February
2008
Since When Has Spying on Americans been Democratic?
You’ve probably seen the commercial recently, calling for people to call their members of the House of Representatives to vote in favor of reauthorizing the Surveillance Bill which supposedly protects us against Al Qaida plotting against us. It claims that we are unprotected against terrorists without this bill in place.
What some of you might recognize, is that the voice of many beer commercials, which was also the voice of many Anti-Democratic smears during the 2004 Presidential campaigns, is the same voice behind this commercial.
The name of the organization funding the commercial, implying itself to be a Pro-Democracy group (Defense of Democracies), is anything but that.
Recent investigative reports, as well as a Bush Administration official, have admitted that the only reason to pass this bill, is to hold harmless, the telecom industry from lawsuits that are bound to be filed against them because of the illegal, unConstitutional nature of these illegal wiretaps, for any actions which they have taken in the past, or which they might take in the future. (That last piece was based on Bush’s own statement.)
There is no danger of any Al Qaida plots being missed, (as a result of the wiretaps no longer being in place - which is what the commercial implies), because the telecoms have all reported that they are continuing to provide this service to the Bush Administration and your government funded intelligence services, (at taxpayer expense), in spite of the fact that the legislation has not been reauthorized.
The only reason for the push for the reauthorization of this bill is to protect the telecoms from being sued for illegal activities. PERIOD.
Keith Olbermann - MSNBC reported on February 28th, that Republicans are puzzled that they aren’t getting large campaign donations from…THE TELECOM INDUSTRY!
Puzzled? Olbermann explains it by saying that the Telecom industry might possibly be upset with the Republicans by being forced into this situation in the first place, by the Republicans.
Les Nakamoto
Authors, Les Nakamoto, Watchdogging Constitutional Abuse
RSS feed
Link
I love the way liberals always want to claim this is legislation about spying on Americans; the bill actually authorizes “surveillance of terrorist suspects where one party (or both parties) to the communication are located overseas.” But part of this confusion, I’m sure, comes from their seemingly natural tendency to see all people as “Americans” without regard to whose citizens they might actually be. Personally, I see being American as superior to citizenship in any other nation–except maybe Ireland–and don’t believe that we ought to extend protections to persons or factions or governments which we normally reserve for American citizens. After all, if everybody is special, nobody is. And while this sounds good it is not how one wins a war or protects citizens. The first responsibility of government is to ensure safety–life. The PAA updates procedures to meet the changing nature of communications. Further, agents of the government are allowed to bypass normal FISA courts “when immediate action is required”, not at any time they please. This is clearly supported by majority of Americans especially when discussion of the legislation is stripped of partisan labels. We all realize that any measures aimed at national security, searches of any type, carry a real potential for abuse, but the PAA provides for several layers of oversight, both in the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate where the lawmakers are briefed and in the FISA courts as the law requires. These conditions being met, it is a matter of common sense that telecom companies receive immunity for actions they undertake on behalf of the taxpayers as authorized by our government. In the world where lefty’s drool over Obermann’s every word (like “pimping” as applied to active duty American generals serving in theatres of war) everything is about big, bad, Bush. But most of us don’t see America as the source of evil in the world; we saw the towers fall, saw the torture cells set up by the terrorists in Iraq, saw the Madrid trains and London busses, the Bali nightclubs and Kenyan embassys, we saw what they did to Daniel Pearle. When they call again, we sure as heck hope that someone over at Langley is listening in, not looking for a lawyer. And while Obermann was at it, did he happen to mention the tidal wave of money donated to democratic lawmakers by trial lawyers involved in potential lawsuits against the telecoms?
I love the way right wing apologists for Bush attempt to spin things based on what something is “supposed to be” versus what they actually are.
First of all, computers are dumb, they don’t know who anyone is, they just run calculations, and process documents and route traffic based on what someone has directed them to do. But, the traffic which is being captured by supercomputers is not selective, the super computers capture EVERYTHING and then sort through it..
Anyone who has been paying attention to this issue has seen the whistleblower from AT&T who proved (with testimony and by showing investigators the actual room and equipment that was being used to do it), that not only information that was coming from potential terrorists overseas was being diverted and downloaded onto NSA computers, but ALL communication, not only from overseas but within EVERYTHING within the United States as well (Why do you think they needed all those super computers?) And it wasn’t just AT&T that was doing it, but all of the telecoms. And it was all of the telecoms and the Internet Service Providers who were sending all search queries from ALL of their customers to US Intelligence authorities so that they could go through everything with a fine tooth comb. So, while this is considered a warrantless search and seizure, according to the new FISA rules (and the old ones which have not been affected by the House not voting), investigators have the ability to request a warrant from a judge up to three days after the deed was done.
So intelligence needs have not been affected by the non-renewal of this legislation.
You also neglect the fact that the Bush Administration and Bush himself have stated publicly that the only reason for this legislation was specifically for the provision giving immunity to the telecoms FOR BREAKING THE LAW now and in the future. Bush has been doing this for the past 7 ½ years with his Presidential signing statements which give him immunity for breaking the same laws that he is signing into law. Doesn’t that seem in the least bit hypocritical?
You claim that you want to make sure that the people at Langley are listening in for terrorists and not looking for lawyers, but of course that isn’t the issue. The CIA isn’t at risk of being sued here. And only telecoms who have taken illegal actions are protected under that legislation.
You claim you are so interested in making sure that the people at Langley (the CIA) are protected so that they can do their job. But if that is the case, then shouldn’t you be outraged that the Bush Administration, through Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, outed CIA operative Valerie Plame, )who was in charge of a large CIA operation, which actually tracked weapons of mass destruction, and WAS watching the terrorists, until Bush, Rove and Cheney destroyed that operation? It took over ten years to build that operation, and 70 agents and contacts were compromised as a result of that politically motivated outing, which was done to destroy Valerie Plame’s career, a Rove specialty.
And if you are so sure that the American people are so supportive of Bush’s lawbreaking activities and the lawbreaking activities of the telecoms, when you claim that most Americans support the policies and procedures; that these laws would make legal out of illegal procedures; then why are you demanding that a law be passed to give them immunity? If the American people want this to happen, than any lawsuit would be easily beaten in a court of law, and the telecoms would be considered innocent of any wrongdoing. The real reason that you are supporting this legislation providing immunity to the telecoms is because you believe that the American people DO NOT support this lawbreaking activity and would determine, in a court of law; that the telecoms would be guilty and should pay fines and spend some time in prison. If the people supported their actions, no immunity would be necessary.
You claim that this new legislation provides layers of oversight by the Congress, yet anyone who has been paying attention is well aware of the fact that the Bush Administration is failing to provide the information, documentation or, in many cases, any information at all, regarding what is being done or how it is being done in these cases. The fact that everything is being kept secret from even the Congressional watchdogs, (not just Democrats, but Republicans as well), is even getting Republicans upset about the lack of cooperation from the Bush Administration.
But it is also interesting that the Bush Administration continues to claim that the only reason that we are fighting the war in Iraq is to keep the terrorists “there” and keep them “out of the United States”. The Bush Administration and Republican talking heads around the country claim that they have been successful and have kept us from being attacked here at home, and have kept the terrorists out.
But if that is truly the case, then why would they claim the need to capture all of the electronic communication from overseas, while secretly capturing all of the electronic communication within the United States? If they are so interested in capturing information within the United States, then the only logical reason that they would be doing that would be because they already believed that Al Qaeda was HERE IN the United States already. That would mean that the entire purpose behind the Iraq war, in keeping the terrorists there, didn’t work, because they are now saying that that they are HERE.
But I don’t believe that that is the reason they are doing it. The fact that Rove and Bush were so involved in trying to gather dirt on anyone that they saw as a political enemy or who wasn’t completely loyal to the extent that they would severely prosecute Democrats based on flimsy evidence or would find their positions as U.S. Attorney’s or Judges, very quickly disappear. Just like any Generals or Admirals, or Intelligence experts who have the courage to stand up to Bush or Rove, they quickly “retire” or “resign” or are fired outright.
And people, like former Alabama Governor, Democrat Don Siegelman, who was judged guilty on rather flimsy evidence, and has now had over 50 former state attorney generals come forward demanding that his case be reviewed and investigated for possible interference from Karl Rove, may be the result of such “investigations”.
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was stupid for getting involved with prostitutes, particularly since he was such a law and order candidate, and publicly went after prostitution rings, but there is now reported evidence that the owner of the prostitution ring that he frequented, is owned by a former or current IRS agent, who may have been involved in turning in information regarding Spitzer’s activities.
I don’t support either of their actions if they have done what they have been accused of. I don’t believe that they should hold elective office if they have done what they have been accused of. However, I don’t believe that intelligence systems and our judicial system which Americans pay tens of billions of dollars every year for, should be used by one political party to dig up dirt on another, when they should be focused on protecting us from terrorist attacks.
You claim that as an “American” citizen, you are superior to other citizens of other countries, and that you don’t believe that we should extend protections to anyone who isn’t an American citizen. That is rather interesting on a number of different levels.
The Indians and Communist Chinese who are taking American jobs and industries, (because this administration and Republican controlled industries are moving them there), probably don’t see Americans as being superior to them, when they are the ones who have the jobs and have positive trade balances, while America has been losing millions of jobs, watching the value of the dollar tank, and are completely dependent on the importation of oil from other countries, (many of which don’t particularly like America). They probably don’t see Americans as being superior to them, when they have 600,000 engineers being graduated in both India and Communist China, every year (not together, but each individually), while the United States can only graduate 60,000 per year. Who do you think is going to win any technology war?
Bush complained when Communist China shot down one if its own satellites, contending that that could be considered an aggressive action. The Chinese responded by pointing out that Bush had better be careful, because they (the Chinese) have the ability to shut down our nations’ power grids. Given that they build almost all of the computer parts for almost all the major computer brands these days, it is possible that they have circuitry and software that they have built into them something which we haven’t got a clue what it does. (It’s not like we have enough trained engineers to look for anything or even recognize it if they do see it.)
And since most of our financial and internet service denial attacks have been coming from China, its likely that they have been doing a lot of research into how this could be done while we’re just sitting back waiting for it to happen.
You claim that American citizens are special, and imply that fair treatment of everyone, particularly if they aren’t American citizens, shouldn’t be provided to others when you say that “If everybody is special – nobody is.”
I disagree with your comment and so do the founding fathers of our country.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That’s from the Declaration of Independence.
If you remember your history, the United States had not been formed then, so the writers and the signers of the Declaration of Independence were saying not that “just Americans were created equal” or even “above others”, but rather that ALL men were created EQUAL. You might want to read it sometime, along with the Constitution of the United States. These documents appear to be rarely read by Republicans, who claim that they will support and defend the Constitution and then attempt to rewrite it or work around it.
