Flip you,* Bush!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/31/judge-white-house-aides-c_n_116069.html

* “Flip you” is how the Mormons say “fuck you.” I guess it makes them feel more worthy when they merely think of the term’s meaning while not actually saying it.

Yeah, off point, I know, but my glee over this decisions could not be contained.

What say ye, Bob S., jd, Ken Bingham, Paul??? Time to abide by the Constitution once again???

Re the above video, the sad thing is that McCain probably does know the right answer to the question and would say and do the right thing were he to speak honestly; excepting, however, his need for pandering to the religious right prevents him from speaking honestly on this subject.

One thing is for certain, McCain can put on a great clueless George look! Almost as great looking as the Idiot-in-Chief!

While the Repubs seem to have that ‘party unity’ thing going on, the dems are 30% ‘blue dogs’, which is another way of saying republican suck-ups. If we’re going to have to suffer repug rule, we should do it up front and not be fooled by dems who have repug mind-sets.

Just like here Cliff, with all I have written of you, is all true, to the best of my knowledge, only repeating what I have heard from your own mouth. I do not lie. Most lying is done for money and personal aggrandizement, so consider my position, and know, that I know, that you have not been honest, too often to mention.

However, it appears you are attempting to deny your history, and move on a better path. Pardon me for always suspecting that there is a ulterior motive. That is the better part of vigilance.

Who knows? It could perhaps be the redemption of your Soul.

As for the story of Benny the Worm, give me an address to send it to. I even know the names of one better witnesses, who named Benny, Skippy, the Senators Kid..through the loudhailer (2 way) so he could hear it, and piss him off. Another is dead, swept over the side on another Bering sea crab trip. The other, the only guy to apologize for the treatment on board, I cannot remember his name.

I was the cook and deckhand, I loved Benny so much, I served him…… we would keep that out of the story, no?

Consider that tidbit as TRUST, and if you stop with naming me, which you initiate, and has cost me plenty via Lisa utilizing it, we can call this feud over, despite the fact that I will ever be suspect of your true intentions. Just the price paid for playing games. You shouldn’t expect to be able to play, without full disclosure. I have always had my reasons for keeping my posts non attributable, and they are, as they are simply allegations of you, and an IP address. My troubles came from posting my own name with the harpy.

Even so, I get to see my kids 2 hours a month, with supervision, so shitty was my lawyer, temporary order. As it is, it won’t matter, it was her intention to kill and bury me, and she LOST! How’s that for positive? That perspective was given to me by an old UVM friend, who has been through the nightmare, and is the enviro driller I worked for.

They have their price, lies, Cliff Lyon.

Well written, by the standards we see here? Easy.

By the way, is Larry a mental defective? cheers glenn

I’ll be changing my name again soon, and from that point we will see won’t we? I would post bennys’ story under my own though, it would be something to let it be know, though the limitations for his crimes there are long over.

They include, Fish and game crimes, Fed wildlife act crimes, suborning, fraud, tampering with weights a measures, endangerment, and more…he is a real piece of work.

Albert, you wrote;

“However, you are 100% incorrect when you suggest, among other things, that US attorneys may be fired for any reason at all. Wrong, wrong, wrong, Bobby!!! As with employees having employment-at-will contracts, US attorneys may be terminated for cause or without cause, but they cannot be terminated for a wrong cause”!!!!

You would have to prove it Albert. There’s the job, see if you can do it.

Well then you only need not say anything as employer, and you are terminated without cause. In this case the administration. Now what you claim Albert is pure speculation, and will invariably end up as one word against the other. Dismissed.

Now if you left an open path to another reason for a firing that would wrongful, you would have to be a bunch of idiots to mention it. Considering that bush et al have been playing this game for 8 years with no consequence, and getting away with it, amoral bastards that they are, it is pretty clear they understand the game, and in reflection who the idiots really are.

Can you recall Albert?, I’ll bet Miers and Bolton can’t.

I cannot recall that, I don’t recall, that…
I cannot recall that,
I cannot recall that…., and so on.

I expect this mantra to lead to conclusive inconclusivness(bushism) to any inquiry afforded this subject.

These people are masters at the art of legal NULLIFICATION.

