45 Comments

• 1. Sunny  |  January 31st, 2008 at 7:42 am

  One of the more annoying things about modern politics is dealing with obtuse lefties who think that the GOP is in business to help fat-cats at the expense of the people.

  You mean like Cheney’s influence with Halliburton and the giant oil companies? Is it only annoying when the dealing comes from a Democrat rather than a Republican? How much money do you think Halliburton and its subsidiaries have made off the people of the US? Or the giant oil companies? Guess that doesn’t count.

• 2. SEW  |  January 31st, 2008 at 8:16 am

  Sunny, it’s the $31.3 million to Clinton, and the additional $100 million to the Clinton Foundation. And your charge is, uh, let me see, “Cheney’s influence with Halliburton? Is there a rational thought in your head anywhere?

• 3. neocon  |  January 31st, 2008 at 8:20 am

  Sunny,

  Big oil again huh? Good lord, do you not learn anything? The US government, thanks to regulation, a favorite of Democrats, makes more money per gallon of gas than the oil companies do, without any expense incurred. Do you understand that?

  Haliburton is one of a handful of companies in the entire world that can handle the magnitude of work they have been hired to do. The other equivalent companies are foreign based. So, would you rather unemploy the many Americans that work for Haliburton just to satisfy your hatred of Cheney? Who incidentally has zero remaining connections with that company.

  Any more baseless comments?

• 4. neocon  |  January 31st, 2008 at 8:23 am

  Sunny,

  I believe you to be a school teacher. Is that correct? If so, please, leave your liberal bias at home. We don’t need anymore indoctrinated lemmings in this country.

• 5. Kahn  |  January 31st, 2008 at 9:09 am

  Sunny said “You mean like Cheney’s influence with Halliburton and the giant oil companies?”

  Oh, that must refer to the way Haliburton was the only company to bid on some huge open contract RFP’s in Iraq because they were the only ones who could do the work.

  Or, it must refer to the billion dollars in options Cheney walked away from while running for VP.

  Or, it must refer to the fact that Cheney has given every cent of his income (investment AND VP salary) to charity since becoming VP.

  So with tat tit for tat argument withdrawn Sunny, take the blinders off and re-examine your beliefs. Here you have innuendo while Mark posts an actual case with dates and numbers. How about you resist the urge to snap back at me by attacking Cheney and actually see if you can read up on the facts Mark outlined? Not on Daily KOS either.

  I challenge you to learn. Resist the hate. Learn.

• 6. js  |  January 31st, 2008 at 9:10 am

  Im still wondering if, in fact, anyone had presented anything proving Cheney ever intervened on behalf Halburton or the Oil Companies.

  Government Contracts are detailed, itemised and evaluated by the GAO. In order for Cheney to have done this, dozens of people would have to be involved, risking thier livihood and careers, to enable a Government employee (Cheney) to dictate who the Government picks for such and such a contract. This would have had to have been an ongoing criminal enterprise over a multi year duration.

  The MSM maintains a lie. It is not Cheney, but the press that is corrupted by political influence and power. What is supposed to be impariality of the Press is vexed by the very Executive Officers whose duty is to present equal coverage, unbiased, for the people they serve. These corporations have become powerful allies to political parties whose interest it is to create illusions of impropriety before the public against our elected officials.

  They dont work for the Citizens of the United States, they take our money and use it as resources for Corporations that truely have no business interfering with our Government. This is the mask of the socialists, who would herd us like sheep from our birth to out deaths.

• 7. SEW  |  January 31st, 2008 at 9:23 am

  The MSM also heavily relies on parrots like Sunny, Joe and dian to keep the BS going. Didn’t Bush/Hitler Cheney invade Iraq for the oil?

• 8. Sunny  |  January 31st, 2008 at 9:30 am

  Didn’t Bush/Hitler Cheney invade Iraq for the oil?
  SEW

  finally - you get it!

• 9. js  |  January 31st, 2008 at 9:31 am

  Didnt take long to prove that as a fact, did it SEW?

• 10. hermie  |  January 31st, 2008 at 9:35 am

  Again, the Clintons depend upon those like Sunny to attack the messengers and divert the message elsewhere. Never mind those pesky facts, when an oft repeated lie can be resurrected far more easily.

• 11. Retired Spook  |  January 31st, 2008 at 10:10 am

  The US government, thanks to regulation, a favorite of Democrats, makes more money per gallon of gas than the oil companies do, without any expense incurred.

