Any on the right *still* not get the concept of liberals' problem with Bush?

[Craig234]

Courtesy of Salon:

From today's Wall Street Journal: "President Bush said he intends to nominate Michael Baroody, a lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers, to be chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission."

This is one of hundreds such appointments of utter corruption and conflict of interest.

The liberals get a Consumer Product Safety Commission created to serve the public interest, the GOP finds a way to thwart it and represent the corporations against the public.

 

[First]

Is there any upside to having a former NAM member as head of the CPSC? Honestly wondering, not rhetorically wondering but seriously wondering, if there is upside to this appointment that isn't apparent on the surface. Right now all I see if a clear conflicting interest.

 

[blackangst1]

Oh we get the concept. It's your blind eye towards the other side that bothers us. And the twisted thinking that the POTUS has his hands in the day to day operations of every agency below him, therefore personally responsible for anything bad that happens.

*shrug*

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh we get the concept. It's your blind eye towards the other side that bothers us. And the twisted thinking that the POTUS has his hands in the day to day operations of every agency below him, therefore personally responsible for anything bad that happens.

*shrug*

1. You post zero facts to support your attack. See my post for an example of a fact. See the dictionary for the definition if it's still unclear.

2. The POTUS is responsible for this - it flows directly from his policies, adopted as his approach to getting elected to get the big corporate donations, appointing the people who will follow this set of interests in how things are done. Yes, it's a condemnation of the whole regime and its sponsors, but you have to name it something, and "Bush" does just fine.

Where do you want to put the blame? The special interests who pay for corruption? The minions under Bush appointed to carry out the corruption? The voters who vote for him?

Take your pick, it's a package of corruption, and Bush is clearly to blame in addition.

There was just a news story in the last couple days about how in the 2000 campaign, a big far right-wing neocon group talked to Bush, and Bush told them he'd give them whatever they want for backing him. McCain told the group he'd listen, but make his own policy decisions.

They backed Bush. That's how this "how could he get elected" guy could get elected, by selling out completely to the monied interests, a triumph of corruption.

Happy with the result? No? Then listen to the liberals and get informed and vote for the right guy next time.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh we get the concept. It's your blind eye towards the other side that bothers us. And the twisted thinking that the POTUS has his hands in the day to day operations of every agency below him, therefore personally responsible for anything bad that happens.

*shrug*

1. You post zero facts to support your attack. See my post for an example of a fact. See the dictionary for the definition if it's still unclear.

2. The POTUS is responsible for this - it flows directly from his policies, adopted as his approach to getting elected to get the big corporate donations, appointing the people who will follow this set of interests in how things are done. Yes, it's a condemnation of the whole regime and its sponsors, but you have to name it something, and "Bush" does just fine.

Where do you want to put the blame? The special interests who pay for corruption? The minions under Bush appointed to carry out the corruption? The voters who vote for him?

Yes, yes, and yes. See my sig. Americans in general are PATHETIC when it comes to casting a competant vote. You want to know why *I* think so much corruption exists? Because we the people allow it. Period.

Take your pick, it's a package of corruption, and Bush is clearly to blame in addition.

For some, I agree.

There was just a news story in the last couple days about how in the 2000 campaign, a big far right-wing neocon group talked to Bush, and Bush told them he'd give them whatever they want for backing him. McCain told the group he'd listen, but make his own policy decisions.

They backed Bush. That's how this "how could he get elected" guy could get elected, by selling out completely to the monied interests, a triumph of corruption.

I certainly hope you arent implying liberal candidates arent recipiants of PAC money...are you?

Happy with the result? No? Then listen to the liberals and get informed and vote for the right guy next time.

Im not quite sure what you mean by this statement other than conservatives dont have a clue and liberals do? Please. There is corruption on BOTH sides of the aisle. Equally.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh we get the concept. It's your blind eye towards the other side that bothers us. And the twisted thinking that the POTUS has his hands in the day to day operations of every agency below him, therefore personally responsible for anything bad that happens.

*shrug*

1. You post zero facts to support your attack. See my post for an example of a fact. See the dictionary for the definition if it's still unclear.

2. The POTUS is responsible for this - it flows directly from his policies, adopted as his approach to getting elected to get the big corporate donations, appointing the people who will follow this set of interests in how things are done. Yes, it's a condemnation of the whole regime and its sponsors, but you have to name it something, and "Bush" does just fine.

Where do you want to put the blame? The special interests who pay for corruption? The minions under Bush appointed to carry out the corruption? The voters who vote for him?

Take your pick, it's a package of corruption, and Bush is clearly to blame in addition.

There was just a news story in the last couple days about how in the 2000 campaign, a big far right-wing neocon group talked to Bush, and Bush told them he'd give them whatever they want for backing him. McCain told the group he'd listen, but make his own policy decisions.

They backed Bush. That's how this "how could he get elected" guy could get elected, by selling out completely to the monied interests, a triumph of corruption.

