# Maybe there were WMD in Iraq



## Skull Pilot (Jul 10, 2008)

AFP: Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada

MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - US announces Iraq uranium transfer

The question is why did the Bush administration keep mum about this? Could there have been some political reason that made it more expedient not to reveal this?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> AFP: Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada
> 
> MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - US announces Iraq uranium transfer
> 
> The question is why did the Bush administration keep mum about this? Could there have been some political reason that made it more expedient not to reveal this?



I don't buy it.  

Iran has "wmd's" too.  So does the USA.  As long as they aren't using them.

I heard that Saddam invaded Kuwait because they were horizontally tapping his oil.  It does seem strange that he would invade one of his neighbors for no reason.

I can't pretend to have all the answers.  I just know that America is very good at spreading propoganda and I know we don't get the same news as International news.  So maybe we are being brainwashed and lied to?  

We are definately the modern day version of Rome or Great Britain.  Can anyone say either of those past superpowers were innocent and richous in every situation?  Marching into 3rd world countries, stealing their resources, exploiting them, etc.

After 8 years of Bush, I'm beginning to question it when Condy or Chaney says another country is "evil".  Can you blame me?


----------



## Doug (Jul 10, 2008)

I believe that Saddam's uranium  was intended for the manufacture of tableware made out of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_glass" target="_blank"> uranium glass</a>.

These lovely dishes were then going to hold mustard. In other words, Saddam was hoping to manufacture radiantly lovely mustard glass.

Of course, the lying Zionist imperialist crusader Western media twisted it all around, as usual.


----------



## editec (Jul 10, 2008)

Got any more easily recognizable websites that we can check this out on?

I never heard of either of these.

AFP looks pretty dubious to me



> Copyright © 2008 AFP. AFP text, photos, graphics and logos shall not be used for commercial purposes, reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. AFP shall not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in any AFP content, or for any actions taken in consequence. AFP materials may not be stored in whole or in part in a computer except for personal non-commercial use. As a newswire service AFP does not obtain release from the subjects, individuals, groups or entities contained in its photographs, graphics or quoted in its text. Further, no clearance is obtained from the owners of any trademarks or copyrighted material where the marks and material are included in AFP photos or content. You shall be solely responsible for obtaining any and all the necessary releases from whatever individual or entity is necessary for any of your uses of AFP material. You agree to indemnify AFP from any losses, damages and expenses (including reasonable attorney fees) it incurs as a result of any claim based on your use of its materials in violation of these terms.


 

Looks to me like anyone can post anything there.<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>      var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");      document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));    </SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>      var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-2467371-1");      pageTracker._initData();      pageTracker._trackPageview();    </SCRIPT>


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 10, 2008)

Let it die, if this were true you would have heard about it probably a million times or more from the neocons who started this illegal war. I do understand there are rocks there and much sand which could constitute WMDs if placed in the engines of America or thrown from tall buildings.


*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I don't buy it.
> 
> Iran has "wmd's" too.  So does the USA.  As long as they aren't using them.
> 
> ...



I suggest you learn some facts. Saddam Hussein Invaded Kuwait because he claimed it was the 19th Province of Iraq. It had nothing to do with Kuwait stealing anything.. Now lets think about this for a moment, if Kuwait oil wells were stealing Iraq Oil, what would happen to Iraq oil when he set those wells on fire?

And yes I can blame you for being a stupid person that does not know facts or reality.

Ohh and explain how we stole anything from Iraq. Go ahead provide some evidence we took any oil from them. I won't hold my breathe though waiting.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 10, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> *A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*



This is funny as shit, every time you post it you prove what a retard you really are. The Democrats are the ones that create laws that restrict citizens, they not the republicans are the ones that create laws that remove rights and privileges. All one has to do is glance back through our history for the facts on that issue.

Obama is a socialist turd and a crack pot. A vote for him, is a vote for the destruction of this country.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Let it die, if this were true you would have heard about it probably a million times or more from the neocons who started this illegal war. I do understand there are rocks there and much sand which could constitute WMDs if placed in the engines of America or thrown from tall buildings.
> 
> 
> *A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*



Hey Midcan5.  I thought of something yesterday when a neo con poster scoffed off my "proof" because it came from a "liberal" source of media.  I asked him, "what media do you approve of"?  Since they think MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, Time, NY TIMES, Rolling Stones, etc.  Since they think EVERY media is liberal, I want to know what sources they approve of.  I can't wait to hear back from them.  

And, if I'm right and the mainstream media has been taken over by rich corporations who's intent is to turn the media pro GOP, what chance is there that we will ever find anything that paints them in a negative way?

So of course all my sources will be "liberal".  The "conservative" media sure isn't going to tell us the truth.  Right?


----------



## CSM (Jul 10, 2008)

editec said:


> Got any more easily recognizable websites that we can check this out on?
> 
> I never heard of either of these.
> 
> ...



Herfe is the same story from another "dubious" site:

U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

MSNBC has always been suspect in my view.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I suggest you learn some facts. Saddam Hussein Invaded Kuwait because he claimed it was the 19th Province of Iraq. It had nothing to do with Kuwait stealing anything.. Now lets think about this for a moment, if Kuwait oil wells were stealing Iraq Oil, what would happen to Iraq oil when he set those wells on fire?
> 
> And yes I can blame you for being a stupid person that does not know facts or reality.
> 
> Ohh and explain how we stole anything from Iraq. Go ahead provide some evidence we took any oil from them. I won't hold my breathe though waiting.



The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today, fuelling criticism that the Iraq war was largely about oil.

The successful companies are expected to include Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.

Non-Western companies, notably those in Russia, are expected to lose out.

The technical support contracts will give the companies access to Iraq's vast untapped oil fields. Oil production in Iraq is at its highest level since the invasion in 2003. The Iraqi government wants to increase production by 20%, as the country has an estimated 115bn barrels of crude reserves.

The US state department was involved in drawing up the contracts, the New York Times reported today. 

It provided template contracts and suggestions on drafting but were not involved in the decisions, US officials said.

Democratic senators last week lobbied that the awarding of the contracts should be delayed until after the Iraqi parliament passes laws on the distribution of oil revenues.

Frederick Barton, senior adviser at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, told the paper: "We pretend it [oil] is not a centerpiece of our motivation, yet we keep confirming that it is."
Last year Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve said: "Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

British and US companies win Iraq oil contracts | World news | guardian.co.uk


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I suggest you learn some facts. Saddam Hussein Invaded Kuwait because he claimed it was the 19th Province of Iraq. It had nothing to do with Kuwait stealing anything.. Now lets think about this for a moment, if Kuwait oil wells were stealing Iraq Oil, what would happen to Iraq oil when he set those wells on fire?
> 
> And yes I can blame you for being a stupid person that does not know facts or reality.
> 
> Ohh and explain how we stole anything from Iraq. Go ahead provide some evidence we took any oil from them. I won't hold my breathe though waiting.




Just cause bush tells you it is true, does not make it fact.  And I was speculating retard.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today, fuelling criticism that the Iraq war was largely about oil.
> 
> The successful companies are expected to include Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.
> 
> ...



So because the GOVERNMENT of Iraq made deals with NON French sources that means we STOLE the oil? Funny thing, we have to actually PAY them for it at market prices, last I checked stealing involved getting something for NOTHING.

Do get some better sources and read some real history that is not on some crack pot Conspiracy site.

Remind me of all the oil we stole over the last 6 years?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> This is funny as shit, every time you post it you prove what a retard you really are. The Democrats are the ones that create laws that restrict citizens, they not the republicans are the ones that create laws that remove rights and privileges. All one has to do is glance back through our history for the facts on that issue.
> 
> Obama is a socialist turd and a crack pot. A vote for him, is a vote for the destruction of this country.



People who make $40-$70K will get a better tax break under Obama.  People who make $71-$200K will stay the same.  The richest people in America will lose $1 million dollars under Obama.  In other words, he's going to take the bush tax breaks away to put things back to the way the were.  Back when the economy worked. 

If those unfair tax breaks worked, maybe he wouldn't take them away.  But they have not.  Now the richest people in America will have to start a business or hire people to get tax breaks.  We will no longer just give them an unfair tax break and hope they trickle it down.  And he will end loopholes where they can take their money and put it in offshore bank accounts to avoid paying taxes.

I love how you guys hate people that don't pay taxes but you approve of loopholes that allow rich people to avoid paying taxes.  You aren't even rich dummy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Just cause bush tells you it is true, does not make it fact.  And I was speculating retard.



Bush had nothing to do with Iraq invading Kuwait you dumb shit. His Father was President then. And except some off the wall conspiracy site you won't find any source that claims Kuwait was invaded because of stealing oil. Saddam was clear why he invaded. He stated Kuwait was part of Iraq and he was taking it back.

he only thing we had to do with that is a STUPID Ambassador that let Saddam Hussein think we did not mind if he seized Kuwait.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So because the GOVERNMENT of Iraq made deals with NON French sources that means we STOLE the oil? Funny thing, we have to actually PAY them for it at market prices, last I checked stealing involved getting something for NOTHING.
> 
> Do get some better sources and read some real history that is not on some crack pot Conspiracy site.
> 
> Remind me of all the oil we stole over the last 6 years?



We invaded their country and right now they don't have water, electricity or waste removal in Iraq.  Let me do that to you and then offer you a business deal.  You'll do whatever I ask just to get me the hell out of your face.

Offer they COULDN"T refuse!!!!

You should RETIRE from politics.  LOL.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> People who make $40-$70K will get a better tax break under Obama.  People who make $71-$200K will stay the same.  The richest people in America will lose $1 million dollars under Obama.  In other words, he's going to take the bush tax breaks away to put things back to the way the were.  Back when the economy worked.
> 
> If those unfair tax breaks worked, maybe he wouldn't take them away.  But they have not.  Now the richest people in America will have to start a business or hire people to get tax breaks.  We will no longer just give them an unfair tax break and hope they trickle it down.  And he will end loopholes where they can take their money and put it in offshore bank accounts to avoid paying taxes.
> 
> I love how you guys hate people that don't pay taxes but you approve of loopholes that allow rich people to avoid paying taxes.  You aren't even rich dummy.