Fornication, obfuscation, disinformation, and should anyone get a handle on them, you better watch your back. In the sea of bullshit, you are swimming with the bull sharks.

Larry,

I’m up to speed on most of the corruption in Congress, I pointed out the Jefferson case for a particular reason that you missed.

Congress was all up in arms about the FBI investigation of Jefferson’s office. This was after there was criminal charges filed, after a search warrant was approved by the Judiciary.

Why did they object? Separation of Powers, Congressional Privilege against arrest for speech and debate. The courts ruled that the search was mostly legal just that someone should have been able to separate out the legislative papers from the other papers. The major point was Congress did not want to give into the Executive branch.

Now they are claiming that the White House has to answer to them, but they didn’t want to give the same courtesy on a case of clearly criminal behavior. After a judge determined there was sufficient evidence to conduct the search. Congress shouldn’t be able to have it both ways, that was what I was pointing out.

Jack Abramoff was a lobbyist so I already think they are half crooked. Stevens and Jefferson are Representatives, I hold them to a much higher standard.
Can you point me to your posts where you cackled with Glee about Jefferson? Let’s keep it consistent, right?

Albert,

That is your problem, you have an ability to detect what is not there.

Here is the rub, neither executive privilege nor congress’ ability to subpoena people appear in the Constitution. Nothing I’ve said has been against the rule of law and support of the Constitution. I my personal opinion what Congress, in particular the Democrats are doing, is a witch hunt, pure and simple.

Congress has oversight over the DOJ, do you admit that?
Congress has held multiple hearings on this issue, do you admit that?
Personnel from the Department of Justice have appeared before Congress, do you admit that?
Personnel from the Whitehouse have appeared before Congress on this issue, do you admit that?
So how is that not upholding the Constitution? I support all those actions, even if the motivation for Congress’ action were highly political.
Do you deny the political motivation behind the investigation?

Once again, I’ll ask show the evidence that a crime was committed.

Bob:

Open your freeping eyes.

Sorry, but I’m through entertaining your apologist rhetoric for this night.

Bob S. your comments and perspective are appreciated. You have given new meaning to the concept of ‘Bush Derangement’, (not to be taken personally) in that it now accurs to me that those smitten worst, are in fact supporters of Bush. Nonetheless none are immune. Not Pelosi, not Reed, not Petreyus.

McCain’s people defended their choice of Britney and Paris for the ad by claiming they were ranked 2 and 3 behind Obama on the list of celebrities. They’re not even in the top 100 but, in the words of Newsday’s John Riley:

So, they didn’t pick other big celebrities, who were either men, or black, or married.

What they picked was two sexually available white women.

Cliff,

Is all of the above an acceptable answer?

Let’s start with the 2nd amendment. This is a generalization so for those on the left that support the 2nd forgive me. Do more Liberals or Conservatives favor Gun Control?

Answer, Liberals favor it more then Conservative; a specifically enumerated right would be curtailed. See the political parties of San Francisco, Chicago, Washington D.C. who are actively resisting the Heller Decision.

Economic Freedom– I own stock in companies, through direct purchases but mostly retirement programs (401(k)s, IRA, etc). Many of the choices I made are heavily invested in Energy companies. When those companies make money, I make money. Again, Which political philosophy favors limiting the profits that energy companies can make, Liberals or Conservatives?

Answer Liberals, see Pelosi, Hillary Clinton’s “I want to take those Profits and use them” comment.

Freedom of Speech, what is “Hate Speech” but a way to limit what is “acceptable” say and who gets to decide? See Canada for the results of that;Their Human Rights Commission is an example. Which political philosophy favors controlling speech more, Liberals or Conservatives?
Answer, this one is closer, but still Liberals. Conservatives want to limit it in one direction, the libs in another.

Freedom to parent in a manner I choose? Spanking or corporeal punishment (separate and apart from abuse, I don’t condone that) Who wants to limit how a parent can raise their child? Liberals in one direction. Home Schooling, See California’s recent court decision stating unless parents have a teaching certificate they can’t home school.

Freedom to eat high calories meals? Transfats? Which political philosophy is pushing vegetarian diets, not as an option but requiring it? Liberals are more likely to be pushing?

Single Payer Health Care system? Liberals

Unlimited Immigration? Another close one, but usually liberal.