Happy with the result? No? Then listen to the liberals and get informed and vote for the right guy next time.

nice find craig

however, you may as well be a wolf howling at the moon if you're going to try and convince a bush loyalist to think anything ill of their highness.

they are, after all, the very ones you speak of who condone and promote and participate and profit from such a corrupted criminal form of government. why else would they back him?

 

[blackangst1]

Bush loyalist? I didnt even vote for the guy...

 

[Harvey]

From today's Wall Street Journal: "President Bush said he intends to nominate the fox, to be chairman of the hen house."

Fixed if for ya. < shakes head > :roll:

 

[2Xtreme21]

What we need is a god damn whistleblower and some Democratic congressmen with BALLS to take down this scourge to our country.

Edit: I'm sure if bin Laden himself were to offer Bush a few million dollars he'd appoint him as secretary of homeland security.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
What we need is a god damn whistleblower and some Democratic congressmen with BALLS to take down this scourge to our country.

Originally posted by: blackangst1
And the twisted thinking that the POTUS has his hands in the day to day operations of every agency below him, therefore personally responsible for anything bad that happens.

This is what is even more sadder about the state of this Country.

Apologists like this is worse than the POTUS himself.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Bush loyalist? I didnt even vote for the guy...

Too young? Didn't vote? Based on your posts here, you certainly create the impression of being one of the die-hard Bush faithful, or at least the party faithful. Perhaps I've missed or forgotten something.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Bush loyalist? I didnt even vote for the guy...

Too young? Didn't vote? Based on your posts here, you certainly create the impression of being one of the die-hard Bush faithful, or at least the party faithful. Perhaps I've missed or forgotten something.

Yes you must not have read one of many posts where I have said I am a card carrying member of the DNC. But whatever.

2008 will be my 7th presidential election.

Im critical of BOTH sides of the fence. But what I am most critical of, are people (left or right) who believe "the other side" is to blame for everything, and "their" party can do less wrong. Its all bullsh1t. Both parties are as corrupt as the the other, and I place THAT blame on voters.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Bush loyalist? I didnt even vote for the guy...

Too young? Didn't vote? Based on your posts here, you certainly create the impression of being one of the die-hard Bush faithful, or at least the party faithful. Perhaps I've missed or forgotten something.

Yes you must not have read one of many posts where I have said I am a card carrying member of the DNC. But whatever.

2008 will be my 7th presidential election.

Im critical of BOTH sides of the fence. But what I am most critical of, are people (left or right) who believe "the other side" is to blame for everything, and "their" party can do less wrong. Its all bullsh1t. Both parties are as corrupt as the the other, and I place THAT blame on voters.

Then stop being an Apologist.

You defend Bush and his cronies at every turn.

Until you stop doing that, you are an Apologist, nothing more, nothing less.

If you and your Apologist buddies hate America so much why do you guys stay?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im not quite sure what you mean by this statement other than conservatives dont have a clue and liberals do? Please. There is corruption on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Certainly true.

Equally.

Nope, you lost me there. There was a time, maybe 30 or 40 years ago, where one could have made a case for Democrats being more corrupt than Republicans. That balance has been shifting ever since, however, and now it is the Republicans who clearly have a greater problem with serious corruption, corruption materially harmful to America. The GOP has always been pro-business, and that's a good thing in moderation. It has gradually become perverted into an unbridled sell-off to the highest bidder, with PNAC's war-mongering agenda now dumped in for bad measure. As I've said elsewhere, the Republicans really need to purge the party of these goons and crooks, and get back to more traditional conservative values.

Unfortunately, I think the only real solution to corruption on both sides of the aisle is to get the big money (a.k.a. bribery) out of politics. In particular, the legal fiction that corporations and other organizations have First Amendment rights needs to go. So does the fiction that money is speech, at least in relation to elections and public servants. Some may cry that such restrictions infringe on their freedoms, but we've seen first-hand that the lack of such restrictions is much, much worse.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh we get the concept. It's your blind eye towards the other side that bothers us. And the twisted thinking that the POTUS has his hands in the day to day operations of every agency below him, therefore personally responsible for anything bad that happens.

*shrug*

Yes, it's pretty crazy of us to hold Bush personally responsible for the people he nominates to fill important positions. :roll:

Seriously though, the lack of responsibility shown by the vast majority of elected folks has always bothered me, and I liked the fact that Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of restoring responsibility to government. Yet all I've seen from his administration is the total inability to take responsibility for ANYTHING, and even when they admit someone wrong was done, they (and their supporters) ALWAYS find a way to pawn it off on some underling...who very rarely has a huge press department to spin the story for him. You're right, Bush can't possibly be personally responsible for everything the federal government does. But he's the President, not the guy who cleans the floors at the White House...and it has to be SOMEONE'S responsibility. Good leaders understand that being the leader means everything done on your watch is, at some level, your responsibility.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Harvey

From today's Wall Street Journal: "President Bush said he intends to nominate the fox, to be chairman of the hen house."

Fixed if for ya. < shakes head > :roll:

Exactly. The headline is a bit inflammatory though, but this is P&N. Bush IS responsible, just like Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagen, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc etc etc. They have all taken credit for the things that have gone right, whether or not it was their doing, so why not give them the credit for what goes wrong under their watch? It's the nature of the job. When you run for president you are asking to be the scapegoat for EVERYTHING. Public opinion doesn't always make sense, but it does rule the roost.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Bush loyalist? I didnt even vote for the guy...