Get back to me when he does actually cut any loop holes. Over taxing people just cause they have more than you is not the American way, it is not right nor is it fair. But socialists like you don't mind one bit cause according to you retards you should get something for nothing.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 10, 2008)

CSM said:


> Herfe is the same story from another "dubious" site:
> 
> U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com
> 
> MSNBC has always been suspect in my view.



Can you read?  that is from AP and rather curious given even Bush said Iraq had no WMDs. So maybe we need call this something else, you think.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> We invaded their country and right now they don't have water, electricity or waste removal in Iraq.  Let me do that to you and then offer you a business deal.  You'll do whatever I ask just to get me the hell out of your face.
> 
> Offer they COULDN"T refuse!!!!
> 
> You should RETIRE from politics.  LOL.



You REALLY need to get some facts. The infrastructure of Iraq is in better shape now then under Saddam Hussein you stupid shit. And it would be a hell of a lot better if Iraqis were not busy tearing it apart after we fix it. Do keep spouting your ignorant pap.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 10, 2008)

CSM said:


> Herfe is the same story from another "dubious" site:
> 
> U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com
> 
> MSNBC has always been suspect in my view.



From your link:





> Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.


*yawn*


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Get back to me when he does actually cut any loop holes. Over taxing people just cause they have more than you is not the American way, it is not right nor is it fair. But socialists like you don't mind one bit cause according to you retards you should get something for nothing.



Why do you think rich people were being overtaxed before Reagan got into office?  

And did HW Bush cut their taxes even more?  Were they still being "over" taxed?  

And then GW Bush cut their taxes even MORE.  

I say they aren't paying enough taxes.  Look at the economy dummy.  Look at the debt.  Look at social security.

You aren't rich stupid.  What's wrong with you.  You are being overtaxed, but not them.  Get that through your thick skull.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You REALLY need to get some facts. The infrastructure of Iraq is in better shape now then under Saddam Hussein you stupid shit. And it would be a hell of a lot better if Iraqis were not busy tearing it apart after we fix it. Do keep spouting your ignorant pap.



Baghdad Residents Receiving Just One Hour Of Electricity Per Day»

The collapse of Baghdad's garbage collection services has led to a dangerous increase in the amount of hazardous materials being burned on the capitals streets. 

 Baghdad without water - 6 Million People, 117 Degrees And No Water


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You REALLY need to get some facts. The infrastructure of Iraq is in better shape now then under Saddam Hussein you stupid shit. And it would be a hell of a lot better if Iraqis were not busy tearing it apart after we fix it. Do keep spouting your ignorant pap.



Retiredgysgt only eats propoganda, Retiredgysgt only eats propoganda, Retiredgysgt only eats propoganda, Retiredgysgt only eats propoganda, Retiredgysgt only eats propoganda


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> AFP: Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada
> 
> MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - US announces Iraq uranium transfer
> 
> The question is why did the Bush administration keep mum about this? Could there have been some political reason that made it more expedient not to reveal this?




This was actually brought to light a LONG time ago... the Commie News Network and others just happily buried it


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Why do you think rich people were being overtaxed before Reagan got into office?
> 
> And did HW Bush cut their taxes even more?  Were they still being "over" taxed?
> 
> ...



And YOU talk about someone swallowing propaganda hook, line and sinker???



PUH-LEASE


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 10, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> AFP: Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada
> 
> MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - US announces Iraq uranium transfer
> 
> The question is why did the Bush administration keep mum about this? Could there have been some political reason that made it more expedient not to reveal this?


Of course there were WMDs in Iraq.  If you recall, WJBC bombed them for 5 days in December 1998 because they still had them, and they had the facilities to make more.

The question the anti-Bush people have yet to answer is:
We knew they had them in 1998.  What happened to them?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> And YOU talk about someone swallowing propaganda hook, line and sinker???
> 
> 
> 
> PUH-LEASE



A new aristocracy is taking over not just the United States of America but also the world. Proof of how far along it has come was in an article by Glenn R. Simpson in the January 28, 2005 edition of The Wall Street Journal. 

"European countries have been steadily slashing corporate tax rates," wrote Simpson, adding, "...between 2000 and 2003, one nation after another has moved toward lower corporate rates with fewer loopholes." 

On January 31, 2005, the Journal followed up with another story ("Tax Showdown Promised by EU Chief") pointing out that "...the new president of the European Commission launched a blunt attack on French and German efforts to end tax competition among European Union countries." 

Ironically, EU leader José Manuel Barroso is also quoted in the Journal as saying: "Corporatist vested interests are the most important problem, be they from the left or the right." 

This is more than just a tax cut story. It's about a fundamental shift in power and wealth from average people and the governments they had formed to represent them, to the capture of those governments and economic enslavement of their people by corporate aristocracies. 

In it, Europe is simply following the lead set out by the United States, starting with the Reagan/Bush administration, when, in 1983, corporate taxes revenues were slashed to a low not seen since 1929. 

This isn't the first time this has happened. Marc Bloch is one of the great 20th Century scholars of the feudal history of Europe. In his book "Feudal Society" he points out that feudalism is a fracturing of one authoritarian hierarchical structure into another: the state disintegrates, as local power brokers take over. 

In almost every case, both with European feudalism and feudalism in China, South America, and Japan, feudalism coincided with a profound weakening of the State, particularly in its protective capacity. 

Whether the power and wealth agent that takes the place of government is a local baron, lord, king, or corporation, if it has greater power in the lives of individuals than does a representative government, the culture has dissolved into feudalism. 

Bluntly, Bloch states: The feudal system meant the rigorous economic subjection of a host of humble folk to a few powerful men. 

This doesnt mean the end of government, but, instead the subordination of government to the interests of the feudal lords. Interestingly, even in Feudal Europe, Bloch points out, The concept of the State never absolutely disappeared, and where it retained the most vitality men continued to call themselves free 

The transition from a governmental society to a feudal one is marked by the rapid accumulation of power and wealth in a few hands, with a corresponding reduction in the power and responsibilities of governments that represent the people. 

Once the rich and powerful gain control of the government, they turn it upon itself, usually first eliminating its taxation process as it applies to themselves. Says Bloch: Nobles need not pay taille [taxes]. 

Or, as Glenn Simpson noted in the Wall Street Journal, "General Electric Co., for example, reported paying an effective tax rate of 19% last year on world-wide income, compared with 26% in 2003." 

Corporations are taxed because they use public services, and are therefore expected to help pay for them - the same as citizens. 

Corporations make use of a work force educated in public schools paid for with tax dollars. They use roads and highways paid for with tax dollars. They use water, sewer, and power and communications rights-of-way paid for with taxes. They demand the same protection from fire and police departments as everybody else, and enjoy the benefits of national sovereignty and the stability provided by the military and institutions like NATO and the United Nations, the same as all residents of democratic nations. 

In fact, corporations are heavier users of taxpayer-provided services and institutions than are average citizens. Taxes pay for our court systems, which are most heavily used by corporations to enforce contracts. Taxes pay for our Treasury Department and other governmental institutions which maintain a stable currency essential to corporate activity. Taxes pay for our regulation of corporate activity, from assuring safety in the workplace to a pure food and drug supply to limiting toxic emissions. 

Under George W. Bush, the burden of cleaning up toxic wastes produced by corporate activity has largely shifted from polluter-funded Superfund and other programs to taxpayer-funded cleanups (as he did in Texas as governor there before becoming President). 

Every year, millions of cases of cancer, emphysema, neurological disorders, and other conditions caused by corporate pollution are paid for in whole or in part by government funded programs from Medicare to Medicaid to government subsidies of hospitals, universities, and research institutions funded by tax dollars through the NIH and NIMH. 

Because it's well understood that corporations use our tax-funded institutions at least as heavily as do citizens, they've traditionally been taxed at similar rates. For example, the top corporate tax rate in the US was 48% during the Carter administration, down from the a peak of 53% during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years. 

Today it stands at 35%, but in May of 2001 Bush administration Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill suggested there should be no corporate income tax whatsoever. This was the opening salvo in a very real war to have working people bear all the costs of the commons and governance, while the wealthy corporate elite derive most of its benefits. 

And, as George H.W. Bush pointed out when he was president, this isn't just an American phenomenon. It's a New World Order. 

"The corporate tax-cutters of recent years stretch from Portugal, where the rate has dropped 10 points to about 17%," notes The Wall Street Journal's 28 January article, "to Austria, down nine points to about 25%." 

A cornerstone of the conservative movement to consolidate power in the hands of a wealthy corporate elite, the campaign to end corporate income taxes altogether - and leave the rest of us to pick up the entire tab for corporate use of our institutions and corporation despoliation of our commons - first picked up steam when Reagan came to power in 1980. 

As Cato Institute adjunct scholar Richard W. Rahn noted in Rev. Moon's Washington Times, "The idea and practice of the corporate income tax has been dying slowly for the last two decades." 

The December 1, 2004 Washington Times article, titled "End Corporate Income Tax," reflects a powerful and growing movement not just in the United States but across the world. So-called "free trade" agreements and supranational institutions like the WTO have given multinational corporations control of the economic lives of nations that were previously democracies. Holland, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Belgium - the list goes on and on. 

In a feudal state, as Bloch reminds us, the nobles need not pay taxes. 

And as Mussolini told us, the newest form of feudalism has been reinvented and renamed. He called it "fascism" - a word that was defined by The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) as "fas-cism (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." 

We are quickly shifting toward a corporate-run state in countries all over the world. It appears "free" and even allows elections, albeit they are only among candidates funded and approved by corporate powers, held on voting machines owned by those corporate powers, and marketed in media owned by those corporate powers. 

But this bears little resemblance to the democratic republic envisioned by our nation's Founders. 