  Or, neocon, you could also say, without any risk.

  Im still wondering if, in fact, anyone had presented anything proving Cheney ever intervened on behalf Halburton or the Oil Companies.

  js, if ever there was an instance of repeating something often enough that it’s accepted as truth, this is it. It’s the most classic case I can think of of the “Big Lie”. The Left has perfected this tactic to an art form.

• 12. OhioOrrin  |  January 31st, 2008 at 10:24 am

  is this the yellowcake joe wilson missed in niger?

  u know, the stuff that whats-his-face covered up by stuffing all those classified docs down his britches?

  oh wait, I seem to be mixing-up scandals…hard to keep ‘em straight.

  ‘cept the sex stuff like wide stances & so forth.

  only thing to do is check into rehab & say the alcohol was doing the stuffing…I mean, talking.

• 13. SteaM  |  January 31st, 2008 at 10:26 am

  I don’t see how this article you post really shows that, generally speaking, democrats will be really bad in terms of shady business deals that benefit them.

  Mark, you are purposefully ignoring the record of the Republicans over the past years.

  And anyone who is OK with a no-bid contract being given to a company that the Vice President used to be the CEO of has a serious deficiency in reality.

• 14. Joe  |  January 31st, 2008 at 10:44 am

  Im still wondering if, in fact, anyone had presented anything proving Cheney ever intervened on behalf Halburton or the Oil Companies

  I don’t know. It is hard to tell when the people attending the “Energy Task Force” meeting with Darth Cheney is kept secret.

  The US government, thanks to regulation, a favorite of Democrats, makes more money per gallon of gas than the oil companies do, without any expense incurred.

  That is all well and good… it doesn’t change the fact that while the price at the pump is skyrocketing the oil companies are still making record profits quarter after quarter after quarter.
  I don’t begrudge anyone or any company from making a big profit, but when it comes to a core resource like gas/oil, it is hard to accept that there isn’t anything they can do to get prices any lower.
  Go on… bark all you want about supply and demand. We are talking about gas and oil not big screen TVs and playstations.

• 15. neocon  |  January 31st, 2008 at 11:05 am

  Joey,

  Let’s walk through this ok? Oil companies sell their product to what the market will bear, no more and no less. You don’t have to buy it. Are you in favor of regulating their business? If so, then you would be supporting a nationalized oil program which is what Chavez advocates and completely polar opposite of capatilism. And you wonder why we consider you lemmings to be socialists, or borderline communists.

  Secondly, there is a tremendous inherent risk with oil products which means a great amount of liability, which could cost them dearly. Secondly, liberals, like you, have denied them the ability to spend those profits building refineries, exploration and new drilling which in turn would bring down the cost of their product.

  Joe, your understanding of a free market is scary and further proof of why you, and people like you, should NEVER govern.

• 16. TiredofLibBullShit  |  January 31st, 2008 at 11:40 am

  Joe, blathers on and on and on and on…..

  “I don’t begrudge anyone or any company from making a big profit, but when it comes to a core resource like gas/oil, it is hard to accept that there isn’t anything they can do to get prices any lower.”

  Sure Joe, there is. But when an entire political party shuts down new production and severly limits refining in this country, our options are limited with that core resource. Namely , and I know I have to spell it out for you simple minded folk, THE DEMOCRATS and their special interests - No new drilling and no new refineries.

  I hear you libs bitch and moan constantly about oil prices and you all believe it is because of the greedy oil companies and their price gouging. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is a matter of limited supply - both in the production of crude oil and the refining of gasoline and other finished products. Both production and refining have to be increased, period. The price of oil is very high because of limited supply and rising demand.

  Another problem is the “boutique fuels” restrictions placed by none other than government again namely DEMOCRATS. Gasoline produced for Louisiana is different from gasoline produced for California. The fuel additives and refining specifications imposed by government also drives up the price of fuel. Only limited refineries make that specific gasoline blend for California. It therefore, makes the price of gasoline higher for California and also for the rest of the country on other gasoline, because that refining capacity is lost to the rest of the country. That does not mandate that specialty or “boutique fuel.

  And, let’s not forget state and federal taxes on gasoline, which average 30 to 50 cents per gallon, depending where you live. Then there are the price regulators, that state a minimum price the retailer must charge, to make it fair. Price controls did not work in the 70s. Why do they still insist on them now. If a store that sells other items, and can make up the difference with those products, if they decide to sell gasoline at a lower price, they can’t do it - it would be illegal.