Economic freedom? How about who wants to let me keep more of my money and decide how I want to spend it? Very close toss up, but liberals generally favor tax increases over conservatives. And I’m talking about average Joe and Jane Americana here, not the Political Hacks we’ve elected. Any brand of politician generally wants my money; just wants to spend it on different programs.

The list goes on and on; what type of car I can drive, the energy I use for my house,etc.

There is problems on the Conservative side that I disagree with also. Abortion for example. I don’t like it, don’t like how many women use it as birth control but I’ll support their right to choose. The Conservative side has gone overboard on security and invasion of privacy also. Those rights need to be brought back inline with what the Constitution says.

I’ve said it over and over again, both sides want to take our freedoms just in a different order. On the whole though, the Liberals want to run my life more then the Conservatives.

I just want both sides to leave me alone, read the phrase “benign neglect” and really like it. Let’s limit governmental interference in our lives to just what the Constitution allows, eh?

Albert,

Your gun nuttiness is showing “.22 caliber shorts” LOL.

This is not an issue that I’ve researched very much, so I won’t/can’t comment on specifics.

I guess it boils down to this: It is or should it be Congress’ job to investigate things like Rove/Siegelman?

I say no, let the courts do it. If there are crimes suspected, we have a mechanism to handle that, right? Why not have the proper branch of government, and yes the Judicial system is part of the government, do the investigation.

The root of the subpoena power of Congress was to investigate where legislation is required. Is there any additional legislation required in this case?

The checks and balances aren’t just between Legislative and Executive, but the Judicial plays a role also…let it happen that way. Congress investigating this issue is highly politically motivated and appears aimed not at constructing better laws, but at vengeance or payback.

Please note that I have never said that crimes shouldn’t be investigated and consequences given if the people are guilty.

On one of the gunny blogs, there is a debate raging on “hate crimes”. This reminds me greatly of that debate, does it matter what the motivation for a crime is?
Political or personal, I don’t think it matters. Come down hard on the crimes and people will be less likely to commit the crime no matter what reason they might have.

Cliff,

It’s pretty simple, let’s take it in two parts.

First, economic basics. This is a general, non-specific lesson, it may not apply in all cases.
I make money in one of two ways when I own stock in a company and it is making money. Usually the value of the stock goes up, therefore my investment is worth more. Or the company can declare a dividend, paying cash for each share I own. Again, I make money.
Limiting the amount of profits a company can make limits the wealth average people investing through funds (mutual, IRA, 401ks, etc) can make and impact millions of people.

Second, Freedom is more than freedom of government interference in my life. It’s about freedom of choice, that to me is what the Liberals try to take away more then the Conservatives.
It may be that my lifestyle and choices aren’t as impacted by the Conservative attempts to limit my freedom as much as they are by the Liberals, but I dont think that is it.

I see it as Conservatives generally want people to give up liberty for security while Liberals want people to give up liberty because the Liberals assume/believe they know what is better for me than I do. I resent both.

So, since you started by asking the question and I responded, don’t chicken out now -educate me. I’ve always said I’m willing to learn. Let’s see if there is anything you have to teach.

Richard,

What do you think will have more affect on an oil company, 1000 people outside marching or 1000 people in a stock holder’s meeting asking the company to make a change?

It’s not a matter of let them eat cake but of leverage. Outside protesters don’t have the leverage because the company has a responsibility to the stockholders. I own a part of those companies, I want them to make an ethical profit.

Exxon Mobil’s “record Profits” aren’t really that impressive to me. Because the margin isn’t that high, Exxon just sold a lot of oil, natural gas, gasoline, etc; about #138 billion dollars worth. Not a very high percentage profit

But Exxon’s net profit margin of about 8.5% — net income as a percentage of revenue — pales when compared with what many other blue-chip companies earned in the latest quarter.

So, Exxon’s making a fair profit, using ethical means; don’t like it? What do you do about it, but take control of the company or its agenda. Changing a company like Exxon is easier from the inside then from the outside, it’s leverage- not cake.

I would say Exxon Mobil’s record quarterly profit and Chevron’s profit comes at the expense of the economy as a whole. Just ask a laid-off auto worker or someone who has to worry about how to cope with today’s grocery prices. At the very least, the government ought to cut off all subsidies to the oil and gas industry and use the money to reduce our dependence on oil.

