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

[Rainsford]

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.

So that makes it alright when Bush does it?

Maybe conservatives don't understand the liberals' problems with Bush, but I'll never understand this childish "well the other guys do it too!" defense that pops up like clockwork every time someone questions something Bush did.

 

[First]

I also find the contention that there is *equal* corruption on both sides quite a bit disingenuous. If you want to speak mathematically in terms of actual number of indictments, convictions, or strong circumstantial cases for corporate/business corruption and/or simple law-breaking over the last, say, 20 years, there's really no question the right has the left beat. To claim otherwise is to ignore reality. But most of these guys are far right elements anyway.

 

[trenchfoot]

let's just face the reality of this whole farce of an appointment:

the bush administration has been appointing guys like this wholesale ever since he's taken office. this guy isn't any different than all the other political hacks that represent corporate interests, of which george bush himself is the quintessential role model, who control regulatory agencies that are supposed to be the public's watchdogs over scheming profiteers.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

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

Then shut up? Just an idea. You seem to be picking a fight. Then you say you have no reason to pick a fight. 😕

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

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

Then shut up? Just an idea. You seem to be picking a fight. Then you say you have no reason to pick a fight. 😕

Anybody with opposing view points should just sit down and be quiet, eh? Typical, and again why I say the left is no different from the right. You'll both tell anyone who disagrees with you to shut up. You're as vile as the Republicans.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well honestly both sides do this. I don't know enough about this guy to comment and you don't provide enough information so we can decide. You simply infer that his past association makes him unsuited for this job.

I guess this must be that "liberal" problem, slander someone without providing enough information so others can determine if you have a leg to stand on. Must be the moonjuice at the moonbat parties ya'll attend.


So, what are the facts? Do you have them? I know it never stops your ilk anyway, name calling is your method as its emotional, debating on facts seems to be beyond your grasp.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I also find the contention that there is *equal* corruption on both sides quite a bit disingenuous. If you want to speak mathematically in terms of actual number of indictments, convictions, or strong circumstantial cases for corporate/business corruption and/or simple law-breaking over the last, say, 20 years, there's really no question the right has the left beat. To claim otherwise is to ignore reality. But most of these guys are far right elements anyway.

start by proving your claim? Seems to me that the previous adminstration still has this one beat for number of its officials who got into a heap of trouble. I would love to see your list that you base you view upon? If your going to make the declaration then back it up. I figure Bush & Co will get whacked soon enough, but they ain't got their predecessors beat by a long shot

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I also find the contention that there is *equal* corruption on both sides quite a bit disingenuous. If you want to speak mathematically in terms of actual number of indictments, convictions, or strong circumstantial cases for corporate/business corruption and/or simple law-breaking over the last, say, 20 years, there's really no question the right has the left beat. To claim otherwise is to ignore reality. But most of these guys are far right elements anyway.

start by proving your claim? Seems to me that the previous adminstration still has this one beat for number of its officials who got into a heap of trouble. I would love to see your list that you base you view upon? If your going to make the declaration then back it up. I figure Bush & Co will get whacked soon enough, but they ain't got their predecessors beat by a long shot

You talking about the Reagan Administration?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

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.

So that makes it alright when Bush does it?

Maybe conservatives don't understand the liberals' problems with Bush, but I'll never understand this childish "well the other guys do it too!" defense that pops up like clockwork every time someone questions something Bush did.

Is that what I said? I am simply pointing out to the OP this is nothing new on either side of the aisle. Something he'd have us believe doesnt happen on the democrat side.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I also find the contention that there is *equal* corruption on both sides quite a bit disingenuous. If you want to speak mathematically in terms of actual number of indictments, convictions, or strong circumstantial cases for corporate/business corruption and/or simple law-breaking over the last, say, 20 years, there's really no question the right has the left beat. To claim otherwise is to ignore reality. But most of these guys are far right elements anyway.