If our elected representatives - and those of other "free" nations - don't quickly wake up and reverse course, we will soon again be in a feudal world. And it's up to us - We the People - to help them awaken.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> And YOU talk about someone swallowing propaganda hook, line and sinker???
> 
> 
> 
> PUH-LEASE



Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagans fault. 

A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing Heartland Institute and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself the Taxpayers League of Minnesota. It read: 

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) issued 20 full or partial vetoes of tax hikes and spending increases in May, giving taxpayers reason to smile.  

May 1, Pawlenty, in a move that took everyone by surprise, vetoed an entire $334 million emergency capital investment bill. Pawlenty said in his veto message the bill authorized more than four times more spending on projects than I requested and is simply too large. 

Two weeks later Pawlenty announced another important veto, this one to block a transportation bill containing more than $5 billion in tax and fee increases 

Buying down property taxes through local government aid programs has never proven to be a long-term solution to property tax pressures, Pawlenty said in a May 30 veto message. 

Phil Krinkie, president of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, agreed. 

Relying on the benevolence of local units of government to restrain their spending and lower property taxes when the state drops sacks of money in their lap is simply foolish, Krinkie said. Thankfully, Minnesota has a governor that recognizes this. 

The transportation bill veto is the only one the DFL [the Democratic Farm and Labor party which controls the Minnesota legislature] tried to override. The attempt came with less than 20 minutes remaining in the session and was defeated by House Republicans, led by Minority Leader Marty Seifert (R-Marshall). 

Democrats made too many campaign promises to win their seats and are now learning they cant pay for them, Marshall [Seifert] said after the failed override attempt. 

Ultimately, it was the DFLs inability to override any of Pawlentys vetoesparticularly of the transportation billthat resulted in a comparatively small $3 billion increase in state spending with no new taxes. 

Said Krinkie of the 2007 session, Minnesotans really need to thank Gov. Pawlenty and Rep. Seiferts House Republicans. These guys stood strong in the face of overwhelming pressure and came through for taxpayers when they really needed them. 

If by taxpayers one means millionaires, billionaires, and corporations, the news release was accurate. And now its authors have blood on their hands. 

After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in todays dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us. 

Through the 1950s, though, more and more loopholes for the rich were built into the tax code, so much so that JFK observed in his second debate with Richard Nixon that dropping the top tax rate to 70% but tightening up the loopholes would actually be a tax increase. 

JFK pushed through that tax increase to take us back toward FDR/Truman/Eisenhower revenue levels, and we continued to build infrastructure in the US, and even put men on the moon. Health care and college were cheap and widely available. Working people could raise a family and have security in their old age. Every billion dollars (a half-week in Iraq) invested in infrastructure in America created 47,000 good-paying jobs as Americans built America. 

But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan, until then the fringe Voodoo economics candidate who was heading into the election trailing far behind Jimmy Carter, was swept into the White House on a wave of public concern of the Iranians taking US hostages. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (theyre still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world). 

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined. 

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagans tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadnt been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s. 

And, most tragically, Reagans tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, weve been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s. 

We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress at a Howard Johnsons restaurant (what my wife did in the late 60s - I did so working as a near-minimum-wage DJ) now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today. 

The Associated Press reported on August 4, 2007, that the president of Nike, Mark Parker, raked in $3.6 million [in compensation] in 07. Thats $13,846 per weekday, $69,230 a week. And yet it would still keep him just below the top 70% tax rate if this were the pre-Reagan era. We had a social consensus that somebody earning around $3 million a year was fine, but above that was really more than anybody needs to live in America. 

In the worldview Americans held in the 1930-1980 era, Parkers compensation was reasonable. But William McGuire (aka in the business press as Dollar Bill) taking over $1.6 billion - $1,600,000,000.00 - from the nations second largest health insurance company (you wonder where your health care dollars are going?) would have been considered excessive before the Reagan Revolution. 

There is much discussion of what the floor on earnings should be - the minimum wage - but none about the ceiling. Thats largely because effectively there is no ceiling, and those who control vast wealth in America are happy to have Americans fight over How poor is too poor? just so long as nobody asks How rich is too rich? 

When Reagan dropped the top income tax rate from over 70% down to under 30%, all hell broke loose. With the legal and social restraint to unlimited selfishness removed, the good of the nation was replaced by greed is good as the primary paradigm. 

In the years since then, mind-boggling wealth has risen among fewer than 20,000 people in America (the top 0.01 percent of wage-earners), but their influence has been tremendous. They finance conservative think tanks (think Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation), change public opinion (Walton heirs funding a covert effort to change the estate tax to the death tax), lobby congress and the president (who calls the haves and the have-mores his base), and work to strip down public institutions. 

The middle class is being replaced by the working poor. American infrastructure built with tax revenues during the 1934-1981 is now crumbling and disintegrating. Hospitals and highways and power and water systems have been corporatized. People are dying. 

And Bush, following closely in Reagans footsteps, is making things worse. As Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out at recent hearings for the confirmation of Bushs new nominee for the Office of Management and Budget: 

Since Bush has been president: 

over 5 million people have slipped into poverty; 
nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance; 
median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300; 
three million manufacturing jobs have been lost; 
three million American workers have lost their pensions; 
home foreclosures are now the highest on record; 
the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasnt happened since the great depression; 
the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years; 
entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%; 
wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929. 
The debate about whether or not to roll Bushs tax cuts back to Clintons modest mid-30% rates is absurd. Its time to roll back the horribly failed experiment of the Reagan tax cuts. And use that money to pay down Reagans debt and rebuild this nation.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

nice copy/paste job of socialist propaganda, comrade

ThomHartmann.com - Nobles Need Not Pay Taxes
http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1&Itemid=38


Yet... I bet you would scream bloody murder if someone used Rush or some other right-wing commentator as a reference


----------



## Ravi (Jul 10, 2008)

Hello, has anyone actually noticed that this yellowcake in question was something we've known about all along?

If there was any evidence of WMD Bush would be slavering at the bit to redeem himself and announce it.


----------



## editec (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Why do you think rich people were being overtaxed before Reagan got into office?
> 
> And did HW Bush cut their taxes even more? Were they still being "over" taxed?
> 
> ...


 
It's called the STOCKHOLM syndrome, I suspect.

It's extrmely common for the peasants to imagine that the king is their chum.

Inevitably they end up finding someone other than the people in charge to blame the ills  of their nation on.

It's quite common which is exactly why dictators always have plenty of willing workers willing to screw the people for their master.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> nice copy/paste job of socialist propaganda, comrade
> 
> ThomHartmann.com - Nobles Need Not Pay Taxes
> ThomHartmann.com - Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts
> ...



I suspect you haven't had an original thought in your life.  Who has?  I play guitar.  I learned from the Stones, Doors, Prince, Queen, CCR, G&R, James Taylor, John Cougar, Foo Fighters, Toby Keith, Billy Joel, Willie Nelson, Garth, Keith Urban, Steve Miller Band, Clapton, etc.

Sorry, i'm a hack.  

Where did you learn what you know?  Or did you figure everything out on your own?  Chances are, you have only learned from your dumb dad.  Most conservatives are products of their fathers ignorance.  

Don't people study Plato, Socrates, Bach, Bethoven, etc.?  

We wouldn't know how to keep time if someone else didn't invent the clock, right?  

That's why Hillary said, "it takes a villiage to raise an idiot.  What villiage did you come from again?


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I suspect you haven't had an original thought in your life.  Who has?  I play guitar.  I learned from the Stones, Doors, Prince, Queen, CCR, G&R, James Taylor, John Cougar, Foo Fighters, Toby Keith, Billy Joel, Willie Nelson, Garth, Keith Urban, Steve Miller Band, Clapton, etc.
> 
> Sorry, i'm a hack.
> 
> ...



Funny... I had no father around, ever in my life.... but nice ASSumption, you ignorant swine... I am my own man, learning from my own life and own experience and my own EFFORTS...


go back to your commune


oooooooohhh... I am SO impressed... you play guitar... I guess NOBODY ever learns to do that without being a governmental theory genius


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Funny... I had no father around, ever in my life.... but nice ASSumption, you ignorant swine... I am my own man, learning from my own life and own experience and my own EFFORTS...



And you created the world? language? food? cars? et cetera? The only thing you created was your imaginary world, enjoy it there but if you use anything at all made by others maybe then you'll come back to reality. You're even using the internet Gore helped create. LOL

PS Reagan had the largest peace time tax increase ever, I give Ronnie credit he realized he was screwing things up and changed his mind.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."
Tax cuts spur economic growth


*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

Any more copy/paste socialist drivel??? You bite socialist propaganda and myth like a starving Bass seeing it's first cricket on the surface of the water in 2 weeks

This ain't a hive, hippie


----------



## editec (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> A new aristocracy is taking over not just the United States of America but also the world. Proof of how far along it has come was in an article by Glenn R. Simpson in the January 28, 2005 edition of The Wall Street Journal.
> 
> "European countries have been steadily slashing corporate tax rates," wrote Simpson, adding, "...between 2000 and 2003, one nation after another has moved toward lower corporate rates with fewer loopholes."
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, NEO Feudalism is where this world is headed, I think.

Now, instead of having a dominating church ruling over us, we'll have a ruling corporate elite calling the shots.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

And you would rather have a power based liberal elite with their socialist control...

No... I'll stick with the concept, and all the positives and negatives, of freedom


----------



## Care4all (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Hey Midcan5.  I thought of something yesterday when a neo con poster scoffed off my "proof" because it came from a "liberal" source of media.  I asked him, "what media do you approve of"?  Since they think MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, Time, NY TIMES, Rolling Stones, etc.  Since they think EVERY media is liberal, I want to know what sources they approve of.  I can't wait to hear back from them.
> 
> And, if I'm right and the mainstream media has been taken over by rich corporations who's intent is to turn the media pro GOP, what chance is there that we will ever find anything that paints them in a negative way?
> 
> So of course all my sources will be "liberal".  The "conservative" media sure isn't going to tell us the truth.  Right?



if it is corporate media, when dems control the whitehouse with, ''the people's choice'', behind them the media will turn to a more democratic or liberal bias....they go, with the flow....for money made on commercial time bought....

they were the GOP's media during the first 5-6 years of president Bush, now they ARE leaning towards a visibly democratic bias, with the president's approval rating in the toilet....