  So, stop bitching about the “PROFIT” of the oil companies, who make about 8 cents on the gallon in profit, when the government makes more in taxes and imposes more with regulation. Big Oil also makes other products from a barrel of oil and that counts to the profit as well - diesel fuel, jet fuel, plasitics, polymers, asphalt, coke, light and heavy oils, etc. etc.

  Sunny, uh…………………………………. You’re hopeless and have absolutely no understanding and are too busy regurgitating talking points than thinking rationally.

  The left and their special interests (theirs and the groups that gives them wads of cash as “donations”) are the primary causes of the current crisis. And then, there is Bill with his “do as I say, not as I do” attitude and expecting his lemmings and USEFUL IDOITS to take up for him/her.

• 17. Rich  |  January 31st, 2008 at 11:43 am

  Wow how many lefties have actually commented on the damn point of this thread? Bill Clinton undermined U.S. policy and enriched his buddy and his “charity” to the tune of 131 million dollars. What the hell are you losers talking about Cheney and oil for in this thread? Even the loons at Dailykos are all over this. Its obvious the NYT dropped this story the day Edwards dropped out for maximum damage to Obama. Edwards can’t split the vote now and if this gets legs than Clinto is going to totally tank (I know the NYT just endorsed Clinton but obviously they knew this story was coming so take it as it is). This story is hot- aids research, secret deals, dictators, billion dollar contracts to shell companies, Borat, and Slick willie. The main questions is, did Bill visit Borat’s sister?

• 18. inDiGo  |  January 31st, 2008 at 11:46 am

  Actually, the Republicans in the Senate stopped the last drilling plan because it would tax the oil companies planning to drill there. The tax would cut into their already soaring record profits and we can’t have that.

• 19. inDiGo  |  January 31st, 2008 at 11:54 am

  Oh, back to the topic….Once a slick willy, always a slick willy.

• 20. Choose.Life.Not.War  |  January 31st, 2008 at 11:59 am

  Judging from the way Republicans are dropping like flies from this year’s House races, 2009/2010 should remain solidly DermocratIC for sure.

  Thanx to Bush, Cheney and .. ahem.. EERACK, Victo(R)y will not be possible for republicans until 2024 ( last year of Chelsea Clinton’s term) at the minimum.

• 21. Rich  |  January 31st, 2008 at 12:28 pm

  Woops- that should have read mximum dmage to Clinton- sorry

• 22. TiredofLibBullShit  |  January 31st, 2008 at 1:15 pm

  “The tax would cut into their already soaring record profits and we can’t have that.”

  Uh, if you new anything - corporations do not pay taxes…that is those taxes are passed onto the consumers - that is what we can’t have.

• 23. Dennis  |  January 31st, 2008 at 2:11 pm

  Mark says, “and so part of the Democratic establishment (ie, in this case, Kennedy and the NY Times) are turning on Hillary and seeking her demise in the primaries.”

  The only problem with this statement - last week the NYT officially gave their endorsement to Hillary Clinton. They’re not exactly all singing from the same hymnal here.

  Let’s look at regulation for a minute. A century ago there was no regulation on industry. There were no minimum wages, child labor laws or product liability laws. There was no such concept as “workers’ rights”. People on the lower rungs of society were exploited, mangled, worked to death and poisoned by tainted products and pollution while tycoons like Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Hunt, Getty, etc piled up immense wealth. Bribing Congress was standard practice; corruption was rampant. People with the dumb luck to be born in the right families or have the right connections made fortunes on other people’s money without lifting a finger.

  America grew by leaps and bounds, but there was a terrible human price to all that creation of wealth.

  After the Depression reforms and accountability came into play. Antitrust laws restricted monopolies and corruption was dramatically reduced. And Lo, in a generation or two wealth began to be more evenly distributed and a strong middle class evolved.

  As regulations restricted the license of corporate entities to do what they pleased, they also strengthened equality of opportunity - many more people could work an honest day’s work and make an honest buck. Blue collar workers could feed their families, buy homes and even save money.

  But beginning with Reagan, and more so during the Bush years, the GOP and corporate interests have reversed much of that and would undo it all if they could. They’ve deregulated and permitted big companies to buy up all the little guys, eliminating local enterprise and fair market competition.