Too young? Didn't vote? Based on your posts here, you certainly create the impression of being one of the die-hard Bush faithful, or at least the party faithful. Perhaps I've missed or forgotten something.

Yes you must not have read one of many posts where I have said I am a card carrying member of the DNC. But whatever.

All I can tell you is actions (i.e., the positions you take in your posts) speak louder than words (your claim to be a DNC member).

2008 will be my 7th presidential election.

Im critical of BOTH sides of the fence. But what I am most critical of, are people (left or right) who believe "the other side" is to blame for everything, and "their" party can do less wrong. Its all bullsh1t. Both parties are as corrupt as the the other, and I place THAT blame on voters.

Any links to examples of you blasting the right for blaming everything on Democrats? There have certainly been plenty of opportunities if you are truly equally critical of both sides. (And see my message above; I don't accept that both parties are equally corrupt at the moment. Neither party is clean, not by a long shot, but the GOP today clearly has the upper hand in slime.)

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im not quite sure what you mean by this statement other than conservatives dont have a clue and liberals do? Please. There is corruption on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Certainly true.

Equally.

Nope, you lost me there. There was a time, maybe 30 or 40 years ago, where one could have made a case for Democrats being more corrupt than Republicans. That balance has been shifting ever since, however, and now it is the Republicans who clearly have a greater problem with serious corruption, corruption materially harmful to America. The GOP has always been pro-business, and that's a good thing in moderation. It has gradually become perverted into an unbridled sell-off to the highest bidder, with PNAC's war-mongering agenda now dumped in for bad measure. As I've said elsewhere, the Republicans really need to purge the party of these goons and crooks, and get back to more traditional conservative values.

Unfortunately, I think the only real solution to corruption on both sides of the aisle is to get the big money (a.k.a. bribery) out of politics. In particular, the legal fiction that corporations and other organizations have First Amendment rights needs to go. So does the fiction that money is speech, at least in relation to elections and public servants. Some may cry that such restrictions infringe on their freedoms, but we've seen first-hand that the lack of such restrictions is much, much worse.

I wholeheartedly, absolutely agree with you. But, I wholeheartedly, absolutely disagree its a GOP issue exclusively. Or even mostly for that matter.

The great thing about adults is although we are free Americans (which I assume you are), we can also agree to disagree.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im not quite sure what you mean by this statement other than conservatives dont have a clue and liberals do? Please. There is corruption on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Certainly true.

Equally.

Nope, you lost me there. There was a time, maybe 30 or 40 years ago, where one could have made a case for Democrats being more corrupt than Republicans. That balance has been shifting ever since, however, and now it is the Republicans who clearly have a greater problem with serious corruption, corruption materially harmful to America. The GOP has always been pro-business, and that's a good thing in moderation. It has gradually become perverted into an unbridled sell-off to the highest bidder, with PNAC's war-mongering agenda now dumped in for bad measure. As I've said elsewhere, the Republicans really need to purge the party of these goons and crooks, and get back to more traditional conservative values.

Unfortunately, I think the only real solution to corruption on both sides of the aisle is to get the big money (a.k.a. bribery) out of politics. In particular, the legal fiction that corporations and other organizations have First Amendment rights needs to go. So does the fiction that money is speech, at least in relation to elections and public servants. Some may cry that such restrictions infringe on their freedoms, but we've seen first-hand that the lack of such restrictions is much, much worse.

I wholeheartedly, absolutely agree with you. But, I wholeheartedly, absolutely disagree its a GOP issue exclusively. Or even mostly for that matter.

The great thing about adults is although we are free Americans (which I assume you are), we can also agree to disagree.

:beer:

 

[2Xtreme21]

Dave did you just call me an apologist? LOL

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Dave did you just call me an apologist? LOL

No, I was using your quote of how he is a diehard Bush faithful in every post he makes.

 

[Genx87]

Because we all know politicians never appoint friends and unqualified people to posts in the govt :disgust:

Must be more of your black and white world where everybody else is wrong but you.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Because we all know politicians never appoint friends and unqualified people to posts in the govt :disgust:

Must be more of your black and white world where everybody else is wrong but you.

Of course but your heroes have taken it to a whole new level.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im not quite sure what you mean by this statement other than conservatives dont have a clue and liberals do? Please. There is corruption on BOTH sides of the aisle. Equally.

That's impossible. No scenario can achieve perfect neutrality and maintain it indefinitely. Rather, it's far more likely, that the corruption scale tips one way or another.

 

[OrByte]

Harvey said it best.

"Fox guarding the Hen house." And this isn't even cronyism as Genx87 would like to believe. There is (on the surface mind you) a very valid issue of conflict-of-interest in this appointment. Now maybe this lobbyist can represent consumers just as equally as he has represented manufacturers and big business...but don't you think there are just as qualified (if not more so) consumer advocates that could have been appointed?