IN OTHER WORDS, the media is a harlot, they whore themselves to whoever gives them more dough to their bottom line imo.

THIS does NOT mean that the news we get from the main stream media is false by any means...just that there could be bias in ther spin or editorial of the News....

We should just be ''aware'' of it....

care


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> And you would rather have a power based liberal elite with their socialist control...
> No... I'll stick with the concept, and all the positives and negatives, of freedom


Liberty, by necessity, is neither neat, nor clean, nor tidy.
Those that would make it so, through government, are the enemies of same.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 10, 2008)

So many Retarded liberal fools. 

we are all doomed.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

Care4all said:


> if it is corporate media, when dems control the whitehouse with, ''the people's choice'', behind them the media will turn to a more democratic or liberal bias....they go, with the flow....for money made on commercial time bought....
> 
> they were the GOP's media during the first 5-6 years of president Bush, now they ARE leaning towards a visibly democratic bias, with the president's approval rating in the toilet....
> 
> ...




The media is privately owned.  They don't have to report the way Congress wants them to report.  Perfect example, Fox News.  What you might be seeing is that Nancy Pelosi is now the person they interview, instead of Tom Delay, so the messenger is different. 

Forget about radio and newspapers.  Tv is the most powerful media.  So while the corporate media might let guys like Savage and Hartmann on the radio, you won't see them on tv.  And you always see 3 republicans and one liberal whenever they have guests on tv.  

Fact, Bush committed a felony at least 30 times.  MINIMUM.  You don't hear that on tv, do you?  The felonies he committed are much worse than Monicagate.  Where are they talking about it?  No Where.    

President George W. Bush violated the US Constitution and the law when he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans. Three principles are enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.

A persons home is his/her sanctuary. 
Citizens are safe from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. 
The warrant must be provided by an independent court upon probable cause. 

President Bush also violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I will begin at the roots of US law showing that authorizing warrantless surveillance of US Citizens is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I will then show how FISA came about and how the Bush Administration violated this law.

What is the controversy? Since 2001 the Bush Administration has allowed the NSA to read emails, listen to telephone conversations, (Lacayo, 2006) and capture data about incoming/outgoing phone calls of tens of millions of American Citizens (Cauley, 2006). The fact that the NSA spied on Americans without first obtaining a warrant is without dispute (Risen, 2005). This has been widely reported and has been acknowledged by President Bush (Sanger, 2005). The Bush Administration argues that this authority was specifically given to the president in Article II of the US Constitution and in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted on September 18, 2001 (Gonzalez, 2006, January 16).

The American legal system owes its roots to the Common Law, a set of laws based, not on statute but on precedent (Wikipedia.org, Common Law, 2006). To this date, the Supreme Court will acknowledge the precedent of the common law in writing its opinions. Sir Edward Cokes writings on the English common law were the definitive legal texts for over 300 years. (Wikipedia.org, Sir Edward Coke, 2006) In 1628 Sir Coke wrote A man's house is his castle  et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium. The Latin phrase means "And where shall a man be safe if it be not in his own house? The writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were keenly aware of Cokes writings and echoed his language. For example they borrowed the phrase life, liberty and the pursuit of [property] happiness directly from Coke.

During the 1700s, King George allowed customs officials to search anywhere at any time by using writs of assistance, (U-S-History.com, Writs of Assistance, 2006) or non-specific warrants. This behavior was such an affront to the American Colonists that they later referred to it in the Declaration of Independence, justifying the Colonists desire to become self-governed.

In 1761, James Otis referred back to the writings of Coke when he argued in court against the writs of assistance. He said:



A mans house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court may inquire (U-S-History.com, James Otis, 2006).


The Common Law concept of a persons home as his or her sanctuary was clearly on the Founding Fathers minds when they included the fourth amendment to the constitution.



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The Supreme Court several times has affirmed the need for an independent court to issue warrants, maintaining a separation of power. For example, in Trupiano vs. United States, 334 U.S. 699, the Supreme Court wrote, It is a cardinal rule that, in seizing goods and articles, law enforcement agents must secure and use search warrants wherever reasonably practicableThis rule rests upon the desirability of having magistrates rather than police officers determine when searches and seizures are permissible and what limitations should be placed upon such activities.

These important principles - that a persons home is his/her sanctuary, that they are safe from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and that the warrant must be provided by an independent court upon probable cause  went undisputed for generations. The importance of these principles was again affirmed in the wake of the scandals of the Nixon Administration.

In the early 1970s, under direction from the Nixon Administration, the FBI and other governmental agencies were used to spy on those whom Nixon chose to label as dissidents. Some of those dissidents included Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Eldridge Cleaver, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and anti-war protesters. Years later, in an interview with television personality David Frost, Nixon responded to a series of questions (LandmarkCases.org, 2006):




FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan [which included warrantless wiretapping] or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal. 


NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

FROST: By definition.

NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position. 


This interview was later included in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This evidence was used in writing the law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This act restricts the right of the intelligence agencies to intercept communication that involves US Citizens or long-term residents of the US. The law requires the Attorney General to go before a special FISA court to obtain a warrant for foreign surveillance in which one of the parties is a US Citizen. There are also exceptions built into the law, allowing a 15-day grace period for warrantless wiretapping during times of war and providing for retroactive warrants (FISA, 1978).

How difficult was it to obtain a warrant using the FISA process? According to The Crisis, the official publication of the NAACP (Gaines, 2006), From 1979 to 2004, FISA denied only four of the government's applications for surveillance while approving 18,727 requestsThe four rejections occurred in 2003.

It was in the days following September 11th that President Bush ordered spy agencies, including the NSA to begin surveillance activities that included US Citizens. Despite a clear mandate from the Constitution and from FISA to first obtain a warrant, the president decided that he had the authority to ignore the requirement and to use all necessary and appropriate force.

The warrantless surveillance program remained a secret from the public until December 16, 2005. The New York Times knew about the spying program for more than a year, but had delayed publication of the article upon request from the Bush Administration.

Like the Nixon Administration before it, the Bush Administration has justified its actions by arbitrarily assigning people labels. Nixon arbitrarily labeled US Citizens as dissidents. The Bush Administration has branded people as persons of interest, terrorists or enemy combatants. Among some of the groups targeted by the Bush Administration are Greenpeace; Food Not Bombs; Code Pink, an international women's peace organization; and the Rhode-Island based Community Coalition for Peace (ACLU, 2006a).

In summary, the roots of American law have long established the rights to privacy and protection within ones home and possessions. This principle was enshrined in the fourth amendment to the US Constitution. This right to protection from search and seizure was further clarified by Congress in the wake of the scandals of the Nixon Administration and set into statute under FISA. None of this has stopped the Bush Administration from flagrantly violating the law in its war on terror. By ignoring the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers, the Bush Administration has brought us to another constitutional crisis. How this will end is up to the Courts, to Congress and to us, the citizens of the United States who hold those elected officials accountable.

References:

ACLU (2006a). FBI Counterterrorism Unit Spies on Peaceful, Faith-Based Protest Group, retrieved May 14, 2006 from American Civil Liberties Union : FBI Counterterrorism Unit Spies on Peaceful, Faith-Based Protest Group

ACLU (2006b). National Security Letters Gag Patriot Act Debate, retrieved May 4, 2006 from American Civil Liberties Union : National Security Letters

ACLU (2006c). Presidential Powers, NSA Spying, and the War on Terrorism: Americans Attitudes on Recent Events, retrieved on May 28, 2006 from http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file966_24263.pdf

Bartels, L. (1993, June) Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure. American Political Science Review 87(2) pp. 267-285

Brief of Amici Curiae, Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union

Cauley, L. (2006, May 11). NSA has massive database of Americans phone calls. USA Today, p. 1A, 5A

Cole, D. (2006, February 20). NSA Spying Myths, Nation, 282(7), pp. 5  7

Editorial (2005, January 26). The Wrong Attorney General, New York Times, 154(53106), p. A16

Editorial2006, 12 March). Domestic Spying Powers: Show some spine Congress. Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)

Egelko B. (2006, April 8). Court filings may reveal role of AT&T in federal Net spying. San Francisco Chronicle (CA). p. A5

Eggen, D. (2004, August 20). U.S. Uses Secret Evidence In Secrecy Fight With ACLU. Washington Post, p. A17

Gaines, P. (2006 March/April). Surveillance: Bush's Spies, Hoover's Ghost. The Crisis. pp.12  15

Gellman, B. (2005, November 6). The FBIs Secret Scrutiny. Washing Post, p. A01

Gonzalez, A. (2006, January 16) Letter from the Office of the Attorney General to Senator Bill Frist, dated 16 January 2006, retrieved 20 April 2006 from http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/doj011906.pdf

Gonzalez, A. (2006, February 6). United States Attorney General, US Department of Justice FDCH Congressional Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, NSA and Domestic Spying, 02/06/2006

Hirsch, E., Kett, J., and Trefil, J. (Eds.) (2002), The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Jaeger, P. & Bertot, J. & McClure, C. (2003). The impact of the USA Patriot Act on collection and analysis of personal information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Government Information Quarterly 20, pp. 295  314

Kelly, B. (2003). Worth Repeating: More Than 5,000 Classic and Contemporary Quotes. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional

Lacayo, R., et al (2006, January 9). Has Bush Gone Too Far? Time, Vol. 167 Issue 2, pp. 24-32

LandmarkCases.org article on David Frost interview of Richard Nixon, retrieved May 1, 2006 from Nixon's Views on Presidential Power, United States v. Nixon (1974), Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Lyon, B., Secret Evidence, retrieved May 13, 2006 from FindLaw's Writ - Lyon: Secret Evidence

McCombs, M. & Shaw, D. (1972 Summer). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2) pp. 176-187

Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de (2002). The Spirit of Laws, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books

PBS (2006, May 11). NSA Program Revealed, retrieved May 16, 2006 from Redirect

Priest, D. (2006, May 13). Secrecy Privilege Invoked in Fighting Ex-Detainee's Lawsuit. Washington Post, p. A03

Q&A: The NSA's Domestic Eavesdropping Program. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from Q&A: The NSA's Domestic Eavesdropping Program : NPR

Risen, J. & Lichtblau E. (2005, December 16) Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts. New York Times p. A1

Rudalevige A. (2005). The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Sanger, D. (2005, December 18). In address, Bush says he ordered domestic spying. New York Times, p. 1

Savage, C. (2006, April 30). Bush challenges hundreds of laws. Boston Globe, Retrieved May 7, 2006, from Bush challenges hundreds of laws - The Boston Globe

Savage, C. (2006, May 3). Hearings vowed on Bushs Power. Boston Globe, Retrieved May 6, 2006 from Hearing vowed on Bush's powers - The Boston Globe

Schlesinger, A. (2004 Reprint edition). The Imperial Presidency. Boston: Mariner Books.