And Republicans don’t seem to care that we are funneling hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign countries to supposedly support their economies and support their infrastructures while ignoring ours at home. Republicans don’t seem to care about conserving the little fuel we have and providing new, renewable energy resources to reduce our foreign dependency.
They’ve proven it by fighting increased fuel efficiency in vehicles for the past thirty years, only just having been forced to pass a new fuel efficiency standard, after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006.
And Republicans only claim to care about security, but ignore it when it benefits them financially.
Remember when Bush wanted to hand over our ports to Dubai, and then later again to the United Arab Emirates? Since when is handing over port security to countries who have large segments of their population who don’t like us a good idea?
Isn’t that just a repeat of the Reagan/Bush Administration’s State Department policy who thought that it was a good idea to give Saudi Arabian citizens a free pass to get visas into the United States without doing any background security checks? (Yes that is correct. The Reagan/Bush State Department officials set up that policy and the current Bush Administration State Department officials had continued the policy that allowed 15 of the 19 terrorist attackers on the planes that we’ve been told hit the WTC and the Pentagon, from SAUDI ARABIA. And the day after, when all other planes were grounded, Bush allowed the bin Laden family that had been living here in the United States, to leave for Saudi Arabia, without allowing intelligence investigators to question any of them.)
Where is YOUR OUTRAGE?!
And you claim that America is not the source of evil in the world. You say it is the people who set up the Iraq torture cells, and took down the WTC and bombed Madrid and London, the Bali nightclubs and the Kenyan Embassy.
You seem to be short on historical facts.
You forget that Saddam Hussein was a CIA asset, and was put in place and kept in power by the CIA because he helped to create turmoil in the region and was an effective power in keeping IRAN in check.
Donald Rumsfeld was a representative for a private contractor, and met with Saddam Hussein and was negotiating with Saddam Hussein at President Ronald Reagan’s request, to support providing Saddam Hussein with military assistance and weapons before, during and after the mass murder of the Kurds. Saddam Hussein used American supplied helicopters and nerve gas when they gassed the Kurds. Saddam Hussein had American supplied Sarin Nerve Gas and other biological weapons prior to and during the first Gulf War, because the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations GAVE THEM TO HIM. (The nerve gases and biological agents deteriorate after a few months, so those weren’t much of an issue during this last war with Iraq, because they hadn’t been reconstituted by the Iraqi military, but they were during the first Gulf War.)
Al Qaeda came about from the Mujahideen/Mujahadeen, who fought for freedom for Afghanistan in a nine year war against the Russians. The U.S. provided them with $4 Billion in Stinger Missiles ALONE (to shoot down Russian helicopters). That doesn’t count all the other weaponry that they gave them during the entire conflict between Russia and the Afghan fighters. After the Russians left, the CIA asked to get the Stinger missiles back from the mujahideen, and even offered to pay them pennies on the dollar. The mujahideen declined their offer. Who do you think they are using the stinger missiles on now? The U.S. Government and the military don’t like to talk about U.S. helicopters that are shot down these days.
And the CIA TRAINED Saddam Hussein and the Mujahideen fighters. They got their tactics from OUR people because of a foreign policy that was put in place by Republican Presidents, supported by our Congress and financed by U.S. Taxpayers.
People have been protesting the School of the Americas for decades. The School of the Americas is a U.S. military training school at Fort Benning, Georgia, for the military of foreign countries across the globe, particularly for Latin American dictators. But these policies, which have been promoted particularly by Republican Presidents and their supporters, and have trained the military of despotic regimes, are no different from what was done to support Saddam Hussein and the Mujahideen.
They never would have been able to accomplish what they have in their terrorist activities, if they had not been provided with the support of our government officials and U.S. taxpayers who pay for their training and their weapons, without considering whether that was a moral position, or what the long term effects would be.
It was wrong for our government to do it. It was morally, ethically and legally wrong. The American people weren’t paying attention then. If the American people don’t see that, or refuse to see it now, then they also are responsible for the consequences now.
We’ve already seen the consequences that our country and the world have suffered for allowing our government officials to act with impunity, without any oversight or consequences for their actions.
We need to smarten up; do our own research, instead of listening to the talking heads who have lied and continue to repeatedly lie to us and then claim that it was for our own good. We need to speak out and take action when we see falsehoods and outright lies directing our homeland and foreign policies.
And we need to take responsibility for our actions, and force our elected officials and their enablers to take responsibility for theirs as well.
By the way, the Pentagon just released a report based on their own investigations of over 600,000 documents, and are saying that what Bush and Cheney were saying before the war was not true. There was NO evidence of ANY connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. So “going to war in Iraq to stop the terrorists” was a completely fraudulent basis for getting us into Iraq in the first place.
Almost 4,000 military, 1123 contractors, and 600,000 civilians have lost their lives; with around 30,000 injuries, and almost $750,000.000 already budgeted for this war.
For what?
And you would continue to support Bush in spite of his incompetence and fraud?
Les:
Thanks for the belated and encycopedic response–some of which is actually related to the question at hand.
First, the president has requested that the telecoms be granted immunity for actions they have taken on behalf of the government, not actions they have taken on their own. There is no sense in which this is unreasonable unless you are one of those trial lawyer types who wants to take in millions in legal fees for trying the case. I believe that no jury would convict a company for actions taken on behalf of the government, but any idiot would realize that that is not the point here. Why should the telecoms have to bear the burden of money and hours that it would cost to defend against such a suit. Clearly, the motivation behind such legal action–one taken against an institution who acted on behalf of the government–would only be aimed at forcing the telecoms to fork over settlement payments to spare themselves the effort. I believe that Bush wanted to afford them protections against actions they take now which might in the future be construed as illegal. If I’m wrong in this, post a link to where he says: “immunity to the telecoms FOR BREAKING THE LAW now and in the future.” I’d love to see it.
You mention that computers are not people–or something to that extent–I agree. If people are searching these streams of information in ways which are not in accordance with FISA or PPA they should be prosecuted. What more would you ask of me? Am I to be shocked that the government has more than one supercomputer? Please. Am I to be disturbed that all communications are collected and then searched according to lawful perameters? No. Is the government just supposed to randomly aim its eye into the ether and hope for the best?
I suppose I was careless with my language when I mentioned Langely. It is a bit of a distraction–which you point out and I’ll concede. But if you’re going to bring up Plaime at least get your facts straight; it was Fred Armitage who outed her, not Rove and Bush. I’m sure you’ll be quick to admit your mistake there.
If the Bush administration is failing to meet its responsibilities to provide congress with information, I don’t support that. Congress should continue to pressure the administration to meet the obligations of the law in a timely fashion.
Any administration that would act as if AlQaeda was not already inside the US is a dangerous fool. To suggest that every terrorist has to be in Iraq for the policy to be correct is weak reasoning at best. Why do we take off our shoes at the airport?
You mention a lot of stuff about generals who wanted to sell books or do the talk shows and retired–so what? What does that have to do with FISA? Who cares about Spitzer or the intellegence resources used to capture Mark Foley? Again, what do they have to do with the issue?
I will stand by the statement that American citizenship is superior to any other (I’ll still allow Ireland some wiggle-room). The real question is: Why don’t you? I’m well aware of the numbers of engineers that China and India graduate: Its a byproduct of their enormous populations and growing prosperity, but I don’t begrudge them that. Economic prosperity makes war less likely (this is one point I agree with the left on) But what I meant was that the US Consitution provides me with more rights and freedoms than citizens of other nations enjoy. This makes us superior. But we must also realize that as foriegners in other countries we would not enjoy these same rights and protections. Try to buy some land in Mexico? What protections are afforded women in Iran? My point is that we shouldn’t be in a hurry to extend the full protections of our constitution to everyone in our country–legal of not, nor should we operate under the assumption that we should treat unknown persons in forien countries as Americans. Should we make reasonable efforts to treat people humanely and fairly? Absolutely, and to the extent that my comments suggested otherwise, they were poorly spoken.
I would agree to programs aimed at spying on the other governments of the world to determine if they had spiked our technology, and I’m pretty sure we could take out the Chinese power grid too.
By the way, companies more overseas to avoid high taxes and over-regulation. If you want the companies, lower the taxes; its that simple.
Wow, I’ve never heard of the constitution. Thanks for the tip–I’ll check it out.
You mention the government sending money to support the infrastructures of other countries (why you do so in a post about FISA is beyond me) and how terrible it is. Are you likewise opposed to sending money to support the healthcare infrastructures of African nations fighting AIDS while people here are sick? If so, a lot of your lefty buddies are going to be real upset. (I support massive funds to Africa to fight AIDS–and to build roads, school, and many other things too)
On another digression you bring up energy. Lets build nuclear, drop ethanol, drill in ANWAR and maintain a good relationship with Canada–who supplies the vast amount of our foriegn oil. I’d also support lining the highways with wind turbines. Lets do it.
Another digression: Most conservatives opposed the Dubai deal. What’s your point? Do you expect me to mindlessly worship Bush? A lot of his decisions have been stupid.
The next lengthy digression (from the FISA topic, lets remember) goes into a sophomoric rant about Afganistan, Iran-Contra, The torture schools, all that stuff–all conveniently taken without a shred of historical context. Were you going to insert a link to Loosechange too? Look, Les, American presidents of all stripes have engaged in some immoral business, but that doesn’t excuse or explain the sick nature of radical Islam–or the passivity with which it is greeted by the world of “moderate” Islam. I’m sure you’ll note that the trade centers were bombed long before Iraq.
Next: Speak truth to power–I got it.
Finally, my intent wasn’t to support Bush, but rather to support immunity for telecoms as well as other stringent anti-terrorist legislation. I have enjoyed your shell game. I have lots of liberal friends, so I’m used to it.
Hope to hear from you soon!
I don’t always respond to comments from people who post absurdities, much less respond to comments on web pages that I don’t always frequent.
It appears you have a great deal of time on your hands to post nonsense, even when it has been repeatedly refuted with facts.
Given the fact that the telecoms have responded to Bush’s attempt to “protect” them from lawsuits because they did something illegal at the government’s “requests” (more like demands), by failing to give Bush and the Republican Party campaign donations anywhere near the totals they used to, I guess they don’t think much of Bush’s policies or the “immunity deal” he worked out for them to pull them out of the mess he created for them.
