, that the current corruption is Republican corruption, that makes you so defensive you cannot agree to defend your own interests?
            
            > The first step in solving your problem is to realize you have one.
            
            Michael, no truer words were ever spoken. I hope you take your own advice.

            Reply
      • 100%

        jordan112 months ago

        No he means like Pelosi refusing to bring up the drilling bill for a vote. >>>
        
        You're not going to squander our coastlines because you kept electing fools to address our future energy concerns. The moron CONS sat in our Congress for TWELVE freaking years and did NOTHING to prevent where we find ourselves today. They had the votes, they ruled Congress, and they did NOTHING. That's a fact, it's indisputable, and people like YOU are responsible for continuing to support those fools. Buy a bicycle. Because again, we are NOT going to squander our coastlines for your foolishness.
        And to be fair, not all republicans are so stupid that they continue to believe that the answer to our problems lies in OIL. Bush's FATHER said NO to drilling off our coasts.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 100%

          Lurch1 month, 4 weeks ago

          Bush`s father also said invading Iraq would be a disastrous quagmire like Vietnam that America could not win.
          
          The apple has fallen far from the tree.

          Reply
  • 100%

    mesodude2 months ago

    Well, since the number of people I've heard complaining that Democrats are spending two much time investigating roughly equals the number I've heard insisting that they're no better than the GOP wrt oversight, then they're probably doing a fairly good job.

    Reply

    4 Replies

    • 50%

      donald512 months ago

      Hey, great Congressional success.... Dumya and Cheney haven't started another war... although McBush want to "Bomb Bomb Iran" when our militaty is almost broke (so says the com of the marines and cheif of staff of the Army).

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        greekdish1 month, 4 weeks ago

        No sense of humor I see. Everyone knows McCain said that in jest.....imitating the Beach Boys song. Why do you idiot Liberals post it as fact and he really really wants to bomb Iran?? Donald Duck is a compulsive liar.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 100%

          obiefrommuskogee1 month, 4 weeks ago

          Kinda like when GW Bushwipe was scampering around the hall looking for WMDs under drapes and stuff when 18 year old kids are getting blown to smithereens due to his gross stupidity, incompetence, or just plain fraud.
          
          Some things just aren't funny.

          Reply
        • 100%

          Lurch1 month, 4 weeks ago

          The kind of elitist, arrogant, scum-of-the-earth humor does not sit well with those who are actually doing the sacrificing and/or taking the risks.
          
          This really betrays the Bush/McCain mindset of war as a game and casualties as a joke. Look at their votes on funding troops, armor, and troop healing. Their votes over the years show exactly how much of a joke they think military lives and deaths are.

          Reply
• 91%

  Charlson2 months ago

  "So let us begin on the solid ground of these simple facts: This spectacular episode of misrule has coincided with both the political triumph of conservatism and with the rise of the Washington area to the richest rank of American metropolises."
  And so goes the promises of bringing back pride and honor to our government. Broken promises gave way to corruption of the highest order. The so called conservative, neoclowns at best, have raped and will leave America wounded and gasping for liberty and clutching the tattered Constitution to her breasts. Vote these scum out!

  Reply

  30 Replies

  • 100%

    wtagg2 months ago

    The admin and congress members that claim to be conservative are for the vast part not conservative. I don't like to name call, so using the "so called conservative" phrase I feel is appropriate.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 100%

      Charlson2 months ago

      I stand corrected and concur.

      Reply
    • 100%

      Lurch2 months ago

      Unless your definition of conservative is stealing from your children and grandchildren.

      Reply
  • 27%

    highlndr2 months ago

    Yes, let's all cheer for the "promises of bringing back pride and honor to our government" that Pelosi and Reid have delivered.
    While the Republicans have made their quota of mistakes over the past 8 years---the Democrats will show them how the game is played through classism, racism, and their specialty, victimology. If you are convinced the "conservative noeclowns" have "raped' America---just wait until the Democrats have a majority in Congress and the Presidency.
    Michael
    Your wallet, the only place the Democrats want to Drill.