Testimony before congress. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from Implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act: Sections of the Act That Address the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

U-S-History.com article on Writs of Assistance, retrieved on May 2, 2006 from Writs of Assistance

U-S-History.com article on James Otis, retrieved May 2, 2006 from James Otis

FISA (1978), US Code, Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I  Electronic Surveillance, retrieved April 30, 2006 from US CODE: Title 50,SUBCHAPTER I&mdash;ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

White, J. (2005, December 23). Unable to End 'Unlawful' Detention, Judge Says. Washington Post p. A04

Wikipedia.org article on Common Law, retrieved on May 13, 2006 from Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia.org, article on Natural Law, retrieved on May 13, 2006 from Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia.org article on Sir Edward Coke, retrieved May 3, 2006 from Edward Coke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia.org, Transparency (humanities), retrieved May 16, 2006 from Transparency (humanities) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia.org, USA PATRIOT Act, retrieved May 16, 2006 from USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Labels: constitution, David Frost, FISA, Natural Law, Nixon, NSA, spying, telephone companies, warrantless spying


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

more left wing blog copy/paste 

pitiful


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> more left wing blog copy/paste
> 
> pitiful



For weeks you guys told me I was just spewing my opinions.  You constantly said, "PROVE IT".  Well Diamond Dick Head, how would you want me to prove it other than cutting and pasting facts?  Are there not links on there for your dumb ass to research the facts? 

You guys are rediculous.  YOu can't have it both ways David.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 10, 2008)

However, the people can now walk the streets one hell of a lot more safely than they could before, and nobody is gassing their towns.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

You are not proving a damn thing by cutting and pasting pure blog biased hogwash....

And save your childish personal insults for someone else... frankly it does nothing more than show you have no actual substance behind anything you post


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 10, 2008)

Best technique for me is to cut and paste the hook (in your opinion..the point you want to get across) then post a link for the rest. Then you can talk about what's in the rest in your own words, and refer people to the link.

Makes it a lot easier for people to read.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> You are not proving a damn thing by cutting and pasting pure blog biased hogwash....
> 
> And save your childish personal insults for someone else... frankly it does nothing more than show you have no actual substance behind anything you post



Where can I go to find "proof"?  What is "proof"?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 10, 2008)

Here's one way to do it .... think of a comment which you believe to be true and want to make..then google it and use the best of what you can find to back it up.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 10, 2008)

yellow cake is not a WMD but it could me refined into one, and the point is that this proves Bush did not lie about Yellow cake.

However I am sure all you Liberals will dismiss this out of hand because it does not jive with your narrow view of the Issue.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 10, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> yellow cake is not a WMD but it could me refined into one, and the point is that this proves Bush did not lie about Yellow cake.
> 
> However I am sure all you Liberals will dismiss this out of hand because it does not jive with your narrow view of the Issue.



Shocking revisionism. It's very clear in the link that CSM posted that we have known about this yellowcake since at least 1991. It's been lying around in storage under the eye of the UN weapon's inspectors all along.

Get a grip.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 10, 2008)

What about  his comment, "I'm not willing to die over this?"
I think that speaks pretty eloquently to his state of mind.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 10, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Shocking revisionism. It's very clear in the link that CSM posted that we have known about this yellowcake since at least 1991. It's been lying around in storage under the eye of the UN weapon's inspectors all along.
> 
> Get a grip.




you get a grip, this is the yellow cake bush refered too, It was clearly stated then they got it before 91.

Wake up Liberals take off the blinders.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 10, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> you get a grip, this is the yellow cake bush refered too, It was clearly stated then they got it before 91.
> 
> Wake up Liberals take off the blinders.



Nope. Bush was pretending Saddam was buying more. The article states that none of this yellowcake was newer than 1991.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I don't buy it.
> 
> Iran has "wmd's" too.  So does the USA.  As long as they aren't using them.
> 
> ...



Of course you don't buy it.   And you do a really good job of "pretending" to know everything.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today, fuelling criticism that the Iraq war was largely about oil.
> 
> The successful companies are expected to include Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.
> 
> ...



This doesn't prove anything about anyone "stealing" anything.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

BrianH said:


> This doesn't prove anything about anyone "stealing" anything.



We invaded their country under false pretenses Brian.  That's common knowledge at this point.  I can not have an honest conversation with someone who is still clinging to the WMD lie.  Good night boy.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagans fault.
> 
> A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing Heartland Institute and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself the Taxpayers League of Minnesota. It read:
> 
> ...




Start citing your sources numnuts.  This doesn't mean crap.  All you can see is that you copy and pasted it from "somewhere".  And not to mention your jacking with copyright laws.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

BrianH said:


> This doesn't prove anything about anyone "stealing" anything.



Bending over and spreading your butt cheeks for a gay man who is putting a condom on doesn't prove you are gay either Brian.  

Mark Foley's creepy text messages doesn't prove he's a pedophile either Brian.

Walking around the grocery store with chocolate on your face doesn't prove you were grazing either.

Telling me that Chaney and Bush haven't lied doesn't make you gullable either Brian.  

Brian, you are a dope.  We are stealing Iraqs oil.  Imagine Canada came in because they didn't trust us with our WMD's and then for the next 100 years, they took over our oil fields and gave us only 25% of the revenue.  Would you think they were stealing our oil?

You are a dope for sure.  Brainwashed idiot.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I suspect you haven't had an original thought in your life.  Who has?  I play guitar.  I learned from the Stones, Doors, Prince, Queen, CCR, G&R, James Taylor, John Cougar, Foo Fighters, Toby Keith, Billy Joel, Willie Nelson, Garth, Keith Urban, Steve Miller Band, Clapton, etc.
> 
> *I ironic of your first statement.....you can't even make your own music, you have to "learn" from the classics and some, not so classic artists*
> 
> ...



Weren't you disqualified from the contest for cheating?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Start citing your sources numnuts.  This doesn't mean crap.  All you can see is that you copy and pasted it from "somewhere".  And not to mention your jacking with copyright laws.



thom hartmann op ed pieces bitch.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Weren't you disqualified from the contest for cheating?



So I can't use other sources and my opinion means nothing?  LOL.  You are funny Brian.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> We invaded their country under false pretenses Brian.  That's common knowledge at this point.  I can not have an honest conversation with someone who is still clinging to the WMD lie.  Good night boy.



We invaded to oust Saddam from power.  This was not a false pretense.......  And I'll have to call you again on your false assumptions.  Have I once, on this thread, said that Iraq did have WMDs? LOL.  Once again, you've manged to falsely speculate....Good Night Girl.

Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq

There's alot of good vids on here for you to watch...it'll help your biased and one-sided political affiliation.

US Senators who voted YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq: 

 Allard, Wayne (R-CO) 
Allen, George (R-VA) 
*Baucus, Max (D-MT) *
*Bayh, Evan (D-IN)* 
Bennett, Robert (R-UT) 
*Biden, Joseph (D-DE)* 
Bond, Christopher (R-MO) 
*Breaux, John (D-LA)* 
Brownback, Sam (R-KS) 
Bunning, Jim (R-KY) 
Burns, Conrad (R-MT) 
Campbell, Ben (R-CO) 
*Cantwell, Maria (D-WA) 
Carnahan, Jean (D-MO) 
Carper, Thomas (D-DE) 
Cleland, Max (D-GA) 
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)* 
Cochran, Thad (R-MS) 
Collins, Susan (R-ME) 
Craig, Larry (R-ID) 
Crapo, Michael (R-ID) 
*Daschle, Tom (D-SD) *
DeWine, Mike (R-OH) 
*Dodd, Christopher (D-CT) *
Domenici, Pete (R-NM) 
*Dorgan, Byron (D-ND) 
Edwards, John (D-NC) *
Ensign, John (R-NV) 
Enzi, Michael (R-WY) 
*Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA*) 
Fitzgerald, Peter (R-IL) 
Frist, Bill (R-TN) 
Gramm, Phil (R-TX) 
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA) 
Gregg, Judd (R-NH) 
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE) 
*Harkin, Tom (D-IA)* 
Hatch, Orrin (R-UT) 
Helms, Jesse (R-NC) 
*Hollings, Ernest (D-SC) *
Hutchinson, Tim (R-AR) 
Hutchison, Kay (R-TX) 
Inhofe, James (R-OK) 
*Johnson, Tim (D-SD) 
Kerry, John (D-MA) 
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)* 
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ) 
*Landrieu, Mary (D-LA) 
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)* 
*Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)* 
Lott, Trent (R-MS) 
Lugar, Richard (R-IN) 
 McCain, John (R-AZ) 
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) 
*Miller, Zell (D-GA) *
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK) 
*Nelson, Bill (D-FL) 
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)* 
Nickles, Don (R-OK) 
*Reid, Harry (D-NV)* 
Roberts, Pat (R-KS) 
*Rockefeller, John (D-WV) *
Santorum, Rick (R-PA) 
*Schumer, Charles (D-NY)* 
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL) 
Shelby, Richard (R-AL) 
Smith, Robert (R-NH) 
Smith, Gordon (R-OR) 
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME) 
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) 
Stevens, Ted (R-AK) 
Thomas, Craig (R-WY) 
Thompson, Fred (R-TN) 
Thurmond, Strom (R-SC) 
*Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)* 
Voinovich, George (R-OH) 
Warner, John (R-VA) 

Notice....BOTH PARTIES VOTED *FOR *WAR


----------



## BrianH (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Bending over and spreading your butt cheeks for a gay man who is putting a condom on doesn't prove you are gay either Brian.
> 
> *You said it, not me....  It's funny spreading buttcheeks and condoms the first thing that comes to your mind....*
> 
> ...