Obviously computers are not people. Supercomputers are used to gather information which people would then need to review and some information that should not be gathered will inadvertently be captured. People like you, like to call that “collateral damage.” Yes, it happens. And unfortunately, with the lack of enforcement of the laws, based on our Constitution, by people who ignore the Constitution, like you who ridicule it and its existence, it happens even more. Of course, our CIA has been shackled by racists in the Bush Regime who have fired first generation employees who could actually read and speak the language that you would need to in order to translate the information captured by the supercomputers, so the information that is in those computers can’t be accurately read anyhow.
So the people whose information has been captured are “safe” from intrusion. Unfortunately, if there is any information about possible terrorist threats, we wouldn’t know about it, because there isn’t anyone in the CIA who can read that either. We’re no better off than when the Justice Department under Ashcroft wouldn’t look into the computer files of the infamous 20th hijacker, who had information on the 9/11 attacks on his computer, but Ashcroft’s Justice Department wouldn’t allow investigation of the computer files, even though the 20th hijacker was arrested because he was learning how to fly planes, but said that he didn’t need to learn how to land.
In a rather infamous story if the Bush Regime’s disregard for the law and the Constitution, when Bush was reminded by an aide that he was in violation of the Constitution, Bush yelled back at him that “The Constitution is just a God Damn piece of paper!” (He also said that the U.S. Government Bonds which represent the Social Security Trust Fund were worthless paper. But, hey, who’s paying any attention to the nutjob with the finger on the button of our nuclear arsenal?) That’s the document that you thanked me for telling you about and said “thanks for the tip-I’ll check it out.” I wish more Republicans would.
Regarding the Plame outing. You need to get your facts straight. Armitage may have been one of the individuals who leaked the story, but it was ordered by Bush and Cheney, and most likely with Rove’s strategic planning behind it. Even Bush’s former press secretary, Scott McClellan, now claims that “at best Libby (Cheney’s Chief of Staff) and Rove mislead him” about the Plame outing. For anyone to think that Armitage acted alone, without any orders from his boss, in one of the most tightly controlled and secretive administrations in history, is beyond ludicrous.
You say that for anyone to act like Al Qaeda was not already inside the US was a dangerous fool. You just made my point. Bush claims that “we’re fighting the war over there to keep them from coming here.” The fact is that they already broke through our defenses, and we don’t know if there weren’t other attacks that weren’t thwarted when the FAA ordered all planes to be grounded after the initial attacks on 9/11, and thus even more terrorists might still be here. But we aren’t doing anything here to secure our ports (only a small fraction of the cargo that moves into our ports is being inspected.) And if we really wanted to reduce our chance of being hit with dirty bombs hidden inside of cargo that isn’t being inspected, then we should be manufacturing more of those products here at home, rather than overseas (which is using up energy that we are fast running out of, and can’t afford to spend it on shipping junk halfway across the globe.) But the Bush regime spends about $40 Billion on Homeland Security every year, versus about $140 Billion for the War in Iraq every year, even while our bridges and highways are falling apart. That doesn’t make us any stronger here at home.
You ask what retired generals speaking on talk shows had to do with the issues. Recent reports prove that ex-Pentagon Generals were acting as paid shills for Bush in order to justify the War in Iraq, even though the information was false. Even Scott McClellan recently threw President Bush under the bus, saying that President Bush “wasn’t being honest or forthright about the war” and using “propaganda to lie us into the war”. This doesn’t have anything to do with the issues? What part of lying to get us into a war is not registering?
You admit that your comments regarding American citizenship being superior to others were poorly spoken. I accept your acknowledgement on that issue. However, to claim that I don’t feel that American citizenship is superior to other countries, when you were making claims that fair treatment shouldn’t be given to anyone who isn’t an American citizen and justified it by claiming that “If everybody is special – nobody is.”, is again another spin on truth.
You continue by claiming that “companies move overseas to avoid high taxes and over-regulation and that if you want the companies, lower the taxes –it’s that simple”.
Unfortunately, it isn’t that simple. As an American, we pay taxes to support the infrastructure of this country. To protect the country; to rebuild infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt for the common good of the people; to provide healthcare and education; and to secure the retirements of the elderly. Why would you suggest that we should have to lower taxes on corporations in order to bribe them to do business here? Isn’t it the responsibility of any citizen to pay their fair share of taxes? Shouldn’t any American Corporation be expected to do the same, particularly when their profits are a result of the benefits that they derive from doing business here? Don’t our roads and airlines make it possible for them to distribute their products more efficiently here? Didn’t the American taxpayers bail out the airlines at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars? Don’t the American taxpayers fund the National Institutes of Health, which provide research studies to Pharmaceutical companies for free, so that they can produce drugs that they sell to us for more than what they sell those same products for overseas?
In the State of Wisconsin alone, there are several corporations that don’t pay ANY taxes at all, even though they earn billions of dollars in profits every year.
According to the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future http://www.wisconsinsfuture.org
“’Corporate tax leakage’ describes the loss of state corporate income tax due to large companies’ tax avoidance using tax breaks, loopholes and profit shelters. This leakage cost Wisconsin $643 million in 2006. Overall, Wisconsin’s corporate sector fell $1.3 billion short on its payments of all state and local taxes, compared to what it would have paid if it had supported public programs at the average level among corporations nationwide.”
Further “Almost fifty thousand corporations filed tax returns with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue in 2005. Two out of three returns showed a bottom-line tax of zero dollars.
In 2005, for example, Microsoft, Merck and Sears earned a combined $18 billion in profits – surely some of which came from Wisconsin consumers – but paid a combined zero in Wisconsin corporate income tax.
In 2005, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue reported that 66.5% of all corporations filing state tax returns showed zero tax liability and paid nothing.
In 2003, Kimberly-Clark, the paper company to which Republican Representative F. James Sensenbrenner is an heir to the fortune of, paid exactly ZERO in income taxes.
In 2003 and 2004 the following corporations paid exactly ZERO in Wisconsin Corporate Income Taxes:
Emerson, General Electric, Merck, Pepsico, Stora Enso (this is the company which bought up the paper mills in Wisconsin Rapids and then put everyone out of work), A.O. Smith, Badger Paper, Bucyrus International, Gehl, Johnson Controls Battery Group, Ladish, Manpower, MGIC Investment, School Specialty, Sensient Technologies, Twin Disc, Ariens, Associated Banc-Corp, Greenheck Fan, Hutchinson Technologies, J.P. Cullen & Sons, Serigraph, Snap-on, The Manitowoc Co., Wausau Paper, Webcrafters.
The following Corporations paid no Wisconsin Corporate Income Taxes in 2003, and no records are available for 2004:
Deere & Co., Kimberly-Clark, McDonald’s, Microsoft, Actuant, Brady, Fiserv, Johnson Controls, Joy Global, Rockwell Automation, Castle-Pierce Printing
When General Motors moved their automobile manufacturing plants to Canada from Detroit, they didn’t complain about taxes being their reason for leaving. The reason they gave, was that Canada had Universal Health Care, and that the United States did not, which cost them too much in benefits to their employees.
Your argument claiming that in order to keep corporations in Wisconsin you have to lower their taxes, just doesn’t hold water. You can’t lower taxes any further down from ZERO.
When you adjust for inflation between 1978 and 2005, nationwide corporate income tax receipts as measured in 2007 dollars were $913 million in 1978, but in 2007, they were $890 million. But corporate profits more than doubled when adjusted for inflation, from $694 billion to $1.446 Trillion
In 1980 the corporate in come tax provided 10.4% of the state’s general funds. By 2002 (under Republicans) this had fallen to 5.0%. Since 2002 the figure has rebounded some as the economy recovered from recession, but by 2007 had returned only to 7.1%.
The problem with the lack of income from corporate taxes to the State of Wisconsin, is that property taxes and personal income taxes end up having to make up for the tax shortfalls to the state. Property taxes and individual income taxes have made a larger and larger percentage of the taxes paid in Wisconsin every year, while the corporate income tax share has fallen, particularly under Republican rule.
You also claim that I “mention the government sending money to support the infrastructures of other countries (why you do so in a post about FISA is beyond me) and how terrible it is. Are you likewise opposed to sending money to support the healthcare infrastructures of African nations fighting AIDS while people here are sick? If so, a lot of your lefty buddies are going to be real upset. (I support massive funds to Africa to fight AIDS–and to build roads, school, and many other things too)”
Again, you misquote me blatantly. What I said was: “And Republicans don’t seem to care that we are funneling hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign countries to supposedly support their economies and support their infrastructures while ignoring ours at home.” You ignore the key word here “supposedly”. I don’t have a problem with helping other countries to support their economies and infrastructures, if that is what we are actually doing, when they need our help. But a fraudulent war in Iraq which is pumping money in to Bush Campaign donors pockets so that they profiteer by this war while providing little to no benefit doesn’t help those countries, or keep us safe. If you don’t believe me, you can watch the DVD “Iraq for Sale – The War Profiteers” by producer Robert Greenwald, who interviewed dozens of REPUBLICAN supporters of this war, who used to work for Bush war contractors, or are ex-military who thought that this war was an honorable war, until they actually got their and saw the graft and corruption that was so prevalent there. The Republicans in Congress refused to allow excerpts from the film to even be shown to Congress, because is so clearly showed corruption that went beyond what any reasonable person could confuse for any “mistakes or misunderstandings”. Not that you would, but perhaps intelligent, thoughtful and reasonable readers of this post might.
You claim that the discussion of energy is a digression, but you fail to understand that this war is about access to OIL, and that was primary reason for the war until the war profiteers got involved. The only thing we agree on there was dropping ethanol and building wind turbines. Building nuclear, with our current technology, makes no sense, because it produces more waste that we cannot dispose of, (unless we have more wars like Iraq where we dispose of our “Depleted Uranium” by using it as radioactive waste to conduct illegal genocide against people – I’m sure that that is what McCain and his backers are hoping for.)
You claim that the World Trade Centers were bombed long before Iraq. It is interesting that you should bring up the World Trade Centers and acknowledge that they were BOMBED, rather than having been taken down by the fires from the fuel of the airplanes that crashed into them.
Given that no concrete and steel structured skyscrapers have ever collapsed by fire in the entire history of their construction, but that three were brought down on the same day, with a precision that can only be duplicated by highly trained demolitions teams, I’m surprised that you acknowledged that in your verbal slip.