Not going to happen under our political system, of course. They rob from the poor and give to the rich.

Richard,

How about an example of how Chevron’s and Exxon’s profit comes at the cost of the economy as a whole?

Do the companies provide a service that is a monopoly? Nope, many oil companies out there. Are the prices excess resulting in excessive profits, I’ve shown that is not the case. Should I list all the companies that are making more then Exxon’s profit margin?

I’ll agree that the government should reduce the subsidies, but I’m not sure what subsidies the oil companies are receiving. Could you provide a link or more information?

I do know that the TAXES on the oil companies are approximately 3 times higher then their profit margins. Want to jump start the economy, drop the taxes and reduce government spending (Remember that government spending issue- i.e. Entitlements).

Bob S.– I think you would agree that most of the big petroleum corporations are making big bucks as world oil prices go up. Exxon Mobil’s profits have almost tripled since Bush took office. When oil prices go up, the economy as a whole suffers. Duh.

Try Google sometime, it works. Annual oil industry subsidies from the U.S. government are estimated at $15 billion to $35 billion. This does not even include the cheap leases available on 200 million acres of public lands (for $1 per acre) and offshore.

The Bush administration is responsible for the high price of oil.

With the help of Republicans in Congress, they enacted the Enron Loophole. Oil prices would be about 25 percent less without it.

Bush followed disastrous fiscal and economic policies that brought about a weak dollar, which is directly linked to rising oil prices.

Starting in 2001, Bush insisted on buying oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at premium prices, helping to keep profits high for his oil industry buddies and campaign contributors.

Bush invaded Iraq, and oil production there took five years to recover to pre-war levels. Bush administration threats against Iran bump up oil prices every time they are issued.

Larry– Maybe Senator McCain can’t turn on a computer, but he has hired people to do it for him. You can find the ad on http://www.johnmccain.com. Click on the tab labeled “TV AD: CELEB.”

I think the point of the ad, on the surface and subliminally, is that Obama is the sort of person who would hang out with Britney and Paris if he weren’t busy running for president. And he’s “foreign” (note how they accuse him of liking foreign oil, just to get that word in).

Talking Points Memo says that the McCain/Rove campaign is so pleased with the reaction to the ad that they’re now spending over $140,000 a day for paid air time.

Pol Pot had leaders,

Mao was a leader

Stalin was a leader

Hitler was a leader

A “leader” is what you use to direct animals. Or attach hooks to for fishing.

America is a representative democracy. We are meant to have people that serve our will under the Constitution. All representatives are sworn to this by Oath.

We do not need a leader, this isn’t the Boy Scouts.

“Obama will make your life better whether you acknowledge it or not”.

Did you actually write that Cliff? Dude…scary stuff. You don’t actually believe that do you? You have no fuckin’ idea how it will turn out.

Then this;

“Obama is the first politicians to say, finally, “I don’t need to be an expert, I just need to be able to learn from the smartest people on the subject”.

Am I to assume that your leader, admittedly doesn’t know very much, and will have a multiplicity of leaders to tell him what to do? Like brezinski on foreign policy, and skull and bones goolsbee on the economy policy? It can get worse.

That’s it, I’m buying Kool Aid stock, and investing in a sugar company, this coming from you? Jesus, Jahweh and Bhudda, and maybe even Mohammed.

Bob:

One thing Obama has led is an organization that beat a very formidable Clinton campaign to become the presumptive Democratic nominee; he also led a campaign to become a senator from Illinois. Maybe a better question is what has Obama screwed up in his lifetime, compared to the many screwups that GWB accomplished prior to and following becoming c-in-c. You really need to let go of your unfounded fears, take a deep breath, and open your eyes!

Obama…The Leader. That sounds familiar, where have I heard it before?

Oh yes, The Leader…Il Duce, there it is.

Il Duce Obama Messiah…perfect.

Doesn’t Der Furher mean The Leader? Seem to know it does.

Not a good angle for a sales pitch for president of a free country.

Albert,

I was waiting to think over how best to respond to that post. I’m not sure of your level of understanding of basic finance. It certainly appears to be rudimentary at best, unless you are just trying to agitate.