*Whoever smelt it dealt it.

Keep assuming things I never say...it reinforces your idiocy....*


----------



## BrianH (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> So I can't use other sources and my opinion means nothing?  LOL.  You are funny Brian.



Your opinions don't prove anything if you don't cite your sources....and then, if your sources continue to come from dumbass websites like killrepublicans.com then your opinion will still be considered a waste of time and extremely uncredible.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Your opinions don't prove anything if you don't cite your sources....and then, if your sources continue to come from dumbass websites like killrepublicans.com then your opinion will still be considered a waste of time and extremely uncredible.



Bingo

You post left wing loony blogs as references.... you'll pretty much be discredited... the sources this guy has put down are about as far from credible as can be.... I'd take their word as seriously as I would take John Wayne Gacy's advise on child care


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 11, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> People who make $40-$70K will get a better tax break under Obama.  People who make $71-$200K will stay the same.  The richest people in America will lose $1 million dollars under Obama.  In other words, he's going to take the bush tax breaks away to put things back to the way the were.  Back when the economy worked.
> 
> If those unfair tax breaks worked, maybe he wouldn't take them away.  But they have not.  Now the richest people in America will have to start a business or hire people to get tax breaks.  We will no longer just give them an unfair tax break and hope they trickle it down.  And he will end loopholes where they can take their money and put it in offshore bank accounts to avoid paying taxes.
> 
> I love how you guys hate people that don't pay taxes but you approve of loopholes that allow rich people to avoid paying taxes.  You aren't even rich dummy.



For Christ's sake do you really know who pays income taxes in this country or are you just listening to the rhetoric?

FYI the top 1% of earners pay over 39% of all income taxes

the top 5% of earners pay nearly 60% of all income taxes

the bottom 50% of earners pay about 3% of all income taxes

the top 25% of earners have actually seen the percentage of their income paid to taxes increase from 1999-2005 while the same percentage for the bottom 50% has dropped.  So much for your taxebreaks for the rich argument.

Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> AFP: Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada
> 
> MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - US announces Iraq uranium transfer
> 
> The question is why did the Bush administration keep mum about this? Could there have been some political reason that made it more expedient not to reveal this?



No question there are things we don't know.  There are also some things we can infer because of evidence that has sense come out, such as the downing st memos.

regardless of why, as far as the American people go, this is one of the biggest blunders in us history.

I myself think it al went exactly the way bush and chaney wanted it to go.  Blackwater seemed to add fuel to the fire every step of the way.

Now did Bush plan on Congress going back to the Dems in 06?  No.  But he dealt with it.  The US oil companies are still winning contracts and haloburton, kbr and blackwater are still making money and if any of that changes, he'll blame the democrats.

They knew iraq would be a quagmire, yet still rushed in.  I have to think that was part of the plan.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> For Christ's sake do you really know who pays income taxes in this country or are you just listening to the rhetoric?
> 
> FYI the top 1% of earners pay over 39% of all income taxes
> 
> ...



they shoud pay that much.

ps  the rich haven't sacraficed in iraq.  not their lives or money.  but they sure have benefited.

you.have slave mentality.

and, they used to pay more.  learn why.  

they are rich.  founding fathers warned us about ppl getting toorich and corporations but you won't listen.

boo hoo for the rich.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 11, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> they shoud pay that much.
> 
> ps  the rich haven't sacraficed in iraq.  not their lives or money.  but they sure have benefited.
> 
> ...



Just who do you call rich?

Do you realize that making 60K per year puts you in the top 10% of earners?

That ain't rich. 

And please tell me what income tax rates has to do with Iraq?  FYI we have an all volunteer army.  It's not as if the government is conscripting the poor to fight.  And the top 10% of earners have paid the lion's share of taxes so yes they have paid more for the war.

And please provide some source that said the founders didn't want people to be rich.  Do you realize that the founders were some of the more affluent people of the colonies?  Do you realize the revolt against the king started because of unfair taxes? If you want to emulate the founders, you might want to find out a little more about them.

So instead of fomenting the class warfare that you socialists are so fond of, why don't you learn a little about economics and history.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> Just who do you call rich?
> 
> Do you realize that making 60K per year puts you in the top 10% of earners?
> 
> ...




I'll find the sources.  But let me tell you, it isn't people that make $60k that are getting the unfair tax breaks.  See, that's how they mislead dummies like you.  They put you in the top 10% and then you feel like you are one and the same with the rich.  You aren't even close.  So the top 10% pay 80% of the taxes?  Big fucking deal!!!  Who should if not them/us?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> Just who do you call rich?
> 
> Do you realize that making 60K per year puts you in the top 10% of earners?
> 
> ...




At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy? 

In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree..." 

In this, he was making the same argument that the Framers of Pennsylvania tried to make when writing their constitution in 1776. As Kevin Phillips notes in his masterpiece book "Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich," a Sixteenth Article to the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights (that was only "narrowly defeated") declared: "an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness of mankind, and, therefore, every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property." 

Unfortunately, many Americans believe our nation was founded exclusively of, by, and for "rich white men," and that the Constitution had, as its primary purpose, the protection of the super-rich. They would have us believe that the Constitution's signers didn't really mean all that flowery talk about liberal democracy in a republican form of government. 

But the signers didn't send other people's kids to war, as have two generations of the oligarchic Bush family. Many of the Founders themselves gave up everything, even risking (and losing) their lives, their life's savings, or losing their own homes and families to birth this nation. 

The myth/theory of the "greedy white Founders" was first widely advanced by Columbia University professor of history and self-described socialist Charles Beard, who published in 1913 a book titled "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States." 

Numerous historians - on both the right and the left - have since cited his work as evidence that America was founded solely for the purpose of protecting wealthy interests. His myth unfortunately helps conservatives support ending the "death tax" as "the way the Founders would have wanted things" so that the very richest few can rule America. 

Every generation sees the past though the lens of its own time. Beard, writing as the great financial Robber Baron empires of Rockefeller, Gould, Mellon, and Carnegie were being solidified, looked back at the Framers of the Constitution and imagined he was seeing an earlier, albeit smaller, version of his own day's history. 

But Beard was wrong. 

The majority of the signers of the Constitution were actually acting against their own best economic interests when they put their signatures on that document, just as had the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. 

Beard thought he saw his own era's Robber Barons among the Colonial economic elite. And, had the Revolution not happened, he might have been right. But, during and after the Revolutionary War, the great fortunes loyal to the Crown were dispersed or fled, and while some of the wealthy British families of 1776 still hold hereditary seats in the British House of Lords, nobody can point to a Rockefeller dynasty equivalent that survived colonial times in the United States. 

While there were some in America among the Founders and Framers who owned a lot of land, Pulitzer Prize winning author Bernard Bailyn suggests in his brilliant 2003 book "To Begin the World Anew: The Genius and Ambiguities of the American Founders" that they couldn't hold a candle to the true aristocrats of England. With page after page of photographs and old paintings of the homes of the Founders and Framers, Bailyn shows that none of those who created this nation were rich by European standards. 

After an artful and thoughtful comparison of American and British estates, Bailyn concludes bluntly: "There is no possible correspondence, no remote connection, between these provincial dwellings and the magnificent showplaces of the English nobility..." After showing and describing to his reader the mansions of the families of power in 18th century Europe, Bailyn writes: "There is nothing in the American World to compare with this." 

In "Wealth and Democracy," Kevin Phillips notes that: "George Washington, one of the richest Americans, was no more than a wealthy squire in British terms." Phillips says that it wasn't until the 1790' s - a generation after the War of Independence - that the first American accumulated a fortune that would be worth one million of today's dollars. The Founders and Framers were, at best, what today would be called the upper-middle-class in terms of lifestyle, assets, and disposable income. 

Even Charles and Mary Beard granted that wealth and land-ownership were different things. Land, after all, didn't have the scarcity it does today, and thus didn't have the same value. Just about any free man could find land to settle, either where Native Americans had been decimated by disease or displaced by war. 

In fact, with his Louisiana Purchase adding hundreds of millions of acres to America, Jefferson even guaranteed that the value of his own main asset - his land - and that of most of his peers, would drop for the next several generations. 

When George Washington wrote his will and freed his slaves on his deathbed, he didn't have enough assets to buy the slaves his wife had inherited and free them as well. Like Jefferson, who died in bankruptcy, Washington was "rich" in land but poor in cash. 

In 1958, one of America's great professors of history, Forrest McDonald, published an extraordinary book debunking Charles Beard's 1913 hypothesis that the Constitution was created of, by, and for rich white men. McDonald's book, titled "We the People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution," bluntly states that Beard's, "Economic interpretation of the Constitution does not work." 

Over the course of more than 400 meticulously researched pages, McDonald goes back to original historical records and reveals who was promoting and who was opposing the new Constitution, and why. He is the first and only historian to do this type of original-source research, and his conclusions are startling. 