I guess you have to find us evidence of this before making a claim.
Secondly you are probably grouping all business convictions with the right when big business has plenty of lefties in it(read collectivists). Big business is like big govt and they go hand in hand.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

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

Then shut up? Just an idea. You seem to be picking a fight. Then you say you have no reason to pick a fight. 😕

Yes blackangst, shut your yapper when you arent cheerleading for the left on every issue! How dare you speak up when not summoned!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: 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.

Well honestly both sides do this. I don't know enough about this guy to comment and you don't provide enough information so we can decide. You simply infer that his past association makes him unsuited for this job.

I guess this must be that "liberal" problem, slander someone without providing enough information so others can determine if you have a leg to stand on. Must be the moonjuice at the moonbat parties ya'll attend.

So, what are the facts? Do you have them? I know it never stops your ilk anyway, name calling is your method as its emotional, debating on facts seems to be beyond your grasp.

"You're doing a heck of a job Brownie"

 

[slsmnaz]

And it still has to be approved. I hope you will equally bash the Senate Dems if he gets the job.

 

[yllus]

Why is this a conflict of interests and/or seen as a bad thing? What do you want, an utter unknown to the manufacturing industry to man the chairmanship? Mr. Baroody's experience makes him sound like he'd have nearly unparalleled expertise on the subject matter, even if it was from "the other side". Many people are quite capable of setting aside their past positions to ably serve their new roles. Nice of you to have so readily convicted Mr. Baroody in your minds before he's served even a single day in office.

What next - appointing a doctor to the position Surgeon General? A defence lawyer as Attorney General? Madness!

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: yllus
Why is this a conflict of interests and/or seen as a bad thing? What do you want, an utter unknown to the manufacturing industry to man the chairmanship? Mr. Baroody's experience makes him sound like he'd have nearly unparalleled expertise on the subject matter, even if it was from "the other side". Many people are quite capable of setting aside their past positions to ably serve their new roles. Nice of you to have so readily convicted Mr. Baroody in your minds before he's served even a single day in office.

What next - appointing a doctor to the position Surgeon General? A defence lawyer as Attorney General? Madness!

Are you serious?

More like appointing a faith healer as Surgeon General.

How does this boob have "unparalleled expertise" in Consumer Protection?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: 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?

Your hatred knows no bounds, now you cut from your own limb. Such savage fury does not belong here.

 

[Jaskalas]

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:

As for the subject at hand, that is a perfect summary of it. Pardon, Harvey, if I find agreeing with you a bit disturbing.

Now, however, this is where we part on this. How should we respond in action to such appointments, ensure that we elect Democrats? That would compromise so many other issues at stake; I find it difficult to weigh this issue against so many others.

Ideally, conservative should NOT equate to corrupt big business. That is a marriage that should not exist, and so ideally we should purge the conservative base/party of such special interests and corruption. The problem therein is that to conserve historical American values means being friendly to capitalist and corporate needs. Then all it takes is a weak man like Bush to make the wrong decision on something like this.

If only our political system did not ensure the rise of corruption above honest politicians. That is the root source of this appointment, and a plague to both our parties.

 

[piasabird]

Sounds like something Bill Clinton would do.

 

[QuantumPion]

I have an alternative viewpoint for you.

What is wrong with having someone knowledgeable about a subject being the head of a government organization that oversees that subject? What is desireable about having someone totally ignorant about said subject being responsible for overseeing said subject?

For example, whom would you rather have as the head of the FDA? A medical doctor, with experience doing research in food science for general mills, or Joe B. Bureaucrat with his associates degree in political correctness?

Whom would you rather have as the head of the energy department, the CEO of Exxon, whose smart business decisions allowed their company to prosper and is highly knowledgeable about the energy industry, or Hippy A. Environmentalist, that thinks hemp farms and solar panels are the wave of the future?

Now, I am totally ignorant about this particular guy and this particular agency, so I may be way off base here. But I thought I'd just throw this out for your consideration.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I have an alternative viewpoint for you.

What is wrong with having someone knowledgeable about a subject being the head of a government organization that oversees that subject? What is desireable about having someone totally ignorant about said subject being responsible for overseeing said subject?