    Reply

    26 Replies

    • 94%

      Beau78902 months ago

      "Your wallet, the only place the Democrats want to Drill."
      
      Idiot. Who do you think is paying for the Bush administration's policies? Who do you think is picking up the tabs for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; for record gas prices; for the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS borrowed by Bush to finance this stuff; for the TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH?
      
      Do you think the Republicans make money magically grow on trees, rather than being responsible and RAISING THE CASH through taxes? Were these Democratic policies?

      Reply

      8 Replies

      • 50%

        highlndr2 months ago

        It takes two to tango. Congress is complicit in the budget deficits as well as the Administration. Do you really believe that a Democratic President is going to reduce spending? Look at what Obama is proposing and tell me the deficit spending is going to stop----its a ludicrous assumption.
        The tax cuts went to EVERYONE that paid income taxes---get your bloody facts straight. Certainly the "rich" will receive a bigger cut, as they overwhelmingly pay the bulk of the income taxes.
        The top 1% of wage earners now pay almost 40% of the Income taxes in American. The top 50% of wage earners pay 94% of the Income taxes in America---leaving the bottom 50% to pay 6%. Is this NOT skewed enough for your liking?
        Michael
        If you think healthcare is expensive now---wait till its "free".

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 100%

          willottica2 months ago

          So, do you think the to 50% do 94% of the work? Do the top 1% do 40% of the work? Do you think that the proportion of work done vs. the income in those brackets is not ridiculously skewed?
          
          Why should the top 1% of income earners pay a larger share? Because the majority of their income is earned through the work of others.
          
          Are you likely to ever see a report showing the percentage of hours worked vs. the income earned? No. Why? Because reports are funded by those at the top, and this would most definitely portray them in an unflattering light.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 100%

            Ratskii2 months ago

            willottica, I think that their figures may be skewed. I've never seen one of these people provide a link for their claim. I suspect that the figures represent what would be the case if everyone paid taxes according to their income. Whoever many of those on the upper scales have loopholes that allow them to avoid paying much of what they would otherwise pay.

            Reply
        • 100%

          Beau78902 months ago

          Every policy I mentioned that Congress approved--two wars, huge amounts of debt, and Bush's tax cuts--were approved under Congress when it was controlled by Republicans.
          
          Deficit spending will stop when programs are paid for with TAXES. Taxing and spending is FAR better than borrowing and spending, don't you agree?
          
          The Democrats are the party that slowed deficit spending. Clinton even ended his term in office with a budget surplus that, if allowed to continue under Bush, would have paid off the national debt ENTIRELY by 2010.
          
          You need to check some real stats about who promotes deficit spending and who cuts it. Here's a chart showing when the national debt increased most over the past 60 years:
          
          http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 100%

            Beau78901 month, 4 weeks ago

            Oh and...by the way:
            
            The tax cuts didn't go to everyone who paid taxes. I have no idea where you got that line. The stupid $300 "rebates" George used to buy votes in 2001 went to everyone who paid taxes.
            
            Even the current "incentive" idiocy that pays up to $1200 doesn't go to everyone who pays taxes.
            
            And healthcare? Without the percentage profit insurers get for providing as few services as possible, prices would come down.

            Reply
        • 100%

          Lurch2 months ago

          Obama is promising to end the war, our biggest unfunded deficit item.
          
          Promise made, promise will be kept.
          
          What is McCain promising, even higher deficits than Obama BEFORE accounting for the Bush War which McCain would be happy to keep going for 100 years.
          
          Uh, do you understand how insurance works? Pooling of risk to reduce costs.
          
          That is how universal healthcare works and why every other country that has a govt that actually works for the people has more less expensive universal healthcare.
          
          It`s very simple. Look at medicare, exponentially less overhead than any insurance provider in America. Do you want to save $ or keep feeding the middlemen who actually profit more by denying the healthcare you need?