But you still fail to recognize, much less acknowledge that the people who attacked us on 9/11 weren’t Iraqis, but rather primarily Saudi nationals. You know – the ones who refused to increase the oil production to bring down the price of oil here in the U.S. when Bush went begging them for them to do so. Sensenbrenner used the phrase “holding out a tin cup with hat in hand” when referring to what Bill Clinton might have to do when the gas prices were $1.67 a gallon during his Presidency. He hasn’t mentioned anything doing anything significant about the price of gas now that Bush is in office and rising over $4.00 a gallon. And you can’t include increasing refinery construction by reducing environmental restrictions when we aren’t getting any more oil from overseas, when we import 2/3rds of our oil. So much for Sensenbrenner representing us.
You claim that your intent wasn’t to support Bush but to support immunity for telecoms as well as other stringent anti-terrorist legislation. I’m happy to see that you recognize that Bush is stupid, and you don’t support him.
It is unfortunate that you believe that the support for immunity for telecoms or the anti-terrorist legislation was ever going to accomplish anything. They were never intended to protect the telecoms, but rather to prevent the investigation of what was happening so that the politicians who implemented the policy would ever be prosecuted. Some of that is also true for the anti-terrorist legislation, which makes the American people think that our government is actually doing something about terrorists, when, for the most part, the Bush Regime has ignored the recommendations of the 911 Committee and half of their recommendations have yet to be implemented.
You claim that you enjoyed my “shell games”. I suppose that I should expect that of a Republican, because they don’t seem to recognize them (shell games) when they vote for their Republican candidates. But I’m surprised that you have lots of Liberal friends. I’m surprised that they would have anything to do with someone who believes in policies that are taking this country right down the tank. But then, it’s Liberals who spend much of their time, perhaps too much time, forgiving their neighbors. Conservatives normally don’t talk to anyone they don’t agree with. So maybe there’s hope for you yet.
Les:
Well this was an interesting response. I’ll offer one tip: In the future, stay on point and avoid switching the topic–you might be more convincing.
I’ll try to explain what I mean.
Look at paragraph eight of your last response which begins:”You say that for anyone to act like Al Qaeda was not already inside the US was a dangerous fool. You just made my point.” This is the first topic of the paragraph and the reader (myself) assumes that you will examine this point in detail. One paragraph=one topic.
You continue: ” Bush claims that “we’re fighting the war over there to keep them from coming here.” The fact is that they already broke through our defenses, and we don’t know if there weren’t other attacks that weren’t thwarted when the FAA ordered all planes to be grounded after the initial attacks on 9/11, and thus even more terrorists might still be here.”–See how your response isn’t on point, nor does it address the point I was trying to make? How could I then respond when the ground keeps shifting.
Then you change the topic again. You continue: ” But we aren’t doing anything here to secure our ports (only a small fraction of the cargo that moves into our ports is being inspected.)” How does the question of port security follow your previous commentary? It is off topic.
Then you continue: “And if we really wanted to reduce our chance of being hit with dirty bombs hidden inside of cargo that isn’t being inspected, then we should be manufacturing more of those products here at home, rather than overseas (which is using up energy that we are fast running out of, and can’t afford to spend it on shipping junk halfway across the globe.)” Where is the logic here? Or, are you trying to make some kind of joke?
Then you get ready for the big finish, the clincher: “But the Bush regime spends about $40 Billion on Homeland Security every year, versus about $140 Billion for the War in Iraq every year, even while our bridges and highways are falling apart. That doesn’t make us any stronger here at home.” At this point the reader has to ask: What the heck does this have to do with “we’re fighting the war over there to keep them from coming here”–the original topic. So it becomes impossible to maintain a discussion of debate because you don’t provide a logical transition between ideas and refues to restrict yourself to the topic–immunity for telecoms. Perhaps you could find a community college or other resource to help with persuasive, rhetorical, and organizational skills?
But I’m glad you did get in the “loose change” reference regarding the World Trade Center “destruction by plane impacts”. I suppose in your next post you’ll mention how Haliburton runs Area 51.
Look, there is just no way one could respond to your off topic and disorganized rant. Maybe you could consider a basic course in rhetoric and organization.
CT:
I find it odd how many times you lead an argument with: “I love the way liberals always …” and then respond to reactionary responses with more pointy words.
You’ll never win an argument by denigrating those with opposing views.
Perhaps you’ll also consider some adjustments in the development of your argument style??
Christopher: Look, I’ll spell this out.
There is no “changing of topics” here. I’ve asked what is so Democratic as to allow spying on Americans. None of Bush’s arguments to support it have held up. None of Bush’s “evidence” has proven to be true, but rather blatant manipulations by people who have ulterior motives. And I’ve provided more than adequate proof to support my contentions. Since his arguments were fraudulent to begin with, they can’t support his or your conclusion.
In America, the people elect their officials to govern by following the Constitution and the rule of law. Bush and his entire administration have failed to do that, and therefore are not functioning within a Democratic framework.
Bush is attempting to give Telecoms immunity from prosecution for breaking the laws that the Bush Administration is forcing them to break. This isn’t to protect the Telecoms, but to protect the Bush Administration from investigation and prosecution. Is that Democratic?
Bush is claiming that fighting terrorists wherever they are (to quote Bush “We don’t know who they are, but they are out there”), so we need to fight them “over there, so that we don’t have to fight them here.”
But if he actually believed that they weren’t already here, we wouldn’t have to be tapping every American’s phone in order to find out where they were. By his phone tapping, he is telling everyone that he believes they are here, and that he has to search everywhere to find them. All this, in spite of the fact that the Bush Administration has been unable to convict on anything but minor charges, any but a handful of the hundreds of the “worst of the worst” that were gathered up from around the world and sent to Git’mo for interrogation and rendition. Is that Democratic?
The generals were sent to the media to shill for the war in spite of the fact that there was no factual evidence to support the war. They did it to make money for themselves and the companies that they represent, along with the Bush Administration and their connections. Is that Democratic?
Pushing for extensive spying on everyone, when we can’t even secure our ports makes absolutely no sense, even if you can’t see it. Even if we were to be able to sift through the billions of messages to find out if someone is attempting to attack us, if we don’t have an infrastructure to secure our ports in the first place, then how can we even hope to stop an attack that could be directed at a clear weakness in our defenses? How could we find the one container, in the millions that come in every day, if we don’t have the people or the equipment to do the job, let alone a procedure to follow?
To push for spying on American citizens is for no reason other than to control what people think by preventing them from reading or writing what they choose to read or write, for fear of someone reporting them for something that could be misconstrued or misrepresented, and thrown into jail for no other reason than “the President said so.” This is just another tactic to drive fear into people so they won’t speak out or act up. And to say that we should protect the Telecoms for breaking the law when they were ordered to do so is nonsense.
To trust the spy agencies who supposedly failed in their collection and analysis of the evidence, but were more than willing to allow this administration to cherry pick data that supported their conclusions, and the spy agencies at their highest levels, when they didn’t speak out when the Bush administration was lying, is insanity.
The 911 Commission had this to say about the performance of the intelligence agencies and the Bush Administration:
“On Saddam, the commission stated that “we conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure.”
The main cause, the commission said, was the intelligence community’s “inability to collect good information about Iraq’s WMD programs, serious errors in analyzing what information it could gather and a failure to make clear just how much of its analysis was based on assumptions rather than good evidence.
“On a matter of this importance, we simply cannot afford failures of this magnitude,” the report said.
But the commission also said that it found no indication that spy agencies distorted the evidence they had concerning Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, a charge raised against the administration during last year’s presidential campaign.
“The analysts who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments,” the report said.
But it added: “It is hard to deny the conclusion that intelligence analysts worked in an environment that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom.”
And in what amounted to a direct assault on George Tenet, who was CIA director in the run-up to the Iraq war and gave the president his daily intelligence briefing, the commission found that “the daily reports sent to the president and senior policymakers discussing Iraq over many months proved to be disastrously one-sided.”
“Through attention-grabbing headlines and repetition of questionable data, these briefings overstated the case that Iraq was rebuilding its WMD programs,” the commission wrote. “
When a soldier is ordered to break the law and commit war crimes, they can’t use “I was ordered to do so” as a defense. They are required to stand up and disobey an order if it is an unlawful order. But soldiers in Iraq today are “committing suicide” when they disobey an unlawful order. I guess those higher ups are getting better at covering their tracks.
For anyone to protect someone, who has broken the law or covered up an unlawful act, and then demand that American taxpayers not only allow it, but support it by offering immunity to those who break the law is unconscionable. Is that Democratic?
The push for the war was only to fill the pockets of the oil corporations who continue to make excessive profits while the economy of the United State and countries around the world suffer.
And even now, the Senate Republicans are blocking any attempt by Senate Democrats to collect windfall profit taxes on oil companies that are taking advantage of the current situation. At the same time they (the oil companies and the Republicans in Congress) are exerting forces on the car companies and the American mindset, to continue burning oil like there is no tomorrow, and refuse to do anything to put mandated fuel economy standards and energy efficiency standards in place across the board – not only for mileage standards, but also for efficiency in heating and cooling homes and businesses, and building alternative fuel sources so that we can get away from buying oil from countries that do not have our best interests at heart. And why would the Republicans in Congress and corporate heads do what is clearly damaging the economy here in the United States? Because they make a lot of money doing it, and they don’t care what the consequences to the country are. And look where we are now. Is that Democratic?
All of these issues are connected because all of them had to be “sold” to the American public in order for them to agree to Bush’s policies. Most of the people of this country, and of the world, now understand how they are connected and how they were used to manipulate the country into supporting Bush. That is why they have been presented here. Most people who are capable of connecting the dots aren’t real happy about being conned into initially supporting this war or Bush’s policies.
Righteous wingers love to keep people uninformed about the issues and claim that one thing doesn’t relate to something else even when they are intimately connected. They don’t want people to be able to connect the dots and figure out what is really going on.
Unfortunately, you and a handful of others still either don’t get it, or are attempting to con people into believing that these are all unrelated events that have nothing to do with one another.
That’s ok. A majority of the population does get it, so your beliefs don’t control what they believe any more.
And by the way, you don’t control this website, and you don’t control the content. You aren’t Bill O’Reilly, even though you clearly have adopted many of his tactics.
Most Republicans try to claim that they are focusing the debate on the “pertinent topics”, while in fact they are eliminating the facts that refute their positions, from many different sources, which they refuse to acknowledge. That’s how the Bush Administration has been able to sell every lie they managed to get past the American public and the United States Congress.
I don’t accept your “rules of engagement” and neither should anyone else who has to debate issues with RepubliCONS or NeoCONS.
Your arguments make about as much sense as a company polluting our water by dumping toxins in waterways that have overflowed from flooding and get into our crops, and then defending their actions by saying something like “water is good for crops”, and then simultaneously eliminating all other discussions which point out that pollution or flooding isn’t good for crops, particularly when the plants are underwater for weeks, or if the flooding brings along sewage and other toxic contamination.
