by Greenpalmtreestillmine 208 Replies latest social current
Living in a (supposedly) free country means just that. I can choose not to be involved in politics.
Yes of course. That's why I asked in the manner I asked.
Right. How did you come by that knowledge again?I know that no matter who is elected (or not elected-as the case may be), they do not have our interests at heart.
How did you come by that knowledge again?
movies and TV shows.
Oh I thought it was your pops!
Seriously, six....look at history. You can name the honest ones on one hand. Google "crooked politicians" and you come up with around 55,000 hits. Yes, I'm cynical. I have it from the horse's mouth. My father has been a lobbyist for about 30 years. Oh, the stories he can tell you. He once told me that in all his dealings; dinners with governors, trips to the Bahamas that "we" paid for, he's never met an honest one. I was skeptical. I asked him to please tell me the truth. NOT ONE honest man or woman in the bunch?
Sadly....no.
"Politicians may go in straight, but they always come out crooked."
Now, don't get me wrong. If ever a politician comes around who I think is truly for the good of the people, I wouldn't hesitate to vote. Until then...why waste my time? Voting for the lessor of two evils is ignorant, imo.
But the lesser of two evils IS the lesser of two evils. . . .
If ever a politician comes around who I think is truly for the good of the people, I wouldn't hesitate to vote.
How would you possibly know when one came around if you assume they won't? Also, I guess I should tred lightly here, but to hear you tell it, your father is part of this whole orgy of misconduct, yes? So why is his idea of "honest"... well... honest? I don't want to fall into the trap I'm trying to pull you out of by saying all lobbyist are evil, all lobbyist are crooked, but, it is a profession not held generally in even as high regard as politicians. Personally, I know government has to do business, so I know someone has to represent said business; it doesn't make them inherently evil.
"Politicians may go in straight, but they always come out crooked."
Well even if this is true (and I don't personally believe it is ubiqitous, though I know the pressure is very great), "crooked" can mean anything from "slightly off plumb" (got the state police to overlook his wifes speeding ticket) to "majorly twisted" (a dead girl and a live boy in the basement of his public-paid-for penthouse). One "crooked" politician succumbed to lobbyist pressure after spending a young life fantasizing how he'd change America for the better, and one "crooked" politican parties with yet another lobbyist after spending a young life fantasizing how much power and "stuff" he'll have if he plays his cards right.
Which crooked politician would you rather have in office?
Btw, the three politicians I mentioned earlier who were in this years race were Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, and Wesley Clark. One of them had never been in politics before this contest, so if it's politics that bends 'em, there ya go. Whether you agree with their politics or not, I'd challenge you to find anything in their record that would indicate that they are not sincerely "for" the American people and I'd challenge you to find a big business interest that they are "owing" to.
Or, ignore those three, and think what-could-have-been. John McCain is rather well known for his fiscal integrity and for having paid his dues in Vietnam. He's been a politician for many years, so he must be crooked? Well, maybe, I don't know, I certainly haven't heard about it if so, but in any case not so crooked that he isn't known for the things I mentioned first. I know a lot of republicans (and democrats for that matter) who wish he'd have gotten the nomination last time.
But the lesser of two evils IS the lesser of two evils. . . .
And THAT'S being a realist! Hey, it doesn't come naturally for any of us with an altruistic bent.
Six
Wesley clark - prowar, antiwar, survillance lobbyist:
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 15, 2004 11:28:25 ET XXXXX
WES CLARK MADE CASE FOR IRAQ WAR BEFORE CONGRESS; TRANSCRIPT REVEALED
**World Exclusive**
Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.
"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.
"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."
But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush's action.
"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."
MORE
Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark's current and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the DRUDGE REPORT reveals:
TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD 'CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS'
Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.
"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.
"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."
Clark continued: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."
More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."
Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."
END
-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2004
Not for reproduction without permission of the author
---------------------
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=12&act=bio
Two weeks after declaring his intention to run for president, Clark was still registered to represent a high tech contractor, Acxiom Corporation, giving him the rare distinction of seeking the White House while registered as a lobbyist. Shortly after Clark announced his candidacy, a company spokesman said the general no longer lobbied for Acxiom, but, according to the Senate Office of Public Records, Clark had not filed any termination papers.
Clark has been lobbying for the firm since January 2, 2002; Acxiom has paid more than $830,000 for Clark to advance its agenda and meet with government officials. Clark also serves on the company's board of directors.
According to federal disclosure records, Clark lobbied directly on "information transfers, airline security and homeland security issues," for Acxiom, which sought funding to do controversial informational background checks on passengers for airlines. Privacy advocates have criticized the program, called the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System II, because of concerns that the data collected would be an overly invasive violation of individuals' rights to privacy. The public outcry has been so strong that there is a bi-partisan effort to create more oversight for the program to protect privacy interests if CAPPS II is implemented.
Clark lobbied the Department of Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Transportation for the company. Clark also reported, on his lobbyist disclosure forms, that he promoted Acxiom to the Senate and the executive office of the president. According an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette report, he even met personally with Vice President Richard Cheney.
He also made a pitch for the kind of tracking that the company's wares can perform while acting as a commentator on CNN. On January 6, 2002, four days after filing as a lobbyist for Acxiom, Clark told an interviewer, in response to worries that private planes could be used for terrorist attacks, "We've been worried about general aviation security for some time. The aircraft need to be secured, the airfields need to be secured, and obviously we're going to also have to go through and do a better job of screening who could fly aircraft, who the private pilots are, who owns these aircraft. So it's going to be another major effort."
Naturally, he did not reveal to CNN's viewers that the company he lobbied for had a substantial stake in this issue.
---------------
Well, you asked.
SS
Acxiom, based in Arkansas, is one of the country's largest data-aggregation companies. You may recall Acxiom as the company from which government contractor, Torch Concepts, purchased information regarding incomes, occupations, vehicle ownership information, number of children and Social Security numbers which was used in the infamous government funded study which came to light last September. This was the study that utilized 5 million pieces of Jet Blue passenger itinerary information and was entitled "Homeland Security -- Airline Passenger Risk Assessment."
Six, my personal feelings regarding this is that it started way back when we didn't nip things in the bud....and of course this war is linked to terrorism...directly or indirectly it's linked. But I honestly have no desire to argue these points, because ultimately it's pointless and I would rather be doing something else. My only reason in entering this discussion was because my hackes were raised at the initial questions asked in this post. That has been discussed and clarification made.
For the record though your "statistics" have no bearing on the personal thoughts and feelings that were posted to this thread. You have no personal insight into our minds, circumstances or inclinations regardless of how much you and Simon would like to believe you do. And I find both your insinuations to be personally insulting.
Have a Happy Easter.
