Lucky...

Since you need to cherrypick, I will go back and post the entire passage: A war, which war, the war on Communism or the war on drugs which he proliferated via the CIA and had fall guy Ollie forget about all the details? Get it, the wa on drugs was/is BS. As for the war on Communism, the Ruskies were great in WWII, we helped them beat the Germans and they were gonna march into Japan and kick their asses too until we decided to do the unthinkable; kill 200-300k mostly women and children. Other tna the bay of pigs, the Ruskies were not a threat. Really, it was a checkmate but Reagan decide dto use it as a reason to hand over all the US money, current and future to the US corps. Can't you see that the USSR was a joke? Their monetary system has always been a joke. Explain to me why Reagan gets the credit for beating the Russians when: 1) We have had a cold war biuldup since post WWII 2) The wall fell 4 months after Reagan left office 3) The wall fell due to Communism being an unfeasable economic system, just as US Capitalism is falling. Howis it the second to last guy getting all the credit for a 45-year cold war? I mean LBJ blew plenty of cash on BS war machinery too, why not gove him credit? What was the USSR such a threat with? WHat were they planning to do? There was no was on, we just got out of one; VN. Can't you see these nutjob Repubs are always fighting a war, even if they have to create one? You then stated I should go refresh my knowledge on WWII. I think I made my points with the above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He'd be a fairly inhuman and unlikable candidate if he didn't let us in on some of his personal feelings. Continue to parade around for him, that's what cult followings do instead of being realistic and saying that he's the closest thing to what you want, not perfect. You realize that he is pandering to the RR. He may have to pay them back if ever elected, that makes him a sell-out. >>>>>>>>>>>It gives me confidence that he will act in a libertarian way despite personal misgivings. No, Libertarians would say, 'Leave it to states, PERIOD.' And you know it. >>>>>>>>>Your take on the evangelical right question is still way off the mark, and your last response proved it. He expounded on his answer, thus clarifying his position to thinking adults. Again, the question had nothing to do with personal choice, so I'm not sure where you're getting that angle from. Ah, thinking adults....your PA's are so clever. Just because your so-called Libertarain candidate has been exposed as a garden variety Republican. Hell, if he's not Republican, then why is he: 1) Running as a Repblican 2) Pandering to the moral right 3) Praising Reagan's fights with various departments 4) He is a Republican US Representative from Texas Leaders of the Texan Republican Party made similar efforts to defeat him in 1998, but Paul again won the primary and the election. The Republican congressional leadership then agreed to a compromise: Paul votes with the Republicans on procedural matters and remains nominally Republican in exchange for the committee assignments normally due according to his seniority. This is arguably similar to the deal that Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont has with the Democratic Party (though Jeffords was elected as a Republican and is now officially independent). Paul was convincingly re-elected in 2000 and 2002. He was elected unopposed in 2004 to his ninth term in the Congress. 5) His base of support has been among conservative Republicans, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ron_Paul#Political_career Top Contributors to Ron Paul (R) During the 2006 Election Cycle Rank Donor Amount (US Dollars) 1 Credit Union National Assn $ 10,000 2 National Assn of Realtors $ 8,000 3 Davis-Lynch Inc $ 6,200 4 Dunn Capital Management $ 4,000 4 Eon Silicon Solutions $ 4,000 4 Morton Buildings $ 4,000 Ya, when exclusively/generally banks and real estate cos finance you, you are a........ Republican Still think he's not a Republican? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, the question had nothing to do with personal choice, so I'm not sure where you're getting that angle from. Asked how he felt about abortion, he replied he's always been against it. OK, so that's not the same as pro-life?

The church will take care of it. The government taking care of it means money was forcibly taken from one person and given to another. Charity is voluntary. Strangely, I am not left feeling clueless in your presence. The church will take care of what, the several hundred billion dollar social svs bill? GENIUS, just fucking BRILLIANT. WHat you're saying, FUCK THE POOR AND DISABLED because you know the church won't generate 10% of what they need, so let the elderly and ill die. WHy is it that you guys can't admit that? D you think the church can get even a few % of what is needed? This is hwy your party is a joke. >>>>>>>>>>>>The government taking care of it means money was forcibly taken from one person and given to another. And when a person is ill, disabled, etc they need the help of thier countrymen and women, not rhetoric about personal responsibility. The idea is that it night be you one day and you would want assistance, even if it measured up to be millions of dollars to live. >>>>>>>>>Charity is voluntary. Disabilities are involuntay, but I agree, fuck em and let em die. I wonder what it's like at your house when the news reports shootings and other societal ill. I bet your appauled and surprised. WHat a joke. >>>>>>>>>>Strangely, I am not left feeling clueless in your presence. Then clue me in on what kind of dump truck you will have the gov buy to pick up the dead bodies from the church taht is unable to care for all the ill folks.