That is a real life example, by the way. In Ohio, during record floods several decades ago, a number of companies that would have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars to haul away toxic waste, took advantage of the flooding and dumped the waste into the flooded river, knowing that it would be next to impossible for the EPA to be able to trace where all of the toxic wastes came from. The polluters saved tens of thousands of dollars. It cost the region tens or even hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in damage and long term health and environmental damages.
That’s how Bush sold his “Clear Skies Initiative” which dumped more pollution into the air. That’s how Bush sold his “Healthy Forest Initiative” which allowed lumber companies to strip mountains bare of their lumber and cause mudslides and environmental havoc in rivers downstream.
That’s how Bush continues to sell his “War against Terror – to fight them over there so we won’t be fighting them here”. The fact is that bin Laden and even Saddam Hussein understood that they couldn’t take on the United States head on and expect to have any chance of winning. But they took something from our own history and used it against us.
George Washington didn’t win very many engagements with the British during the Revolutionary War, and he didn’t expect to. He understood that the British military was the strongest military power on the planet at the time, and could easily beat the upstart colonists. They were outgunned, outmanned, underpaid, underfed, poorly clothed, poorly sheltered, and weren’t being provided the benefits and the healthcare that the political leaders of the 13 colonies had promised to give them (sounds familiar).
But Washington was able to defeat the British by using tactics that he learned while fighting the Indians. He ambushed and retreated, and did so repeatedly until he simply wore them down.
King George III couldn’t win a war halfway across the world, when he was spending money on a war with colonies that weren’t paying taxes any more. And he couldn’t send soldiers and ships over fast enough to replace the ones that were being lost.
King George Bush II can’t win the war in Iraq either, when he is bankrupting this country while he is allowing his no-big contractor campaign donors to steal hundreds of billions from American taxpayers, and eliminating jobs here at home, so there are fewer taxpayers left to collect from, and higher taxes result, with no money left to actually pay the cost. (The State of Wisconsin’s share of this debt is now over $8.4 BILLION, and the 5th Congressional District’s share is between $1.4 and $1.8 BILLION. Guess how, and who will end up paying for this? I don’t care who gets elected from either party. Taxes will go up eventually. They have to to pay for the costs. The only question is WHO will be paying more. Either, the wealthy and corporations that don’t pay their fair share; or the poor and middle class and small businesses who are already paying more than their fair share, will end up paying for this. Your vote determines who it will be. Republicans protect the wealthy and the corporations, anyone else is on their own.) Is that Democratic?
$750,000,000.00 dollars have already been appropriated for Bush’s War, and hundreds of billions of dollars are completely unaccounted for. Our infrastructure is collapsing here at home, while Mother Nature is taking us to task for not taking Global Climate Change seriously.
Bin Laden realized that in order to win his war with America, he had to have someone in the office of President of the United States that was foolish enough to drag this country down the toilet. The bin Ladens and both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were Directors of the Carlyle Corporation, which invested in WAR, and sold weapons all around the world. They profit by war while the rest of America sacrifices and our economy collapses.
Bin Laden couldn’t have had it any better than having Bush as President over the last 7 ½ years….unless of course, he gets John McCain into office for the next 8 years.
People need to understand things from the “big picture” and see things from different positions in order to get to the truth. That takes time, and it also takes legitimate, honest research, and most people won’t do it until long after an election, so they are just as responsible for putting these jokers into power in the first place. Hopefully, enough will take it seriously this time, so we can avoid another eight years of BUSH/McSame.
What is happening in our government today is clearly not Democratic, but it IS clearly Republican.
These are the same misguided, disjointed, self-centered and destructive policies that they have been following for the past 40 years.
The point is, that spying on Americans was not only illegal, but that it was not designed to protect us, but to spy on us to collect information for other uses. If you cannot use the data, or even read the data (because our intelligence agencies can’t interpret the languages they are intercepting because they aren’t hiring people who are competent), then you cannot prevent an attack, which is why you are claiming they are doing it in the first place.
It makes more sense for us as a country to adopt different ways to deal with our changing world.
Conserve more energy by insulating more and using less.
Adopt more energy efficient lighting, appliances, vehicles, homes and businesses.
Increase our research and construction of alternative energy generation, like solar, wind, and biodiesel. (You can grow 100,000 gallons of biodiesel from algae in the same acre of land that corn would only produce 20 gallons of ethanol. And an area about 1/3rd the size of New Mexico could produce enough algae biodiesel to supply American with all of our fuel needs for transportation for an entire year, without destructive drilling or the potential of environmental damage from oil spills.) That also reduces our reliance on foreign imports of oil and makes us more secure.
Import less manufactured and harvested goods, and manufacture and grow more locally. It puts more people to work here at home and reduces our reliance on high transportation and fuel costs to import everything we need. That’s Democratic.
Invest in education and research here at home so that we are less dependent on foreign suppliers and can be more self-sufficient and more creative with new technologies.
Communist China and India each currently graduate 600,000 engineers annually from their universities. The United States graduates only between 60,000 and 90,000 engineers annually. US consumers are paying for China and India to educate their population and compete with us on the global market, while we are putting ourselves into a weaker and weaker position because our government is not supporting our public educational system. You can’t use cost as an excuse. The only reason why education is expensive here in the U.S. is because our government has made it expensive by making sure that education here is not a priority. They do that by not insuring that companies that benefit from our way of life actually pay their fair share of taxes and invest in the next generation by helping pay for the cost of educating them. Communist China and India make education a priority and keep their tuitions low, that is how they can compete with us and beat us on the global market.
Their educational policies are actually more Democratic than ours are, and we should be copying their education model (in terms of getting more people educated by keeping tuition low, and making it available to anyone who wants to learn), because it is clearly working.
Employ more Americans in businesses that pay their fair share of taxes to support our security, both military and economic, here at home, rather than sending hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending overseas to foreign countries that end up competing against us for our shrinking share of the global market. That’s just common sense.
Dumping hundreds of billions of dollars in a war that doesn’t end, doesn’t make us more secure, it bankrupts us economically so that we will eventually collapse without any need for a terrorist attack. You should know this from the history of the Roman Empire.
Stop using excuses and supporting policies that fraudulently promise to provide us with “security” and start investing in real policies that actually will provide us all with security for the long haul. That’s Democratic.
Lori:
Glad to hear from you. I’ve always enjoyed our exchanges in the past. I’m confused, though. You ridicule me (perhaps with some basis) for saying: “I love the way liberals always …” but I didn’t notice that I had done it more than once. One example of something does not equal a pattern, but I’m glad you expect me to maintain such a high standard (and that you didn’t harp on my typos). Thanks.
Les:
I enjoyed all 3,000 words of your latest response. Most informative was the fact that I do not control Watchdog. Wow. I kept entering my password in the login, but it wouldn’t work. Hey, Jim, can I get that password?
As far as I can recall, you have not asked to this point “what is so Democratic as to allow spying on Americans?” but I understand you will go on to do so. I’m unsure what “democratic” has to do with things, the question is rather “is it constitutional?” or “is it ethical?” or “should the Bush administration—through Congress—grant immunity to telecoms for actions they take on behalf of the government?” Let’s remember, if we could, that the legislation didn’t allow spying on Americans, but rather spying on foreign nationals whom we might suspect to have terrorist connections and individuals (both citizens and noncitizens) within the United States. One person was abroad, the other, within the U.S. And that strict guidelines were spelled out for the supervision of this program. As for the rest of your first paragraph, claims and opinions are not facts, and if you had proven your point, I’d concede. You’ll notice I do so when you actually make a point.
Paragraph 2: Bush was elected according to the rule of law. The affair was well documented in the courts. Sometimes things don’t go your way. Sorry.
Paragraph 3: I think it would be fair to say that if the government ordered you to do something, that you should be immune from prosecution. This isn’t “democratic” but it does seem fair. Would you at least concede this point?
Paragraph 4: incoherent, but you get it eventually. So?
Paragraph 5: Les, the terrorists are not stupid. Just because we are destroying them in Iraq doesn’t mean they are not going to strike elsewhere. You’ll note that the Japanese first attacked Pearl Harbor, then other places. I hope whoever is president is wise enough to understand that security threats can rapidly change. Also, the Telecom immunity bill did not allow for the taping of every American’s phone; quit overstating the issue. Distortion does not bring us to the truth. Again you misuse the word “democratic”, but I like the use of parallelism and rhetorical questions. You did get a book, didn’t you?
Paragraph 6: I’m not sure how this relates to the telecoms issue. What I mean is, I don’t see the relationship—cause and effect, problem and solution, chronological or other which connects this to the topic. Again you isuse the word “democratic”
Paragraph 7: More distortion. The telecom bill does not “push” for extensive spying on everyone. Distortions of this sort generally (but not always) suggest the speaker is floundering. Also, the question is not if we could make timely use of information gained from the type of surveillance gained from the proposed new rules, but rather are the rules ethical. But, if we don’t get the information, it will not matter, will it?
Paragraph 8: More distortion. Your comments imply that spying would be almost total rather than specific and limited as the bill proposed. Since the government is allowed to “spy” in many instances already (like criminal cases, for example), where can I see the pandemic of fear you promise?
Paragraph 9: I think we should trust the intelligence gathering community. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Paragraph 10 through 16 (911 commission). Again, if the intelligence communities might misuse or misinterpret data collected from communications originating in foreign nations has little or nothing to do with the question regarding the proposed rules. As I have stated several times, I would support prosecution of individuals who misused that information. The 911 commission does note that the intelligence agencies did not willfully distort information, that the analysts did not feel pressured to reach a conclusion, and that the briefings sent to the president were (in retrospect, I’d add) one sided. I agree we should not screw up like this again. But do we stop trusting the criminal justice system because an innocent man was convicted?
Paragraph 17: I believe you are trying to make an analogy here between soldiers committing war crimes and the telecoms. Kind of a stretch. After all, war crimes are clearly defined by the Geneva Conventions and usually involve directly killing innocent civilians or surrendering soldiers, not surveillance of them. Furthermore, a law passed by congress to authorize the telecoms to act on the nation’s behalf is really a different matter. We’re not talking the Final Solution here. I’ll ignore your pathetic attempt to make a point on the backs of soldiers who have committed suicide. May they rest in peace.
Paragraph 18: The government regularly offers immunity to defendants when it serves the people’s interest to do so. But I would support the prosecution of anyone who misuses information gathered under the umbrella of the proposed rules.
Paragraph 19: Your imagined reasons for going to war, like your opinions regarding the profits of oil companies, have nothing to do with granting immunity to telecoms. Your venting is illogical.
