http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ralph_fo_080527_151_congressmen_deri.htm Now do people understand why I dislike government? Why I loathe bureaucrats? Why we have about 90% more elected officials than we need, and 99% more unelected officials than we need. We have too may laws, too many regulations, and too much money going to Washington, where it is literally stolen, as the political class uses the printing press to buy votes, and buy power and buy connections and buy real wealth. And all of the "statists" on this forum will shoot off their mouths, but ask them to name legislation, or what they are personally doing to roll back government, and you'll get a bunch of weak namby pamby nonsense and personal attacks. The very people with children, who have contributed to a system that will not treat their kids well, have the gall to attack activists and people with an agenda of accountability and reform. Demotards like to blame Bush and conservatism while their own people are war profiteers just like the rest, and RepubliCONS want you to focus on earmark reform, chasing crumbs off the table as they scarf down the pie, the cake and the cookies. Anarchy? Not necessary. But it's time for the question to be raised. By what authority does a government commit crime, and still claim the consent of the governed. Who condones this?
Are you saying that you think Kerry (D-Mass.), Harkin (D-Iowa), Marchant (R-Tex.), Maloney (D-N.Y.), Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), Berkley (D-Nev.), Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), Bingaman (D-N.M.), Farr (D-Calif.), Cohen (D-Tenn.) all support the war only for their own personal financial gain? Yeah, we all understand why you hate the government. You see a conspiracy where a rational and reasonable explanation exists.
Yeah, it's interesting. I think that one thing that gets the goat of US citizens (even if they are for the war) is making profit out of it...
At the least it is a classic conflict of interest and any honorable ethical codes would require the holder of public trust to resign from one or the other interests. AKA yes, I also believe that political policies are made for the benefit of a few who are privy to the details of the transaction. That is the only rational and reasonable explanation that describes the decisions and spending patterns in our government.
Do you think they are unaware they are making money from the very companies they keep handing contracts out to? Your call. They are either morally bankrupt, or totally retarded. I'm fine with either explanation. If you don't understand how Fractional Reserve Banking works, then please don't tell me you understand anything beyond mouth breathing and navigating to DP P&R. You can't see a conspiracy, or even a conflict of interest, because you're resigned yourself to being ignorant.
I believe (not 100%) that the author's email address is on the original article (see link). He might be willing to provide that to you. Or to answer the question I think you want to ask...
The first time you published this information, Guerilla, I was about to give it short shrift for a variety of reasons, chiefly having to do with how people invest. But I had looked at it more closely and was stopped in my tracks. $191 million is a lot of money. At 151 members of Congress, that is over $1 million/member. Its a lot of money in total and a lot of money per member of congress. Its vastly different than the resources that most citizens have. The issue of members of Congress having financial interests in the industries over which they legislate has come up in the past. One legislative effort has been to force members of Congress to put their investments into blind trusts. That means they have no say over how investments are made. The legislation has been defeated more than once. Still, many members over the years have specifically moved their investments into trusts. In the past, it was reported that the majority of the wealthiest members had taken such an action to remove the appearance of impropriety. That the issue has arisen over many years (well over a decade) ensures us that it is not an issue that deals solely with the war in Iraq. It is a larger issue that involves personal investment and government decisions over the businesses and industries that receive those investments. A while ago in a thread scarecely read I suggested that all money be removed from campaigns. I referenced how judges are forced to recuse themselves from cases in which they have financial interests. Just this month, the Supreme Court did not rule on a case specifically because too many justices had investments in businesses that would have been affected by the ruling. The Supreme Court couldn't muster a quorum. http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/12/scotus_apartheid The issue of politicians, judges, and other people in power having a financial interest in businesses or opportunities over which they have the power to make decisions and influence outcomes that could be of personal benefit to them has nothing to do with the number of legislators. It has to do with a system that removes the political decision makers from personal gain. Its clearly possible. It has been enacted into law with regard to the judicial system. It has been probably been enacted into law through various towns, communities, states, counties, etc. if one takes the time to review it. The US congress has specifically not enacted these laws. The information source on this piece does not identify how much of that investment is under blind trust and how much is subject to investment control by the members. That