  Such things were illegal during the postwar years, when the US enjoyed the greatest middle class expansion in our history. Now the middle class is shrinking faster than the polar ice caps and wealth is bypassing the working class and being sucked up to the top faster than ever.

  The ignorant are persuaded that Republicans have individuals’ interest at heart because they oppose corporate regulation. The great genius of Reagan was his ability to persuade people to vote against their own economic interests. The reality of globalism requires us to rethink how regulation can benefit the most people, but to simply remove it would consign the middle class to extinction and working people to perpetual neo-feudal servitude. The rich ultimately would be forced into gated communities to protect themselves from the resentful masses. This is not the America most people want, although it would be perfectly fine for some of my more well-to do GOP acquaintances.

  Oh, and also you say “the people cutting shady deals almost all have a ‘D’ after their name” yet the Abramoff scandal, the most pervasive corruption uncovered in Washington in recent years, almost exclusively involved Republicans. And does the name Duke Cunningham ring anyone’s bell? Corruption is bipartisan and equal opportunity - it is willful partisan blindness to try and tag it to one party or the other.

• 24. Kahn  |  January 31st, 2008 at 2:27 pm

  Well, I see Sunny couldn’t resist the urge to hate and refused to learn. Sad.

• 25. Ricorun  |  January 31st, 2008 at 2:31 pm

  As has already been mentioned, DKos has a “recommended diary” on this issue this morning. It has already garnered over 1000 comments. I didn’t read them all, but I did read a few. And it’s rather interesting how contentious it is. Few seemed to be contesting the facts. Rather, most were attacking the messenger. In some comments the poster was accused of being a “Bushbot troll” or some such.

  So what are the facts? According to the article we have this: But Moukhtar Dzhakishev, president of Kazatomprom, said in an interview that Mr. Giustra did discuss it, directly with the Kazakh president, and that his friendship with Mr. Clinton “of course made an impression.” Mr. Dzhakishev added that Kazatomprom chose to form a partnership with Mr. Giustra’s company based solely on the merits of its offer. That logic sounds a little inconsistent to me. How can you acknowledge that Mr. Giustra’s friendship with Clinton ““of course made an impression” and then add that the deal with his company was “based solely on the merits of its offer”? That seems improbable, especially considering the amount of money involved.

  On the other hand, it also seems improbable that Cheney’s past association with Halliburton likewise had no effect. Maybe that’s not the best example (after all, Cheney mitigated the impact of that charge by donating most or all of his proceeds to charity), but there are certainly others. At any rate, the point I am trying to make is that those who are most inclined to immediately dismiss any potential conflicts of interest involving members of the party they support are usually the same ones that are most inclined to immediately assume conflicts of interest involving members of the party they don’t. One apparently requires absolute proof, the other only requires accusations provided by a story in a periodical. Kahn suggested, “I challenge you to learn. Resist the hate. Learn.” That’s an excellent challenge, and one that everyone should take to heart.

  Back to the specific subject at hand… With respect to uranium mining, what does this news imply? To me it most broadly and most ominously implies this: uranium is indeed becoming a hot commodity. Nuclear power generation is certainly carbon neutral (well, excepting the carbon use involved in building, maintaining, and supplying the plants, purifying the ore, and securing, reprocessing, and/or sequestering the waste), but they are certainly not uranium neutral. In other words, nuclear power is not a renewable fuel. Sooner or later uranium reserves will be depleted, just as fossil fuel reserves will. I’ve heard different estimates as to how long it will take: some say well over a hundred years, others say less than thirty. Different time estimates depend on different estimates on possible reserves as well as different estimates on demand. Within that time, production capacity also becomes an issue. If production cannot meet demand, prices will go up. And considering the immense cost of building and securing a nuclear plant in the first place, and the time it takes bring one on line (a decade or more), on top of the fact that the best at it at the present time are the Europeans (and the French, most specifically) makes one wonder whether nuclear power is such a hot option (so to speak). Other, more cost-effective, faster implemenation, more sustainable, “greener”, and/or more domestically produced options are quickly becoming available. And that’s not even considering the effect of economy of scale.

  But maybe all of that is off topic. But I have to say that it does strike me as a little disingenuous to ignore the fundamental bottom line issues in favor of taking political pot shots. But as political pot shots go, this could be a good one. If what the NYT says is true, those involved clearly wanted to keep the deal hush hush. There may be legal consequences over and above the ethical ones. And that isn’t likely to help the Clintons. Too bad, so sad.