Paragraph 20: Again, windfall profits taxes (un-American as they are) have nothing to do with immunity for telecoms. Clearly, you are changing the topic. [But the reader must wonder what you consider to be a fair profit margin, why other companies with higher profit margins are not targeted, and why you wish to penalize American companies—as foreign oil companies would not be taxed? I’d also suggest you consult the latest sales figures for SUV’s to see that the market place and freedom of choice has already done much of what you had hoped. And I encourage you to remember that choice is what it means to be American.] Again you misuse the word “democratic” which means: “characterized by free and equal participation in government or in the decision-making processes of an organization or group” or “relating to or associated with the Democratic Party of the United States.”
Paragraph 21: Here we go. Your realize you have been ranting, so you’re trying to bring it home—back to the issue of immunity for telecoms, that is. But instead one is again disappointed. You say these things were all “sold” (as opposed to bartered?). What idea or plan isn’t sold? Then you go on to say that most of the people now understand how (these issues) are connected. That is what we call cyclical reasoning or answering a question by restating the question. These issues are connected because one imagines or supposes they are connected?—this is not logical.
Paragraph 22. Begins with stereotypes and personal attacks (thinly veiled.) Careful, Les, because Lori will tut-tut. I don’t mind, though. But I like the image of beetlish men rubbing their hands together like Mr. Burns and trying to figure out how they can deceive jonny lunchpale. It is amusing. LOL
Paragraph 23. I don’t get it.
Paragraph 24. When did my beliefs control what they did?
Paragraph 25. How do you know I’m really not Bill O’Rieley? Are you spying on me?
Paragraph 26. As you have no facts, you just degenerate into stereotypes and personal attacks.
Paragraph 27. Apparently you don’t accept the rules of logic either.
Paragraph 28. Another funny analogy. You’re on a role.
Paragraph 29. Your analogy was based on a real life example. I’m impressed. I would support the prosecution and conviction of the company. Send the CEO to personally clean his crap up, then to jail.
Paragraph 30. More freestyle rant. You don’t seem to approve of flowery language to hide the truth of a matter. There’s our common ground.
Paragraph 31. I’d agree that Saddam was likely fluent in military history. Bin Laden said he was inspired by our adventure in Somalia—where we retreated after the first casualties. (ever wonder why we don’t intervene in Darfur?)
Paragraph 32. I love military history. I think it would be fun to debate various strategies and how they resulted in victory or defeat, but where is the connection to the telecoms (or do the majority of people still see it, but I don’t)
Paragraph 33. through 36. Does this also explain how we lost WWII?
Paragraph 37. Oh, now I get it.
Paragraph 38. Yeah, if Bin Laden could only have had eight more years of Gore. I’m pretty sure that he would like us now.
Paragraph 39. Les, clicking on Media Matters or Loose Change is hardly “honest research.”
Paragraph 40. Again you misuse the word ‘democratic”. And the word “republican” which means:” somebody who believes that the best government is one in which supreme power is vested in an electorate” or “belonging to or supporting the Republican Party in the United States.” I think you might want to avoid attempts at clever word play.
Paragraph 41. What do you mean by “these?”
Paragraph 42. Your claim–based on your extensive knowledge of the intelligence community—is that we could not use the information, so the reason for gathering it must be one other than was stated. My response would be that if we couldn’t use the information for one purpose, we couldn’t use it for the other (Bush’s spying on Leftys, I’ll assume you mean.) While I don’t have the detailed understanding of the intelligence community you have, I’ll assume that those driven and bright people wouldn’t stupidly waste their time.
Paragraph 43. I agree we should adopt different ways of dealing with the changing world, but I don’t believe we should eliminate any possible source of information regarding the intentions or plans of terrorists or enemy nations such as Iran.
Paragraph 44 and 45. Nice public service announcement.
Paragraph 46. While these comments have nothing to do with Telecoms, I’m always in a playful mood. Wind, Solar, biodiesel. Great. Except we all know these technologies are years away from any large scale production and the same nuts who won’t let you drill anywhere are sure as hell going to stand in the way or a wind turbine too. Or a solar farm. Let’s go nuclear. ( I enjoyed the comments about the algae, but that too is never going to happen. Consider the following: Nevada = about 110,000 square miles, more if you include water areas. Maine or South Carolina are both about 30,000 square miles, about one third the size of Nevada. Do you really imagine that an industry that large is going to develop in America? And while you are thinking of giving over Maine to Algae production, why not a few thousand acres in ANWAR for something we know works now?) Again, how does this relate to the telecoms?
Paragraph 47. The PSA continues. Again you misuse the word “democratic”.
Paragraph 48. Research done efficiently is usually aimed at someday making a profit. Since people like you would interfere with the relationship between risk and profit, what motivation is left for research?
Paragraph 49. So China and India are graduating more about 3x more engineers than we are (not the 600,000 number the Chinese ministry of information declares). But if we consider the total populations in question here, we would expect these countries to dwarf us. But where are the technical advances coming from? The West, not China and India—but this may not be true for long. What you fail to note is that education spending is a huge priority to the government—look at the federal and state budgets. Consider the facts from the University of Wisconsin, Madison:Cost of undergraduate=3,594.20 non-resident=10,719.20. Chancellor Whiley says the actual costs are much higher per student. So the tax payers contribute more than 75% of the cost of undergraduate work, after they have provided totally free K-12 education as well.
Paragraph 50. Since education is something I care about, I’ll play along with the most recent digression. Please consider these facts:Chinese Literacy rate 82.5;India 65% ;American literacy rate 99%. So while the Chinese government isn’t busy expelling people before the Olympics or falsifying its accomplishments, it isn’t doing much for the rest of the population. In both India and China, advancement in education depends on performance on standardized tests which a student takes once. After that, the door is closed. But here in the land of opportunity, the door is always open. I’ll take our system any day.
Paragraph 51. I’m not sure which deficit spending you are talking about, but I’ll agree that the republicans were terrible with the budget and deserved to be pushed out for their lack of responsibility. To the extent you would reduce the deficit by eliminating foreign aid, I cannot agree.
Paragraph 52. The Roman Empire didn’t collapse because of fiscal irresponsibility.
Paragraph 53. No, you stop. You misuse the word “democratic”
Thanks for the response. It was about what I expected. Nice work with the parallelism and rhetorical questions, though.
And today I’d like to applaud Nacy Pelosi and the Democratic congress for passing a surveilence bill which includes retroactive and future immunity for telecoms.
Have a nice day, Les.
Christopher,
I’m not in favor of what Speaker Pelosi, or the other Democrats who support immunity for the telecoms, did. Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin, spoke against the FISA amendment saying the legislation “is not a compromise, it is a capitulation.”
But it does appear that this was somewhat of a compromise bill, which is supposed to provide more accountability. It also forces the Republicans to approve $95 Billion worth of domestic spending on programs such as unemployment insurance and higher-education benefits for veterans. Bush, who had threatened for months to veto that legislation, said he would sign it. (Now he and McCain, who had both spoken against the new GI Bill are both trying to take credit for it.)
The legislation also would require court approval of procedures for intercepting telephone calls and e-mails that pass through U.S. based servers – another step that the White House and GOP lawmakers had previously resisted.
On June 19, 2008, House and Senate leaders agreed on the legislation that they would move forward for a vote by the full Senate the following week.
Senator Obama has indicated that he would vote in favor of an amendment that would eliminate the immunity clause from the FISA legislation, but if that failed, he would vote for the FISA legislation to avoid not having a law in place. The Bush administration has claimed that some wiretap orders that allowed surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects (who are currently in the United States) would have begun to expire two months from now unless new legislation was approved. It is questionable that that is actually the case, since the current law would have allowed them to continue wiretaps with the approval of the courts, and of the hundreds of wiretap requests, it was publicly released that only three were not approved.
I would prefer that Sen. Obama vote against this legislation and after winning the Congress and the White House in December, the Democrats could put forward a cleaner and better piece of legislation.
Speaker Pelosi said that the most important part of the deal is the “exclusivity” language making it clear that the surveillance law is the only legal authority when it comes to government spying. That would eliminate Bush administration lawyers’ claims that the commander in chief’s war making powers trumped such consideration.
In addition, Keith Olbermann reported on June 30, 2008 that John Dean, former White House Counsel to President Nixon, reviewed the legislation and found that the legislation only provided immunity against civil lawsuits, not criminal prosecution. Nor would it provide any immunity to Government Officials who had broken the law. But in order for the courts to provide the immunity against the civil lawsuits, the telecoms have to admit that they broke the law. If that happens, that opens up the door for criminal prosecution. And if that happens, there is also a possibility that the new administration and the courts can move forward with criminal prosecution against the Bush Administration, because they had to have given the telecoms the go ahead to break the law, themselves having given an unlawful order.
Given that it is likely that Democrats will take even more of a majority in the House and Senate because of the criminal behavior of Republicans in Congress, and it is also likely that Senator Obama will win the Presidency, I don’t think that they would do what Bush and the Republicans in Congress have done.
However, the Republicans have been using their political advantage to appoint hand picked (and unqualified) loyalists to bureaucratic positions, to break the law for political advantage and undermine the processes in every governmental agency under their control, while refusing to testify when compelled to do so in Grand Jury investigations.
It might just be possible that the Democrats could potentially use this new immunity for the telecoms, to do something else…
Wiretap Republicans. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?
Republicans would, in their zeal to avoid civil lawsuits against telecoms, (which would cost them money due to their investments in them), may have very well provided the tool (not so much the legislation, but the equipment that is already in place), to allow our government to finally put them in jail. And Democrats would actually have legal justification to place the wiretaps on them in the first place.
Let’s catch the guys who refuse to testify in front of the Grand Jury. You can start with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Anything any other Republicans out there want to hide?
Have a good day Christopher.
Les:
You keep dreaming of that Lefty police state; I’ll keep working against it. More than half your commentary was actually related to the topic–so keep studying hard.
Christopher:
This is a response to your earlier sociopathic rant.
Your arguments are amusing in spite of being blatantly incorrect, not only in their logic but in point of fact. 2,219 words, impressive - given that you used so many words, yet said nothing.
Your tactics are transparent. Republican politicians and media talking heads use them all the time. The Republican party teaches Young Republicans in high school and college how to “debate” without saying anything, all the time. People see these tactics everywhere, but it is more evident during election season when people like you attempt to dominate the blogosphere with your nonsense to prevent people from having any meaningful dialogue where they can see the facts and come to their own conclusions.