would be an interesting asterisk to the announcement. Still it is a large amount of money on a total basis and a large amount per member of congress. It is worth investigating and creating legislation wherein members of Congress would be removed from financial involvement with regard to both their elections and their decisions. One of the actions would be to remove the opportunity for members of Congress to promote earmarks. At their most egregious earmarks are equivalent to buying votes and support for elections. It is a grotesque twisting of how Congress should work. Now I've noticed that you have sprinkled one attack after another with every new thread you started recently. This thread about politicians investing in businesses became an attack on the size of government and those who disagree with you. In fact current American government entities have dealt with this on the judicial level and I suspect it has been dealt with similarly in various states and other jurisdictions. In a thread on a book by an insider in the Bush administration you turned into a personal rant on a member here and an attack on murders and killings. On a thread about a woman who sufffered under the personal wierdness of her mother who was so overwhelmingly devoted to her "movement ideals" that the mother couldn't show any of the characteristics of a typical parent. Somehow on that one you attacked members here. Frankly, I suggest you reread the article by Ms Walker several times and read how disconnected her mother was from any of the normal actions from a mother and family member. Her mother typified those that somehow turn their belief in some political movement into a paradigm for every element of their lives. In fact I think your commentary on these threads, which you started, wherein you cited elements of the articles and then launched into vitriolic attacks, is best exemplified by the movement mother who couldn't exibit the simplest human connections to her own daughter. I guess I agree with Mia (and I rarely agree with Mia ) You need a big long break.
That's fascinating Earl. The good thing about your posts, is that they are so long, boring and full of irrelevant anecdotes, likely to give you some inflated sense of self-worth, that by the time you get around to criticizing me at the end, the reader has either fallen asleep, or committed ritual suicide. As far as a break from the forum, even though you support war criminals and genocide, I'll make you a deal. If less than 70% of your last 100 P&R posts (starting from the one before this post) are not towards me, quoting my posts, or in reference to me, then I will take a 2 week break. However, if 70% or more of your last 100 P&R posts (starting from the one before this post) are in fact challenging, harassing, commenting, criticizing, quoting me, then you need to give me your last 2 signature links (with anchor text of my choice) for 6 months. Or you can take the 2 week break. Deal?
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc The whole argument is based on a fallacy in logic. I don't doubt some members do vote for their personal financial interest. Duke Cunningham comes to mind. However, the idea presented here that 151 members are all corrupt because they may have made a profit on investments. There is no factual or logical support for the conclusion. If someone had their investment in a blind trust and did not make the decision to buy, hold, or sell any particular investment - then how is the assertion they have a conflict of interest valid?
I agree that it may not be true that all 151 congressmen are involved, however, there is a logical support for the conclusion because one can easily see, using common sense, why the members may vote in a certain way. The evidence suggests that the conclusion is correct, however, I agree it is not 100% accurate because there may be other reasons for the members to vote in a certain way i.e. just because the 2 are correlated, it doesn't mean one caused the other. IMO though, I think that guerilla's point is valid and probably true.
Whether they are neocons or not or whether they voted for the war or not, they actually have the conscience and heart to actually profit from this lie of a war? I dont know about you guys but to me that is just as bad as voting for this bs war. I sure am glad my conscience is clear .
How can you claim "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" if you don't actually know who does or does not have a blind trust? You do realize that the Major News Networks fall under the same corporate umbrellas as major DoD contractors? This is just an excerpt, I think the average person doesn't have a f***ing clue about this stuff at all, if you read the whole article, it will blow your mind. http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174923/turse_a_pentagon_s_who_s_who_of_your_life
Is there something inherently nefarious in having a contract with the DOD? I don't think so. I believe that is the starting point of our divergent views.
How about this: If a media company has contracts with the DOD, should they disclose this when commenting on military policy, such as advocating war? If they've recently been turned down contracts should they disclose this before they call for an immediate end to a war? Is there some sort of responsibility that transcends personal interest, when you're engaged in shaping public policy? If you believe that people act in their own rational self-interest, then its hard to see how someone else would really be acting on your behalf when they have their own interests to pursue foremost. SO I say leave human nature the way it is; just abolish governments.