First, you are confusing two concepts; Investing and compound Interest. Both are acceptable, moral, ethical wealth creation mechanisms.

Both are the basis for the growth of our country and others; what objection do you to people providing companies with the resource to grow? Money doesn’t grow on trees, at least not here in Texas.

I disagree that making money with money is immoral because anyone investing in a company is providing a service, a resource for that company to grow. How does a start up company buy equipment, supplies, buildings, hire personnel without money? It can come from a single investor or from many, but money makes it possible for companies to grow- isn’t that a good thing?

I think you are just baiting for a response, sorry if I”m not flying off the handle.

As far as a day’s work for a day’s pay, don’t confuse what you do with how you make your money. I work for a living it pays the bills. I have very little invested outside of my retirement accounts, but I’m working to change that.

I work harder studying where to invest then I do on my day job.

What are your objections to investing?

To buy anything you want, that is what money is for. It has no moral compass, it is after all just a bunch of metal, paper, and cyber notations.

Contributions to society are your own subjective evaluation, you do it for your purposes, and judging others for what they do with money, should do nothing more than compel you to get more of it…to do what you want.

However Bob if you follow along in a biblical sense, compounded interest, on food or money, is a sin and is better known as usury. I often wonder if there are rules under a watchful God, whether this rather insidious mechanism has not kept all of the western world in a condition of sin.

From the trust fund created when a baby is born, to the first loan one assumes to buy a car, and so on. Most everyone is either at the mercy of usury, or engaged in it.

It is interesting that our current mortal enemy has one significant difference in banking process. Islamic banks do not charge interest, as it against Gods’ law. The God of Abraham anyway, the one that Christians, Jews, and Islamics all supposedly share. Their banks earn money on money lent, by fees. Compound interest is not permitted.

I have given this a fair bit of thought, though I myself am no doctrinaire believer.

The question, why has God made usury, or earning increase from lending a sin?

In reading of the bible it would seem that ” God” finds offensive the notion that a man can intervene between a person and their access to what belongs to the Almighty.

In short everything here on Earth, belongs to God. That a man utilizes the elements of the Earth, to represent these holdings of the Lord, and then lend them to another, while in the process enriching oneself is an act which puts a man in the position to be held by the Lord. One makes themselves Gods middleman, uses his capital, at the expense of another of Gods’ human creations… and he doesn’t like it. You basically make another a willful slave to you, for the purpose of material increase here on Earth. God is less than impressed.

Usury is a sin.

Whatever a man tell himself thereafter in sophistry as to why the method is “good” and ethical, is merely the tapestry spun by the sinner to justify his/her deed. Cognitive Consonance. It will of course do no good, God judges, and for this deed, you may well end up in hell.

I don’t know if such is the case, and do not trouble myself, though personally I detest loans of interest, they do generate a parasite class in my view. How are we to arrive at capital you may ask Bob to do the things we deem necessary? I seem to remember they called it “saving”. Maybe the Good Lord would have us work together.

Then of course there are the methods of how money is lent for purpose that is most unseemly.

If a nation under government prints its own money and distributes it, why is there interest at all? I would argue it is only because an insidious group of parasites have sought to control the method so that they need not work or produce anything to maintain their existence here on Earth. God hates a sloth. It is one of the 7 deadly sins. In this regard, we can see those engaged in fractional reserve banking, going the fast route to hell.

What would prevent a government from issuing its own currency to a citizen “lendee” with no interest? For example to construct a house. 100,000 is “lent” under payment schedule by the Treasury, and then a repayment schedule is set up for the loan. In the process a home is built, and when the loan is repaid, the Treasury could well shovel the money into a furnace once repaid, as allow a banker to fatten and do nothing for his existence. Even if the loan was not paid, fair market value is paid for the lumber, the builder/worker is paid in a timely fashion if he is not a fool, and if there is no repayment the Treasury prints more money into existence if it is needed. In addition is home is now in the world created from nothing more than the concept of no interest lending. Very Godlike, very much like a miracle.

The repayment process is just like it is now, except without a parasite class, that at their essence are inSINuating a practice that pulls the entire society down into the wallow of material focus in the here and now…while leaving many to ignore the Kingdom come.

Just one mans opinion, and from one with a certain ambivalence of whether or not God is really watching any of this.