          Reply
      • 0%

        DropkickaLib2 months ago

        Yes, the Dem Congress passes the budget. As long as they get their piece of the pie, they pay.

        Reply
      • 17%

        BB642 months ago

        Beau, I understand you probably failed economics but we rich employ you. Reduce our cash and we reduce what we spend. That's why the stimulus went to a lot of people who never paid taxes.
        
        As to the wars, what was the costs of maintaining the no fly zone for Iraq between the Gulf War and Iraqi Freedom? It was at least that expensive. We're seeing a stable Iraq. In the next few years, once the army is solid and their air force rebuilt we'll see most of our troops come home.
        
        As a Republican, I don't create wealth by taxing people. I design, build and sell things. You want to reduce costs in this nation, here's a few ideas. First build the wall and start exporting illegals. Punish employers who knowingly hire them. Jail those who steal identities. On energy, start drilling now. For me, $4/gallon sucks but I will still drive. It's you folks who won't be able to.

        Reply
    • 85%

      Tangent0012 months ago

      "Your wallet, the only place the Democrats want to Drill." Talk about wallet-drilling! Gas prices have tripled under Bush!
      
      Isn't it McCain that wants to give oil companies a $4 Billion tax credit? Who will be called on to make up that money? Who's gonna pay back the hundreds of billions of dollar drunken sailor bar tab Bush ran up? What president in history has cut taxes during war time?
      
      Taxes are the admission ticket to a civilized society. I'd rather my money go toward programs that help the people here in the US than toward giveaways to big multinationals, much less military interventionism. How 'bout we create jobs by funneling money into restoring our national infrastructure that has been neglected for a full generation? How 'bout we reward companies that choose to hire Americans rather than outsourcing? How 'bout stimulating a home-grown alternative energy industry rather than letting China take the lead?
      
      Know who were recipients of government contracts that were supposed to go to small business? Dell, Boeing, Raytheon, Hewlett-Packard, 3M, Panasonic, FedEx, etc.
      
      http://www.asbl.com/

      Reply

      7 Replies

      • 100%

        Beau78901 month, 4 weeks ago

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 100%

          Beau78901 month, 4 weeks ago

          Okay, that's twice I hit the reply on BB64's comment just above Tangent001's, but Propeller seems to want it to go here.
          
          Just consider the below as a reply to BB64.

          Reply
      • 100%

        Beau78901 month, 4 weeks ago

        In your first paragraph, you're saying the stimulus went to a lot of people who never paid taxes because employers spent less money?
        
        If I failed economics, you apparently failed simple logic and English.
        _____
        
        If maintaining the no-fly zone cost US (as opposed to the rest of the world, which shared the cost) as much as the war, then where's all the money going? Oh yeah--"private contractors" (read "mercenary friends of the administration") to rebuild what we destroyed. Your "stable Iraq" will be stable as long as our military presence stays beefed up--which we can't afford.
        _____
        
        As a Republican, you don't create wealth by taxing people. You get paid for your services. That's what capitalists do, whether they're Democrat of Republican. And it only creates wealth for the owners, not the rest of the country. It does nothing to finance the tremendous costs--and handouts to business--Republicans create.
        
        I won't get into the fact that many, many business owners don't actually design, build or crate anything, except to say they're like parasites who create their own wealth off of others' stupidity. I'm glad if you're productive. Much of the private sector is not.
        
        And please, don't make assumptions you can't back up. If you have access to my tax returns or my academic transcripts, you can speak about whether I'll be able to drive or which classes I took, from whom, and how I did. Isn't that beneath even you?

        Reply
      • 100%

        jordan112 months ago

        You made one mistake in asking those questions. You didn't give the guy the answer. Obviously, he can't do that on his own, or he wouldn't be making such goofy statements.

        Reply
      • 25%

        highlndr2 months ago

        I see. So Bush is directly responsible for the increase on fuel prices----not the evolving economies and the resultant increase in demand.
        If McCain is proposing such an idea he is wrong. Who will be called on to make up that money----the wealthy who pay the income taxes in America that's who