McDonald notes that a quarter of all the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had voted in their own state legislatures for laws that would have helped debtors and the poor and thus harmed the interests of the rich. "These [debt relief/bankruptcy laws] were the very kinds of laws which, according to Beard's hypothesis, the delegates had convened to prevent," says McDonald. He adds: "Another fourth of the delegates had important economic interests that were adversely affected, directly and immediately, by the Constitution they helped write." 

While Beard theorized that the Framers of the Constitution were largely drawn from the class of wealthy bankers and businessmen, McDonald showed that, "The most common and by far the most important property holdings of the delegates were not, as Beard has asserted, mercantile, manufacturing, and public security investments, but agricultural property." Most were farmers or plantation owners, and owning a lot of land did not make one rich in those days. 

"Finally," McDonald concludes, "it is abundantly evident that the delegates, once inside the convention, behaved as anything but a consolidated economic group." 

McDonald then goes into an exhaustive and detailed state-by-state ana lysis of the state constitutional ratifying conventions that finally brought the U.S. Constitution into law. For example, in the State of Delaware, which voted for ratification, "almost 77 percent of the delegates were farmers, more than two-thirds of them small farmers with incomes ranging from 75 cents to $5.00 a week. Only slightly more than 23 percent of the delegates were professional men - doctors, judges, and lawyers. None of the delegates was a merchant, manufacturer, banker, or speculator in western lands." 

In other states, similar numbers showed up. Of the New Jersey delegates supporting ratification, 64.1 percent were small farmers. 

In Maryland, "the opponents of ratification included from three to six times as large a proportion of merchants, lawyers, and investors in shipping, confiscated estates, and manufacturing as did the delegates who favored ratification." 

In South Carolina it was those in economic distress who carried the day: "No fewer than 82 percent of the debtors and borrowers of paper money in the convention voted for ratification." In New Hampshire, "of the known farmers in the convention 68.7 percent favored ratification." 

But did farmers support the Constitution because they were slave owners or the wealthiest of the landowners, as Beard had guessed back in 1913? 

McDonald shows that this certainly wasn't the case in northern states like New Hampshire or New Jersey, which were not slave states. But what about Virginia and North Carolina, the two largest slaveholding states, asks McDonald rhetorically. Were their plantation owners favoring the Constitution because it protected their economic and slaveholding interests? 

"The opposite is true," writes McDonald. "In both states the wealthy planters - those with personality interests [slaves] as well as those without personality interests - were divided approximately equally on the issue of ratification. In North Carolina small farmers and debtors were likewise equally divided, and in Virginia the great mass of the small farmers and a large majority of the debtors favored ratification." 

After dissecting the results of the ratification votes state by state McDonald sums up: "Beard's thesis... is entirely incompatible with the facts." 

So what did motivate the Framers of the Constitution? 

Along with the answer to this question, we may also find the answer to another question historians have asked for two centuries: Why was the Constitutional Convention held in secret behind locked doors, and why did James Madison not publish his own notes of the Convention until 1840, just after the last of the other participants had died? 

The reason, simply put, was that most of the wealthy men among the delegates were betraying the interests of their own economic class. They were voting for democracy instead of oligarchy. 

As with any political body, a few of the delegates, "a dozen at the outside" according to McDonald, "clearly acted according to the dictates of their personal economic interests." 

But there were larger issues at stake. The people who hammered out the Constitution had such a strong feeling of history and destiny that it at times overwhelmed them. 

They realized that in the seven-thousand-year history of what they called civilization, only once before, in Athens - and then only for the brief flicker of a few centuries - had anything like a democracy ever been brought into existence and survived more than a generation. 

Their writings show that they truly believed they were doing sacred work, something greater than themselves, their personal interests, or even the narrow interests of their wealthy constituents back in their home states. 

They believed they were altering the course of world history, and that if they got it right we could truly create a better world. 

Thus the secrecy, the locked doors, the intensity of the Constitutional Convention. And thus the willingness to set aside economic interest to produce a document - admittedly imperfect - that would establish an enduring beacon of liberty for the world. 

As George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, wrote to the nation on September 17, 1787 when "transmitting the Constitution" to the people of the new nation: "In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence." 

He concluded with his "most ardent wish" was that the Constitution "may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness..." 

Since the so-called "Reagan revolution" more than cut in half the income taxes the multimillionaires and billionaires among us pay, wealth has concentrated in America in ways not seen since the era of the Robber Barons, or, before that, pre-revolutionary colonial times. At the same time, poverty has exploded and the middle class is under economic siege. 

And now come the oligarchs - the most wealthy and powerful families of America - lobbying Congress that they should retain their stupefying levels of wealth and the power it brings, generation after generation. They say that democracy doesn't require a strong middle class, and that Jefferson was wrong when he said that "overgrown wealth" could be "dangerous to the State." They say that a permanent, hereditary, aristocratically rich ruling class is actually a good thing for the stability of society. 

While a $1.5 million trigger for the estate tax is arguably too low - particularly given the recent bubble in real estate prices - that doesn't invalidate the concept of a democracy defending itself against oligarchy. Set the trigger at 10 million, or fifty million. Make sure that family farms and small businesses are protected. And make sure that people who have worked hard and earned a lot of money can have children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will live very comfortably. 

But let's also make sure that we don't end up like so many Latin American countries, where a handful of super-rich families rule their nations, and democracy is more show than substance. 

The Founders of our republic fought a war against an aristocratic, oligarchic nation, and were very clear that they didn't want America to ever degenerate into aristocracy, oligarchy, or feudalism/fascism. We must hold to their vision of an egalitarian, democratic republic. 

Now the Estate Tax is before the Senate. Encourage your US Senator to fight against mega-millionaire and US Senate leader Bill Frist, and to keep the estate tax intact.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

Oligarchy (Greek &#8008;&#955;&#953;&#947;&#945;&#961;&#967;&#943;&#945;, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family, military powers or spiritual hegemony). The word oligarchy is translated into "rule by few." Compare with autocracy (rule by one person) and democracy (rule by the majority).


----------



## editec (Jul 11, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> Just who do you call rich?
> 
> Do you realize that making 60K per year puts you in the top 10% of earners?


 
$60,000 bearly puts you in the top third of all incomes.

Image:Income-curve-$10k.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 11, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> Just who do you call rich?
> Do you realize that making 60K per year puts you in the top 10% of earners?


Not even close, dude.


----------



## Taco (Jul 11, 2008)

Of course it's about oil, and having a strong military presense in the last bastion of proven reserves in the Earth.

But hey, let the administration hang itself:

" + title + "

 Adventure Capitalism - The Hidden 2001 Plan to Carve-up Iraq

by Greg Palast

Why were Iraqi elections delayed? Why was Jay Garner fired? Why are our troops still there? Investigative reporter Greg Palast uncovers new documents that answer these questions and more about the Bush administration's grand designs on Iraq. Like everything else issued during this administration, the plan to overhaul the Iraqi economy has corporate lobbyist fingerprints all over it.

In February 2003, a month before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a 101-page document came my way from somewhere within the U.S. State Department. Titled pleasantly, "Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Growth," it was part of a larger under-wraps program called "The Iraq Strategy."

The Economy Plan goes boldly where no invasion plan has gone before: the complete rewrite, it says, of a conquered state's "policies, laws and regulations." Here's what you'll find in the Plan: A highly detailed program, begun years before the tanks rolled, for imposing a new regime of low taxes on big business, and quick sales of Iraq's banks and bridges -- in fact, "ALL state enterprises" to foreign operators. There's more in the Plan, part of which became public when the State Department hired consulting firm to track the progress of the Iraq makeover. Example:This is likely history's first military assault plan appended to a program for toughening the target nation's copyright laws.

And when it comes to oil, the Plan leaves nothing to chance -- or to the Iraqis. Beginning on page 73, the secret drafters emphasized that Iraq would have to "privatize" (i.e., sell off) its "oil and supporting industries." The Plan makes it clear that -- even if we didn't go in for the oil -- we certainly won't leave without it.

If the Economy Plan reads like a Christmas wishlist drafted by U.S. corporate lobbyists, that's because it was.

(more at the excellent link)


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 11, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Not even close, dude.



sorry wasn't wearing my glasses and crossed the lines on my chart.

60K puts you in the top 25%


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 11, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?
> 
> In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree..."
> 
> ...



Pretty good stuff but none of it refutes my stand on income taxes. And if you're worried about a class of people becoming too wealthy and having undue influence over the country, you should worry about our new political class.  No where else in business are you guaranteed to get rich, and powerful like you can in politics.  No where else can one be exempted from the laws everyone else has to follow except in politics.

And it seems to me that the framers were concerned about the success of the average man but your stand on taxes and wealth redistribution are not reflected in the sources you cited.  And you still have not defined "rich". It seems your reasoning would make Bill Gates the greatest threat to this nation.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 11, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> sorry wasn't wearing my glasses and crossed the lines on my chart.
> 
> 60K puts you in the top 25%



100K puts you in the top 10% but I still don't call that rich


----------



## Care4all (Jul 11, 2008)

Thus the Internet and this growing medium of which we are getting some truth in News....


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 11, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Thus the Internet and this growing medium of which we are getting some truth in News....



Maybe but it is also loaded with lies and propaganda.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 11, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> People who make $40-$70K will get a better tax break under Obama.  People who make $71-$200K will stay the same.  The richest people in America will lose $1 million dollars under Obama.  In other words, he's going to take the bush tax breaks away to put things back to the way the were.  Back when the economy worked.
> 
> If those unfair tax breaks worked, maybe he wouldn't take them away.  But they have not.  Now the richest people in America will have to start a business or hire people to get tax breaks.  We will no longer just give them an unfair tax break and hope they trickle it down.  And he will end loopholes where they can take their money and put it in offshore bank accounts to avoid paying taxes.
> 
> *I love how you guys hate people that don't pay taxes but you approve of loopholes that allow rich people to avoid paying taxes.  You aren't even rich dummy*.



Twiddledum.....