The fact that you used little factual information to support your positions; and when you did use facts, you used them to make statements disguised as arguments to support a position that was irrelevant to the debate; used ridicule instead of logic; and repeatedly attempted to switch the debate away from what was actually stated, to argue points that were never brought up, just demonstrates your contempt for open discussion, and your oversized ego. It demonstrates the typical strategies used by Republican operatives trained to create confusion, so people viewing the “debate” don’t know which side to take.
You don’t prove anything. You don’t provide any logic or evidence to prove that you are right and the opposition wrong. You just say “you’re wrong”, and expect that to be the end of the debate. You just act cocky and arrogant. Just like Bush. (Even Bush’s friend, former Mexican President Vicente Fox said that Bush was “the cockiest guy I’ve ever met.”)
To your continued complaints about my using the term Democratic and how it is being used, I present the following evidence by definition:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
dem•o•crat•ic Audio Help ?d?m ??kræt ?k - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dem-uh-krat-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.
2. pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment.
3. advocating or upholding democracy.
4. (initial capital letter ) Politics.
a. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic party.
b. of, pertaining to, or belonging to the Democratic-Republican party.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
dem•o•crat•ic Audio Help (d?m’?-kr?t’?k) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union.
2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms.
3. Believing in or practicing social equality: “a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords” (George du Maurier).
4. Democratic Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party.
democratic2 [dem??kr?tik] adjective
believing in equal rights and privileges for all
You claim that I should be asking whether or not this legislation is constitutional or ethical. In fact, I had asked those questions and pointed out several times that it was unconstitutional, unethical and illegal. You may recall that you ridiculed the reference to the Constitution.
You also claimed that the spying was not on Americans but on foreign nationals. That is also not correct. It has been publicly acknowledged by the telecoms and by the people who work the equipment, that the equipment does not only spy on specific foreign nationals but on all traffic, including Americans’.
You unwillingness to concede the facts have nothing to do with my not proving my positions or making my points, it just demonstrates your repeated arrogance and unwillingness to deal with facts.
You claim that Bush was elected according to the rule of law, and that it was well documented in the courts. However, the Supreme Court, which was largely composed of Republican appointed justices, went beyond the law when they appointed Bush as President, first by stopping the count of the vote in Florida when it was clear that the count was moving in Gore’s favor; and second when they created new law (which they are not allowed to do – that is what the legislature and the executive branches are there to do – they are only there to interpret the law that already exists). When they ruled in favor of Bush “winning the Presidency”, they specifically stated that the “logic” behind their ruling could only be used in this particular instance and that it could not be used as a precedent for deciding any future elections. That should cause anyone to question whether or not this had anything to do with upholding the law.
You claim that it would be fair to say that if the government ordered you to do something that you should be immune to prosecution. You claim that that “isn’t democratic, but it seems fair”.
I don’t concede the point, because it is not only a ludicrous claim, but it is not supported by law that is currently on the books.
If a soldier obeys an unlawful order by a superior, or by his government, he can still be prosecuted for following that order. Ask the soldiers who were ordered to torture prisoners at Abu Gharib and sentenced for having followed those orders. Ask any soldiers who have been ordered to murder, illegally, by their superiors, if they are immune to prosecution. They aren’t. Even if they were following orders, they are guilty of war crimes. Remember Nuremburg?
Following an unlawful order is not only illegal, but government officials engaged in ordering unlawful orders is also considered to be a crime. More than two individuals engaged in perpetrating that act or covering it up is considered to be a conspiracy, by definition. That is not only breaking the law, but is against the Constitution, which all soldiers and elected officials swear an oath to uphold - “against all enemies, foreign or domestic.”
Based on your reference to Paragraph 4, you claim that I get it. You obviously don’t.
If we are fighting them over there so that we don’t have to fight them here, then why are we using illegal tactics to fight them here? By that logic, they are obviously already here (based on the Administration’s actions and your defense of them), and we aren’t doing enough to combat them here, because we are over there - spending all of our time, money and energy over there. Get it?
Obviously the terrorists aren’t stupid. However, this administration and the people who support it apparently continue to be. Obviously, terrorist threats continue to change, Bush’s policies haven’t, in spite of that. Bin Laden loves that, because he recognized long ago that he could never hope to defeat the United States militarily. He’s doing it by destroying our economy, and Bush and his policies, along with the people who continue to back him, continue to support Bin Laden by following Bush’s failed policies.
While the Telecom immunity bill may not specifically allow for taping of every American’s phone, you claim that I am overstating the issue and distorting it. You obviously don’t understand the technology being used. But the testimony of the Telecom whistleblowers who do understand it demonstrated repeatedly that individual communications aren’t being pulled out selectively, they are pulling out everything and copying it to super computers. That is allowing them to gather whatever “evidence” or doctored evidence, to make a case, however weak, to go after political opponents. That has been repeatedly proven in the case of the fired U.S. Attorney Generals who did not aggressively go after anyone whom Rove and the Bush Administration wanted embarrassed on the flimsiest of evidence, gathered by illegal wiretaps, which were “made legal” by their stamp of approval on them.
You claim that I misused the term democratic. Again, here is the definition for this application:
pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment.
You did get a dictionary didn’t you?
You don’t get how the generals shilling for the war has anything to do with illegal wiretapping?
Creating fear by causing people to believe that we are under constant threat of being attacked by our neighbors, so that we have to spy on them doesn’t have anything to do with pushing for illegal wiretapping? I think there is a clear cause and effect relationship here, even if you can’t see it. You again claim that I misuse the term democratic. Again, you need to get a dictionary.
Here’s another definition. “believing in equal rights and privileges for all”
Generals who shill for the war and create an environment of fear to get people to support illegal wiretapping eliminates equal rights and privileges for all. Hardly the behavior that one would expect from someone who believed in it.
You claim more distortion when I said gathering mountains of communication could not be sifted through in time to protect targets which did not have equipment, policies or procedures in place to protect them to begin with. You further claim that the question is not “if we could make timely use of information gained by the surveillance proposed by the new rules”, but rather “are the rules ethical?” Then you make the switch back to say “if we don’t get the information, it will not matter, will it?”
Again, your arguments are totally illogical. What is the point of the legislation if it doesn’t protect us? Doesn’t that require that the information be timely? Doesn’t it require that the collection of that information be focused enough that we don’t have to sift through tons of chaff in order to find it in the first place?
You forget that our intelligence agencies had all the information that they needed in order to stop the 911 attacks in the first place. They just refused to act on the evidence that they had IN THEIR POSSESSION. The Justice Department under Ashcroft refused to allow the FBI to look at Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer hard drive. He was the “20th hijacker”. The one who never got on a plane on 911, because he was caught trying to get training to fly a plane without wanting to learn how to land. He is the only person charged in the 911 attacks. They had him in their custody BEFORE September 11, 2001. The evidence of the planned 911 attacks was ON HIS COMPUTER HARD DRIVE. The Justice Department dropped the ball with the technology and the evidence that they already had. They just failed to act on it.
If you can’t find the evidence because you can’t see the needle in the haystack, which you’ve created with a policy that doesn’t focus in on the evidence, you can’t act on it in time. This just makes the job more difficult. All this policy does is to create more superfluous chaff so that they can claim that they couldn’t prevent the next attack.
Obviously you deny the “pandemic of fear” from the spying. You take a “conservative” position. That’s why you guys claim you need to arm yourselves with concealed weapons and shoot anyone who you feel threatens you in your state of paranoia.
You claim that we should just “trust the intelligence community”. I actually agree with that, just not the policy that right wingers actually enact. The fact is that the vast majority of the intelligence analysts were actually doing their job correctly. They did come up with the correct answers. The problem was that the Bush Administration and their hand picked flunkies that were running the intelligence gathering, were cherry picking, and ignored the strongest facts while accepting the weakest “evidence” and the evidence which the intelligence community specifically stated was most questionable, as their primary rationale to go to war and to impose spying on Americans.
So yes, we should trust the real analysts. The ones who actually know their craft. The ones who put the nation’s security over political ideology, and fraudulent claims. They were the ones who came forward and spoke out against how the Bush Administration intentionally misstated the facts and ignored the truth, remember?
You claim that we should not stop trusting the criminal justice system because an innocent man was convicted. Again, if a mistake is made, how can you trust something out of hand without question? Even conservatives loved Reagan when he came up the comment “Trust but verify” when referring to nuclear disarmament. I think that that same position should be taken when accepting or not accepting an intelligence assessment, (or rather the spun version of the real intelligence assessment).
You claim that a law passed by Congress to authorize the telecoms to illegally surveil its citizens on the nation’s behalf is a different matter than war crimes. Yeah, that’s what Germany thought when they gave that power to Hitler.
Pathetic attempt to make a point on the backs of soldiers who have committed suicide? These soldiers committed suicide because they were lied to by their government. They were discarded by the military when they sought help for problems that they acquired as a result of taking actions that they were ordered to take. Illegal actions. They acted in the belief that they were doing something honorable in defense of their country, and their country failed them, YOU failed them. The fact that you would ignore that and discard their sacrifice without investigation or question, by making such a quaint comment as “May they rest in peace” just demonstrates that your attitudes and beliefs only continue to allow it to happen. You don’t care about why it happened or how to prevent it. You only want to bury it so you don’t have to think about it.
Have you ever spoken with suicidal soldiers? Have you listened to them? Have you ever worked to help them? I have. You obviously don’t have a clue.
My family has dozens of members who have served in our armed forces, or are currently serving. What has your family done?
You claim that my “imagined reasons for going to war”, like my “opinions regarding the profits of oil companies, have nothing to do with granting immunity to telecoms”. You claim that my venting is illogical. You have to possess the ability to be logical in order to make the distinction. You obviously don’t.
The oil companies that were forced out of Iraq when Saddam Hussein took over and nationalized the oil industry assets have all been granted ownership and control of Iraq’s oil fields by the Bush administration. That planning to slice up their oil fields was discussed in Cheney’s secret Energy Task Force. That was why it was kept secret. Some of the information, including the maps slicing up the oil fields was recently made public.
Nothing to do with granting immunity to telecoms? You have to create an environment of fear that you are about to be attacked by terrorists from a foreign country in order to get the support of our country to go in and invade them to control their oil fields. Creating the fear and the propaganda to control the minds of the country and get their support to go to war is well documented. It comes out of Hitler’s playbook.