  One other thing (and again somewhat off-topic)… people have mentioned the taxes associated with transportation fuels, but no one has mentioned the subsidies and tax breaks afforded to the oil, gas, and coal industries — or the nuclear industry, for that matter. A conservative estimate would be approximately $20 billion a year. It’s probably more like $30 billion, but it depends on how you spin the numbers. If that amount of money was reallocated to promote R&D and lower the capital investment hump that is currently hampering renewable fuels like solar thermal (concentrated solar power), photovoltaics, wind, wave, geothermal, cellulosic and algea-based biofuels, smart grid, and next generation battery technologies, we could be on a trajectory that would not only be more sustainable and integratable across large and small scales, but more innovative (something the US has historically done particularly well), more exportable, better for the economy and the trade deficit, and potentially more environmentally positive than kicking the can down the road for a few years. I’m not saying the choice has to be one or the other, but the longer we kick the can down the road by emphasizing domestic fossil fuel exploration and/or nuclear fuels, the worse off we’re going to be in the long run.

• 26. Dennis  |  January 31st, 2008 at 2:50 pm

  Ricorun, thank you for an astute and thoughtful post. Especially appreciate the point:

  “If that amount of money was reallocated to promote R&D and lower the capital investment hump that is currently hampering renewable fuels …”

  And to think about the staggering amount lost in Iraq - from the pallets of cash back in the days of the CPA to the present hemorrhaging of treasure - and where we might be now had better decisions been made - it does make one long for some good old-fashioned accountability.

• 27. Jeremiah  |  January 31st, 2008 at 3:18 pm

  Dennis,

  Ronald Reagan believed in the power of the people. He believed that all men were created equal - endowed by their Creator, with unalienable rights…not just, (which is the difference in the Democrats and Republicans), on a certain class of individuals - a Liberal format, and which, is the whole meaning of Liberalism, and how it translates into absolute right of the State to have power over the individual(s) by subsidizing and maintaining an impoverished state of existence. What happens when you take away rights? You have tyranny.

  The late 1850s are proof of the difference between in Democrat and Republican. Only it was clearer to the people then that Democrats were against freedom to choose, and work for reasonable wages. Democrats have kept the same thing in mind for 150 years and have long sought to bring back the days of 1850, only today, they have to work it out through the convincing of the message…Or, in other words - To deceive the people into doing what they want them to do in order that they may get their way. Here’s what it is today - “If you’ll vote for me, I’ll keep you enough (just enough), to survive on,” Then they go back to their cohorts while in session, “We’ve got us some real suckers, we’ll raise taxes on the working class and make us a bundle.”

  In essence, whenever you have that type of administration, a Liberal administration, you’ve got the whole country into slavery - the poor are enslaved to the government for handouts, and the working class are slaves against their own will by working their butts off for those who won’t work, but instead, decide to vote for a Democrat who will give them little to nothing to get them on their feet to help themselves and society.

  The Democrat platform has always been against the working man’s dreams, simply because they’re not interested in equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome - and too, it is contradictory to what the bible teaches us about how government should be run - for more than 2,500 years, long before John Locke and James Madison, the biblical prophets warned the people of Israel against giving too much power to the state in the form of a king. They insisted that governmental leaders, no less than the common field laborer, must obey a Higher Law-and those who dare to go against this Higher Law will be held accountable to divine justice.

  Deuteronomy 1:13 ‘Choose wise, intelligent and experienced men from each of your tribes, that I may appoint them as your rulers.’

  Exodus 18:21-22 ‘You shall also look among all the people for able and God-fearing men, men of truth who hate dishonest gain, and set them as officers over groups of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens. Let these men render decisions for the people in all ordinary cases.’

  America would be wise… to choose another Republican as our next President!

  –Jeremiah–

• 28. Dennis  |  January 31st, 2008 at 3:51 pm

  Deleted - off topic

• 29. Dennis  |  January 31st, 2008 at 4:17 pm

  p.s. to Jeremiah - another crucial point: the values of the Democratic and Republican parties have reversed themselves in fundamental ways since the 1850s. Hence the nomenclature and politics of yesteryear is hardly adequate to critique or evaluate the parties’ current positions.

• 30. js  |  January 31st, 2008 at 4:31 pm

  liberal policies and values?

  Hogwash.

  How would Jesus put this?

  Mt 12:37 - For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

  So.