For example, whom would you rather have as the head of the FDA? A medical doctor, with experience doing research in food science for general mills, or Joe B. Bureaucrat with his associates degree in political correctness?

Whom would you rather have as the head of the energy department, the CEO of Exxon, whose smart business decisions allowed their company to prosper and is highly knowledgeable about the energy industry, or Hippy A. Environmentalist, that thinks hemp farms and solar panels are the wave of the future?

Now, I am totally ignorant about this particular guy and this particular agency, so I may be way off base here. But I thought I'd just throw this out for your consideration.

Right on the mark. Unfortunately, politics has become putting your buddies in powerful positions. Bad bad policy IMHO.

If only voters would get mad enough to do something about it.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I have an alternative viewpoint for you.

What is wrong with having someone knowledgeable about a subject being the head of a government organization that oversees that subject? What is desireable about having someone totally ignorant about said subject being responsible for overseeing said subject?

For example, whom would you rather have as the head of the FDA? A medical doctor, with experience doing research in food science for general mills, or Joe B. Bureaucrat with his associates degree in political correctness?

Whom would you rather have as the head of the energy department, the CEO of Exxon, whose smart business decisions allowed their company to prosper and is highly knowledgeable about the energy industry, or Hippy A. Environmentalist, that thinks hemp farms and solar panels are the wave of the future?

Now, I am totally ignorant about this particular guy and this particular agency, so I may be way off base here. But I thought I'd just throw this out for your consideration.

Right on the mark. Unfortunately, politics has become putting your buddies in powerful positions. Bad bad policy IMHO.

If only voters would get mad enough to do something about it.

No it is off mark. What has happened (apparently) is that an advocate for business has been put in power over the agency that advocates for consumers. That is not the same as putting a doctor in charge of the FDA, but more like putting the exact opposite of a doctor...say a faith healer (I don't know who would qualify as an exact opposite to a medical doctor), in charge of the FDA.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Your hatred knows no bounds, now you cut from your own limb. Such savage fury does not belong here.

Overactor!


😉

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I have an alternative viewpoint for you.

What is wrong with having someone knowledgeable about a subject being the head of a government organization that oversees that subject? What is desireable about having someone totally ignorant about said subject being responsible for overseeing said subject?

For example, whom would you rather have as the head of the FDA? A medical doctor, with experience doing research in food science for general mills, or Joe B. Bureaucrat with his associates degree in political correctness?

Whom would you rather have as the head of the energy department, the CEO of Exxon, whose smart business decisions allowed their company to prosper and is highly knowledgeable about the energy industry, or Hippy A. Environmentalist, that thinks hemp farms and solar panels are the wave of the future?

Now, I am totally ignorant about this particular guy and this particular agency, so I may be way off base here. But I thought I'd just throw this out for your consideration.

Right on the mark. Unfortunately, politics has become putting your buddies in powerful positions. Bad bad policy IMHO.

If only voters would get mad enough to do something about it.

No it is off mark. What has happened (apparently) is that an advocate for business has been put in power over the agency that advocates for consumers. That is not the same as putting a doctor in charge of the FDA, but more like putting the exact opposite of a doctor...say a faith healer (I don't know who would qualify as an exact opposite to a medical doctor), in charge of the FDA.

Is there really a qualified "dis-interested person" with loads of experience in the area?

Everything seems so polarized these days I just don't know.

If this guy is on the "corporate side", the only other side I can think of is the "trial lawyer side". That hardly seems like a better choice to me.

Some of you sound as though there will be flood of "dangerous" products on the market as a result of this guys appointment.

I've checked this guys "online resume", he appears reasonable qualified (OSHA work etc) unlike the Brownie guy at FEMA. Before I get my panties in a bunch I'll wait to see how he performs.

Fern

 

[OrByte]

I think my only other post to this thread went something to the effect that if this guy can advocate for consumer safety as well as he lobbied for manufacturers then fine.

The opposite of corporate interest would be consumer interest imho. And I still feel that somewhere out there there is a perfectly qualified consumer advocate or lobbyist that is capable of running the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But then again who am I right?