The Truth About Tax Rates and The Politics of Class Warfare

According to data from the Internal Revenue Service, 1 *the top 1 percent of income earners pay nearly 35 percent of the income tax burden; the top 10 percent pay 65 percent; and the top 25 percent pay nearly 83 percent.* The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay barely 4 percent of income taxes. By definition, then, it is impossible to cut taxes without the so-called rich receiving a share of the benefits. 


View attachment $untitled.bmp

Yes there may be loopholes but the top 1 percent pays 35% of this nation's income taxes......

Ignorance...


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 11, 2008)

You are wasting your time arguing with the brainwashed.


----------



## Wow (Jul 12, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> The question is why did the Bush administration keep mum about this? Could there have been some political reason that made it more expedient not to reveal this?


The Bush Adm. could have revealed this uranium find and the media covered it up.
The UN said they had destroyed Saddam's nuclear capabilities and they were holding this much uranium?
It's all fishy.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 12, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> For Christ's sake do you really know who pays income taxes in this country or are you just listening to the rhetoric?
> 
> FYI the top 1% of earners pay over 39% of all income taxes
> 
> ...



How much does the top category of earners pay in Social Security taxes compared to the bottom groups?

Got a figure on that....?

After all, every DIME of the social security surplus taxes are being USED TO PAY FOR WHAT income taxes should pay, no?  to the tune of over 2.2 TRILLION dollars  of surplus used by the general revenues already.....

if you continue to include Social Security in with what many on the right call welfare or social spending, THEN YOU MUST include the taxes collected for SS in with your percentages of what each income group pays in taxes on their total income....imo.

care


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Jul 12, 2008)

Wow said:


> The Bush Adm. could have revealed this uranium find and the media covered it up.
> The UN said they had destroyed Saddam's nuclear capabilities and they were holding this much uranium?
> It's all fishy.


Not fishy at all. They've known about this cache and it's been monitored by the IAEA since 1991. It's potential for nuclear weapons was rendered useless through a process known as isotopic dilution. If it had the potential to create nuclear weapons, why would it have just been sitting in Iraq for the last five years? Much easier to guard it in the States than over there.

"The first removal of highly enriched uranium from Iraq in compliance with resolution 687 took place. A UN cargo flight loaded with 42 fresh fuel elements from the IRT-5000 research reactor a Al Tuwaitha, containing a total of 6.6 kilograms of uranium-235. Baghdad for Moscow. An IAEA team supervised the shipment.

The airlift of the remaining quantities of non-irradiated highly enriched uranium was completed 17 November 1991. These materials had been under IAEA safeguards from the time they were imported by Iraq. The operation was arranged through a contract between the Ministry of Atomic Power and Industry of the former USSR and the IAEA. The highly enriched uranium will be processed at a facility in the former USSR and placed under IAEA custody after isotopic dilution."
Nuclear capabilities of Iraq - A Chronology of Events

There is no smoking gun here.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 12, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> We invaded their country and right now they don't have water, electricity or waste removal in Iraq.  Let me do that to you and then offer you a business deal.  You'll do whatever I ask just to get me the hell out of your face.
> 
> Offer they COULDN"T refuse!!!!
> 
> You should RETIRE from politics.  LOL.



Correction they do not have complete Electric, water, or waste removal, But I am not shocked at all you would make it sound like they have none.


----------



## Wow (Jul 12, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> Not fishy at all. They've known about this cache and it's been monitored by the IAEA since 1991. It's potential for nuclear weapons was rendered useless through a process known as isotopic dilution. If it had the potential to create nuclear weapons, why would it have just been sitting in Iraq for the last five years? Much easier to guard it in the States than over there.
> 
> "The first removal of highly enriched uranium from Iraq in compliance with resolution 687 took place. A UN cargo flight loaded with 42 fresh fuel elements from the IRT-5000 research reactor a Al Tuwaitha, containing a total of 6.6 kilograms of uranium-235. Baghdad for Moscow. An IAEA team supervised the shipment.
> 
> ...


Isotopic dilution is a technique to increase the precision and accuracy of chemical analysis. Isotopic dilution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada paid tens of million$$ for this uranium.
The UN had control of uranium and I see that no different from Saddam, Iran or Hugo Chavez having control of it.

This alone is worthy of an invasion.
America is much safer now.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 12, 2008)

Wow said:


> This alone is worthy of an invasion.
> America is much safer now.



not to mention the repeated violations of a cease fire and multiple UN resolutions.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 12, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> not to mention the repeated violations of a cease fire and multiple UN resolutions.



Exactly..

I'll admit that things probably haven't been handled as they were supposed to...and the conduction of the war probably could have been handled a little different, but there is no debate that the U.S. and other nations are safer now that Saddam is out of power. Not to mention, the Stalin-like disappearing of people that Saddam didn't like.  But people forget, it take TIME to rebuild a nation after a war.  How long did it take Germany and Japan with U.S and allied help?


----------



## Wow (Jul 12, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> not to mention the repeated violations of a cease fire and multiple UN resolutions.


Yep!
I would like to add, Clinton said inspections are useless, when you can not inspect all areas.


----------



## Wow (Jul 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Exactly..
> 
> I'll admit that things probably haven't been handled as they were supposed to...and the conduction of the war probably could have been handled a little different, but there is no debate that the U.S. and other nations are safer now that Saddam is out of power. Not to mention, the Stalin-like disappearing of people that Saddam didn't like.  But people forget, it take TIME to rebuild a nation after a war.  How long did it take Germany and Japan with U.S and allied help?



How can a person say "The war in Iraq was not handled well", then say "The Iraqi people need to stand up for themselves"? 
How do you determine the Iraqi people will stand up for themselves without testing them, with the possibility of some failure?

If there is any human that can predict or conduct a perfect war, I would like to meet them.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 12, 2008)

Wow said:


> How can a person say "The war in Iraq was not handled well", then say "The Iraqi people need to stand up for themselves"?
> How do you determine the Iraqi people will stand up for themselves without testing them, with the possibility of some failure?
> 
> If there is any human that can predict or conduct a perfect war, I would like to meet them.



You've misunderstood.  I'm not criticizing anyone for a poor job.  In everything, in retrospect, is twenty-twenty.  Anyone can look back on any war, event, situation, and find flaws and different ways that it could have been handled for the better.  IMO, the poor job has been done in the political arena, not the military.  The military plan has been great, however, unfortunately political agendas drive and hender military success.  That's all I'm saying.  I agree with you.  

Personally, I think there's been numerous "mis-handlings" of the war politically.  We had politicians voting to send soldiers to war, then voting down funds that would give them equipment, supplies, and armor that they need.  They raise troop levels, then lower them, then raise them, then lower them.  Had the military been given it's ultimate discretion to handle situations and conduct the war, things would be different.  Unfortunately, we know longer have a WWII-like military in which commanders were given more power to do what they think needs to be done.    

I think we both agree that the Iraq war is showing extreme progress, and I think in recent months and the last couple of years, Iraq has been going pretty well...I have many friends who've been there and have said they're making real progress.


----------



## editec (Jul 13, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> sorry wasn't wearing my glasses and crossed the lines on my chart.
> 
> 60K puts you in the top 25%


 
It does if you meant to say _personal income_ and not _family income_, I suspect.



> What is the median SALARY in the USA?
> 
> *Answer *
> 
> ...


 
Surprising, isn't it?

The fact is that one helluva lot of people aren't making very much money for their labors.

Why, I might even go out on a limb and suggest that the fact that working people don't make much money might have SOMETHING to do with why so many of the working class are rather poor.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> You've misunderstood.  I'm not criticizing anyone for a poor job.  In everything, in retrospect, is twenty-twenty.  Anyone can look back on any war, event, situation, and find flaws and different ways that it could have been handled for the better.  IMO, the poor job has been done in the political arena, not the military.  The military plan has been great, however, unfortunately political agendas drive and hender military success.  That's all I'm saying.  I agree with you.
> 
> Personally, I think there's been numerous "mis-handlings" of the war politically.  We had politicians voting to send soldiers to war, then voting down funds that would give them equipment, supplies, and armor that they need.  They raise troop levels, then lower them, then raise them, then lower them.  Had the military been given it's ultimate discretion to handle situations and conduct the war, things would be different.  Unfortunately, we know longer have a WWII-like military in which commanders were given more power to do what they think needs to be done.
> 
> I think we both agree that the Iraq war is showing extreme progress, and I think in recent months and the last couple of years, Iraq has been going pretty well...I have many friends who've been there and have said they're making real progress.



iraq will go down as one of the biggest blunders, was not worth the costs and increased the number of terrorists in the world.

we can no longer play inocent victim after invading for a lie

america isn't  benefitting from progress in iraq.  were just paying.  the illuminati are raping the treasury.  big oil. and they gouge us back home.

and why not when goobers like you allow it.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> iraq will go down as one of the biggest blunders, was not worth the costs and increased the number of terrorists in the world.
> 
> we can no longer play inocent victim after invading for a lie
> 
> ...



It's got a long way to go pass up Vietnam as the biggest political blunder....that was started by a Democrat.......

And I've got news for you, Iraq didn't create more terrorist dumbass.  9-11 happened before we even invaded Iraq...which means there were plenty terrorist before then... Oh yeah, and we'd consistently been attacked by terrorist since the early 80s....about twice a year if you do the math.  Should I fed-ex you a calculator???  How how but some baby whipes for all that pointless bullshit that you pull out of your ass.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 13, 2008)

Arguing with robots who can only repeat Democrat Talking points is pointless.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 13, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Arguing with robots who can only repeat Democrat Talking points is pointless.



I know, the only reason I do is to see the next idiotic thing he posts....it's quite entertaining....


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 13, 2008)

If you ask me the whole WMD debate is stupid. We gave Iraq more than a years warning we were coming. I am find it nuts anyone was shocked we didn't find anything when we got there.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 13, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> If you ask me the whole WMD debate is stupid. We gave Iraq more than a years warning we were coming. I am find it nuts anyone was shocked we didn't find anything when we got there.



I know...We even gave them a dead-line...  

"Quick Ali, send them to Syria!!


----------