  Liberal policies; calling sodomites homosexuals, homosexual rights, homosexual marriage. Liberals endorsed alchoholism and lung cancer by allowing unfettered addictive substance to remain available to the masses for a whim, while they protected the industries like a monopoly and outlawed every other mood altering substance people use. Our jails are full of innocent people because of them, our hospitals full of people dying because of thier policies, and our highways and bridges are falling apart while they spend our money on earmarks for industries and favors for fools on errands. Liberals have denied our fore fathers wisdom, and condemn us to repeat thier mistakes.

  I think Jesus told us to be wise, not foolish. Hold on to what you have, preserve what is good, and reject what is not. Learn to deal with your emotions, you cannot outlaw fear, you cannot lable rejection as hatred, nor should you use your race as an advantage over another. Learn to forgive, yet do not forget, once fooled shame on you, twice to shame me thrice. Your money and your wisdom are at odds, with one you are stingy and have plenty, the other you have not but need not.

  What is liberalism, but freedom without responsibility.

• 31. js  |  January 31st, 2008 at 4:37 pm

  “another crucial point: the values of the Democratic and Republican parties have reversed themselves in fundamental ways ”

  Have they truely? Or are you identification of those values flawed? Conservativism grasps to tradition, so if you consider tradition to be accepting slavery as right, then you missed the real core principals of a true Conservative, because Christians have truely rejected slavery, right from the start. Twas a liberal ideal to own slaves, some experiment that a man could actually own another man. That concept was certainly rejected by Jesus.

• 32. Mark Noonan  |  January 31st, 2008 at 5:20 pm

  Ricorun - good point; the rest of you liberals are a bunch of mean-spirited, hate-filled cowards…a whole day, and none of you other than Ricorun has even addressed the issue. Bunch of panty-waist twerps…

  Show some guts, already - confront what Bill has done and ask yourself: were we, perhaps, fooled by all that talk of a Vast, Right Wing Conspiracy in the 90’s?

• 33. Mark Noonan  |  January 31st, 2008 at 5:22 pm

  Dennis,

  Please look up just which politician received the most money from Abramoff’s lobbying activities.

• 34. Ricorun  |  January 31st, 2008 at 7:00 pm

  Mark: Bunch of panty-waist twerps…Show some guts, already - confront what Bill has done and ask yourself: were we, perhaps, fooled by all that talk of a Vast, Right Wing Conspiracy in the 90’s?

  Personally, I think both sides need to confront what the leaders on both sides have done and ask ourselves: were we, perhaps fooled by all the talk about conspiracies on both sides. There is a lot of talk about which party is “the party of the rich”. Well, it seems to me that both parties have segments that qualify as “very rich”. Likewise, both parties have segments that aren’t. To my mind, the big question is which one most ensures that those defined as “rich” and “poor” don’t also become generationally defined. There is no question that income disparity is increasing, while median household income is either staying the same or decreasing, even though per-capita productivity is increasing. If you look at the quintile figures the disparity is even more obvious. And the situation hasn’t gotten much better over six years of economic expansion. That, to me, is an ominous sign, especially now that we’re facing an economic contraction (whether or not it satisfies the academic definition of “recession”). But it isn’t necessarily a fatal one — assuming it can be shown that those within a given class definition (wealthy/middle class/lower class/poor) have the ability to transition between them with reasonable facility. I don’t know of any statistics that demonstrate that. If anyone knows of any please let me know. Because I think it’s exceedingly important. I think a fundamental hallmark a stable society is that it remains a meritocracy, not an aristocracy: in other words, it should matter much more who you are and what you bring to the table, rather than who your parents were. So in addition to the level of income disparity, it becomes even more essential to know how much upward and downward mobility there is in the society at large. But I have to say that I am indeed alarmed at the growing wealth disparity evident in this country.

  And that speaks to the problems I see in both parties. On the one hand, the Dems appear intent to put people in neat little boxes and construct artificial barriers that make it harder for many to make the transition between one box and another. The Reps, on the other hand, appear intent to eliminate some people from consideration altogether.

  Having said that, I am generally in favor of tax cuts, but they aren’t all equal. On the best-case side, I think corporate taxes should be minimal (which they aren’t). On the worst case side, I am very much in favor of the estate tax. I suppose I could try to explain my views, because I’m sure I’m likely to piss off everyone if I let them hang. But letting them hang is more more fun, lol!