You claim that windfall profit taxes on oil companies unfairly target American oil companies. You forget that most oil companies are multinationals and they don’t care much about the countries that they headquarter in. They only headquarter in a country to avoid taxes. They don’t much care about how much they charge for fuel or the effect that excessive pricing has on the nation or the people that they depend on to fight their wars for them either. You claim that windfall profit taxes are un-American. Windfall profits are profits that are far above the norm, far above what is a fair price that would be charged because the industry has a monopoly and they can hold the nation hostage because of their control over the energy we need to use in our normal lives. Given that many multi-billion dollar companies fail to pay corporate income taxes in the state or the country that they make so much of their profit in, it is only fair that they should pay taxes in some other manner. Their lack of paying taxes is what is causing so many individuals to see their individual taxes and their property taxes go so high. 66.7% of all corporations in the State of Wisconsin (according to Wisconsin Department of Revenue figures), don’t pay income taxes. That’s right, zip, zero, zilch, nada.
Other products that have higher profit margins don’t have to be “targeted” to get more taxes out of them as you claim, because most of them don’t have a monopoly. Oil companies do (Even if they are separate businesses, most of them work together in coordinated strategies – also illegal. Price fixing is just one example of that. Look around as you drive down the street and see how many different gas stations owned by different oil companies all have the same prices posted on the exact same day.)
And many of the largest and most profitable companies in the world don’t pay much in taxes in comparison to other companies, if you are attempting to be fair and equal (democratic).
For example: Exxon Mobil just recently had two straight quarters of profits that are greater than any other corporation in the history of the world.
In 2003 they paid $913,726.00 in corporate income taxes in Wisconsin. In 2004 they paid $1,529,372.00 in corporate income taxes in Wisconsin.
By comparison, the combined Harley Davidson companies paid $12,781,851.00 in corporate income taxes in 2003 in Wisconsin and $26,594,526.00 in corporate income taxes in 2004.
The U.S. Federal Tax Code contains more than $17 Billion in breaks to benefit the oil and gas companies for the years 2007-2011 (offered or extended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed by the then Republican controlled Congress).
In addition, oil and gas companies pay reduced royalty fees on product they recover from federally owned waters, which Erich Pica, a spokesman from the environmental group Friends of the Earth, says could cost taxpayers $65 billion over five years.
Executive Compensation Research firm Equilar analyzed compensation of the chief executives of the 25 largest publicly traded oil and gas companies and found that for 12 CEOs at the largest U.S. based publicly traded oil companies, their median total compensation increased by more than four times the rate of that of executives in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index as a whole. (BusinessWeek News Analysis June 17, 2008)
So what do taxes on oil companies have to do with immunity for Telecoms? Again, let’s go back to the manipulation of the population with fear tactics in order to get them to go to war in order to take over the oil fields for the profit of the oil companies. If you still don’t get the connection, then you are simply beyond help.
And you also intentionally misuse the wrong definition of “democratic” in order to “win” your argument when you refer to “relating to or associated with the Democratic Party of the United States” given that that is only one definition which is completely unrelated to this issue.
The first definition which you correctly use, “characterized by free and equal participation in government or in the decision-making processes of an organization or group”, actually supports my argument. Oil companies who make the decisions to go to war by manipulation of the government, with the consent of the elected officials who lead us into war, eliminates free and equal participation in government by those who don’t have any choice or input into the decision making process, thereby making it “undemocratic”.
Also, choice is not “what it means to be an American.” If that were true than any choice, regardless of how wrong or illegal, would be American. America is ruled by laws and a Constitution - something which you repeatedly fail to recognize. Just another example of your lack of logic.
Again you make a ludicrous argument relating to the use of the word “sold” in defining how the Telecom Immunity Bill or any other policies were foisted on the American public. The point isn’t that policies shouldn’t be “sold”, but that the reasons given to sell these particular policies were outright lies. You are attempting to do what most conservatives and NeoCons attempt to do, which is to ridicule an argument that you can’t win, by arguing a point which was never in contention to begin with, but which you claim is your opponents’ position.
Then you argue that I use cyclical reasoning by answering a question by restating the question, by connecting issues because one imagines or supposes they are connected.
Unfortunately for you, the facts behind the strategy in selling the war, and in selling the policies of the Bush Administration, which were supported by the Republican Congress and people like you then, (and which still are), demonstrates that the Republican Party and its representatives are still using double talk and lies to promote the failed agendas and policies of the Bush administration. The connections aren’t imagined, they are well established. And most people understand the connections even though you continue to imagine that they don’t. Your “reasoning” is not only illogical, it is delusional.
What you consider to be “stereotypes and thinly veiled personal attacks” aren’t, particularly if they are true statements of fact. And in the case of the people who have perpetrated the lies on the American public, and particularly in your case, as you find the “image of beefish men rubbing their hands together like Mr. Burns and trying to figure out how they can deceive jonny lunchpale (your spelling errors), amusing” - it certainly speaks volumes about your character or lack thereof. Obviously you approve of deceiving “jonny lunchpale”, so nothing you say can be trusted.
You mentioned that we withdrew from Somalia after the first major combat engagement. You are referring, of course, to the infamous “Blackhawk Down” incident.
The operation, which led to the deaths and casualties of our soldiers in Somalia, was an ill conceived mission. The convoy went out without armored vehicles and without armored support even standing by as a backup. They went out without adequate and accurate intelligence to indicate the number of militia and the extent of the resistance they encountered. The armored support group, which was finally called in after the convoy ran into trouble and had to be evacuated, was an armored group sent in by and under the control of the Indian government.
And while the incident happened during the Clinton Administration, the military units were sent out during the first Bush Administration. The first Bush Administration sent them into Somalia without armored vehicles and tanks, to be part of a UN peace keeping mission.
We don’t intervene in Darfur because there isn’t any oil in Darfur, and that is the only thing that will get Bush and Cheney to act. They aren’t interested in humanitarian missions. They never have been.
In response to your question as to “does this explain how we lost WWII?” Again, referring back to world history - the United States won WWII.
The United States was able to win WWII because of a number of factors, including the following facts:
We had (at that time), the industrial capacity to out produce ships, tanks, trucks, weapons, ammo and equipment beyond the capacity of our enemies. We don’t have that any more. We gave that away to the Communist Chinese.
We had the support of many different ethnic groups within our society, which allowed us to use their unique skills to defeat our enemies, in spite of the fact that many of them were treated as second class citizens by the majority of the people of this country.
Navajo “Windtalkers” were able to develop a code based on their spoken but unwritten language so that they could gain advantage over our enemies. That code was never broken.
Japanese Americans volunteered for military service even after having their property seized and entire families being thrown into detainment camps throughout the Southwest (like Indian reservations, but behind barbed wire and guarded by machine guns). Their understanding of the Japanese language helped the U.S. military break Japanese codes to give the U.S. military advantage. My family was part of that history. A dozen family relatives served either in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, the most highly decorated military unit in all of WWII, or in Military Intelligence. The 442nd RCT was a segregated unit – all Japanese Americans except for the highest level officers who were Caucasian.
African Americans were forced to do menial labor during most of the war, building roads, driving trucks and working in the mess halls. But, their fighter unit, The Tuskegee Airmen, was finally able to win the respect of bomber groups because, during their entire time protecting bomber planes, they never lost a single bomber.
The diversity in our culture, which Republicans constantly work to eliminate, is what gave us strategic advantage. Your extensive education in military history must have missed that point.
Your repeated ridicule of things you can’t debate just demonstrates that you don’t have any ideas, or documented evidence to support your positions.
You made a funny! You claim that the word “republican” means “somebody who believes that the best government is one in which supreme power is vested in an electorate.” You forgot to tell Bush. Hardly what one would expect from someone who backs “the Proclaimer” - you know - the guy who shouts “I’m the decider” when he is questioned, or when asked if the actions he is taking are against the Constitution yells “The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.” Yeah, Republicans believe the best government is one in which supreme power is vest in an electorate. You are just hilarious!
I’ve actually had discussions with people who are in the intelligence community or who are retired from there. One of my uncles had a long career there. Where do you get your extensive knowledge from?
I never said that we should eliminate any possible source of information gathering. I‘m saying that if it was going to be done, it needed to be focused, and legal, to be effective.
Again, you fail to see the connection between the Telecoms and looking at developing alternative energy.
We went to war in Iraq for their oil. The Bushies had to sell the war and create fear among the citizens by getting everyone to get paranoid, and agree to spy on their neighbors so that the distraction would allow the Bushies to go to war for oil. If we develop alternative energy sources, we can be energy independent and we don’t need to go to war for the oil.
We really aren’t that far off – most of the technology already exists – the problem is that Republicans in Congress and Republican Administrations have repeatedly refused to fund their development and expansion because the only thing they understand is drilling for more oil (which is becoming even more difficult to find in the quantities needed), and building nuclear power plants which create more waste that can’t be safely disposed of.
Republicans have refused to support higher mileage mandates which were originally put in place in the late ‘70s during the Carter Administration, and promptly buried when Reagan/Bush got into office. They’ve been opposing them ever since. They effectively destroyed what was a 38 year head start.
North of Milwaukee on I43 there is a wind powered turbine farm which only recently expanded from only two turbines which stood there for many years before they expanded to several dozen units stretching across the region. Don’t tell me it can’t be done. It is already being done.
We have the ability and current technology to build 150 mpg vehicles. A Bellevue, Oregon company has retrofitted a Saturn Vue hybrid gas/electric vehicle with additional capacitors and a plug in module using technology from Honeywell, NASA and Martin-Marietta and the technology was put on display at the Detroit Auto Show in January of this year. The Big Auto Companies have failed to take them up on mass manufacturing the car, so they have to sell retro-fit kits until they can get enough of a demand and profit from it to gear up for mass production.
Given that the average mpg for most vehicles in the United States is only about 20 mpg, increasing the mileage output by more than seven times, would do more for conserving fuel and stretching it for many more years than drilling for a finite and dwindling resource.
Do you really think that drilling in ANWAR, that by best estimates would take ten years to develop, only has the total oil reserves to meet the needs of the United States for one year, and would have most of its oil shipped overseas to Asia because that is where the oil companies would make the most profit, is our best immediate answer?
You claim that “Since people like you would interfere with the relationship between risk and profit, what motivation is left for research?”
I’ve got news for you. I was educated as a research chemist. I understand research. I’ve done research for many years. U.S. corporations invest very little in research in the United States because they don’t want the expense. They would prefer to use antiquated technology that is already paid for, even though that technology wastes our natural resources, rather than use new technology that conserves our natural resources and makes corporations more profitable in the long run. U.S. corporations do most of their research overseas to avoid the overhead, which is why very few people are interested in getting into the profession here in the U.S.
You claim that you are interested in the relationship between risk and profit, but when an oil monopoly raises prices beyond the point that people and businesses can pay for that energy so that they can make a profit thems