• 35. Retired Spook  |  January 31st, 2008 at 7:00 pm

  What is liberalism, but freedom without responsibility.

  What a great bumper sticker!!

• 36. Dennis  |  January 31st, 2008 at 7:17 pm

  Deleted - off topic

• 37. Retired Spook  |  January 31st, 2008 at 9:46 pm

  By that time the GOP had become more associated with segregationist attitudes and policies.

  Dennis, that is just an outright bald-faced lie.

• 38. js  |  January 31st, 2008 at 10:30 pm

  context dennis

  The Righteous King

  1Behold, a King shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. 2And a man shall be as a hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. 3And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken. 4The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly. 5The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. 6For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry; and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. 7The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right. 8But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

  Actually, the word churl in hebrew means scoundrel, not selfish, or miserable.

  And to read this, it appears that liberal is a good thing, until you go to the original meaning in hebrew as well, where the actual meaning here is Noble.

  So the noble man devises noble things, and by noble things he shall stand.

  Its not always the literal meaning of the words you need to hear, but within the spirit of the one speaking that is more important.

  Me thinks you should read deeper and not faster friend. For the liberal is truely not a blessing to our society.

• 39. Dennis  |  January 31st, 2008 at 11:29 pm

  Spook - I read your reference and found it informative. (Ed. Note; rest of comment deleted, off topic)

• 40. Jeremiah  |  February 1st, 2008 at 12:10 am

  More Dems embrace diversity and change - it’s just a liberal trait.

  Dennis,

  That ties into the point I tried to make earlier. Democrats have kept the same ideologies since middle 1800s, and is why more Democrats became Republican over the next 100 years, because they knew that diversity and change from the original founding, a biblical founding would later prove to be a terrible mistake, and today’s society proves that more than ever - with infanticide at all time record highs, and overall morality at all time record lows.

  Seek God’s wisdom and he’ll lead you in the right direction, and who knows…you just might find yourself on the winning side some day!
  :)

  –Jeremiah–

• 41. Mark Noonan  |  February 1st, 2008 at 12:29 am

  Ricorun,

  Indeed - and that is the central theme of “Caucus of Corruption”, the need for both parties to be held accountable. The GOP has been so held - losing its Congressional majorities, several corrupt Republicans now in jail and the party penitent on the matter of things like earmarks and lobbyists…the Democrats have yet to be held accountable.

• 42. Xango Annie  |  February 1st, 2008 at 1:45 am

  Does anyone not think that Bubba and that guy were introduced by his honey, Brenda S???

• 43. keefer  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:54 am

  it doesn’t change the fact that while the price at the pump is skyrocketing the oil companies are still making record profits quarter after quarter after quarter.

  Most of their record profits are made overseas, and I’m wondering how Hitlery will get her hands on these profits. She won’t, but it all sounds good to the lemmings…

• 44. js  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:21 am

  I get to lookin at the whole mess and just wonder if either party is truely salvagable.

  I begin to wonder so often about why these people are our choices. They are all affiliated with corruption in some way or other, just like Pelosi and Reid, who were elected to lead the House and Senate, when our elected leaders knew factually of thier tainted dealings.

  So we have those scoundrels in positions of leadership, and now, we are being presented with more? When Clinton ran, they went to some serious efforts to hide the real Bill. I cant accept that the same people that put Bill before us now present us with Hillary, and Obama.

  It defies logic, and common sense. It would be a breath of fresh air to have a 3rd party President run on the foundation of Justice in Government is equal to Justice outside of it. Them maybe some of these corrupt politicians can spend a few years in the Federal Prison System as a guest.

• 45. Sunny  |  February 1st, 2008 at 2:25 pm

  Kahn | January 31st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
  Well, I see Sunny couldn’t resist the urge to hate and refused to learn. Sad.

  That is really rich coming from you Kahn. If you and others would recognize that greed comes from all sides, but you would want to believe that only evil liberals are greedy and underhanded in how they accumulate their wealth. For every greedy underhanded liberal, there is one of the same on the conservative side. It is the conservatives that constantly put down and attempt to put the evils of this world on the liberal side of society. Would you put Jesus in this categoty as well. He was the one who told his followers to sell everything they had, give the money to the poor and follow Him. I doubt that the Republican Party would want Him as a spokesman with such a philosophy. It is not hateful to point out the greed from your side of the isle as well - but merely stating the truth. I am sorry you cannot handle the truth, but just put on your big girl panties and deal with it!