>>>>>>>>>>>I was referring to the Cold War. I agree the drug war is BS, and I don't need you to remind me. So as not to hijack the thread, I'll let you go refresh your history regarding WWII, the atomic bomb, and the Cold War. That's what I wrote about, the cold war. Do I need to go back and refresh your memory? I threw in the war on drugs as yet another example of the right win creation of wars. I'm sure I know more than you about WWII, I've been to Tinian, the loading place of LB / FM. Againb, go back and read, I was talking about how the cold war was BS from the start, it was an ideological war played out in the form of the Cold War. >>>>>>>>>>>>>A person can have political beliefs and personal beliefs which differ. For instance, I'm politically pro-choice, but I'd never forgive myself if I let my child be aborted, so personally I'm pro-life (the mother's life, of course, being a top priority). Again, as Paul said, he wants to leave it up to the states. It is a perfectly libertarian thing to do. As he leans to pro-life. If a bill comes before him, I thnk we knwo what to expect. If he were a true Libertarian he would have said states rights/decision.....PERIOD. >>>>>>>>>>>Where in Paul's answer about the Christian right does he deny "leave alone people's decisions to themselves" as you so eloquently put it? Personal choice was neither the topic of the question nor the topic of his reply. Merely, he wants the religious right to come to grips with the fact that they can't tell people what to do all the time. He wants compromise and cooperation. Where in there did you fail to read that he IS courting the evangelical right?

No, he very carefully sides with the moralists, who knows what he would do if elected, maybe he's just jerking them. SOme of his principles are great, but like all Libertarians I've spoken with / read about, they're pathetic when it comes to questions of what to do with elderly and disabled. They say, "LEAVE IT TO CHARITY." This is the main reason why I leave every nutjob Libertarian with the feeling that they are clueless. Can they even put together a format of what the expenditures are now and what they will be and how the needy will be taken care of. They just skim over it and say teh church will take care of it. Any halfass nitwit can take the biggest problem of a system, disregard it and have all the answers. This is why the pathetic bastards might get 10% of the Repub primary vote. BTW, I love your culminating the Reagan Dems..... it's so very Libertarianesque of you

>>>>>>>>>Ron Paul is about bringing people together, not dividing. Look at some other supporters' posts and you'll see that their views are *very* different than mine on many issues. To address your point about evangelicals, I'll defer to what Ron Paul said in response to one of the questions he was asked in the interview: That's rhetotic, substance is that he's pro-life. We can dance around all day with BS about various general philosophies, but when we are cornerd and have to shit, that's what you get, a candidate who is pandering to the moral righties. It is exemplified here with the quote you posted: Can you characterize a typical Ron Paul supporter? No. The characteristic is they're not typical, and we're proud of it. We talk about it all the time--freedom brings diversity. It brings people together. This reads, "bla-bla-bla" What reads as substance is when someone says, 'I'm for universal care, I'm for choice, I'm for pro-life, I'm for the war,etc..' I'm sure you'll agree. I can say I'm for all people having health insurance, but until I talk about personal repsonsibility or universal care do I really plant myself in one corner. RP pinned himself down by saying he's pro-life, that was substance, that snippet was rhetoric and cheerleader dribble. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...or we can vote for Rudy/another republican (who is a lot like Bush, who will leave the country divided) or Hillary or another democrat (who is a typical democrat, who will also leave the country divided). When Clinton was pres, the county was somewhat divided, not like now, but it was progressively moving fwd, now it's grossly divided and regressive. Point is, even if it's divided, who cares? Was teh country divided during the Civil War? Sure and those were times when we gain civil rights. Was teh country divided in the 50's / 60's when blacks got rights? Of course, so who gives a shit about divided, let's work toward progressive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Come on now, I'm sure you're not a stupid person, but that comment really is stupid. Get over yourself and your veiled PA.

>>>>>>>>>Comment 1: It's true Reagan did increase the debt quite a bit. However, there was a war on...a war which we won, thanks to our spending. A war, which war, the war on Communism or the war on drugs which he proliferated via the CIA and had fall guy Ollie forget about all the details? Get it, the wa on drugs was/is BS. As for the war on Communism, the Ruskies were great in WWII, we helped them beat the Germans and they were gonna march into Japan and kick their asses too until we decided to do the unthinkable; kill 200-300k mostly women and children. Other tna the bay of pigs, the Ruskies were not a threat. Really, it was a checkmate but Reagan decide dto use it as a reason to hand over all the US money, current and future to the US corps. Can't you see that the USSR was a joke? Their monetary system has always been a joke. Explain to me why Reagan gets the credit for beating the Russians when: 1) We have had a cold war biuldup since post WWII 2) The wall fell 4 months after Reagan left office 3) The wall fell due to Communism being an unfeasable economic system, just as US Capitalism is falling. Howis it the second to last guy getting all the credit for a 45-year cold war? I mean LBJ blew plenty of cash on BS war machinery too, why not gove him credit? What was the USSR such a threat with? WHat were they planning to do? There was no was on, we just got out of one; VN. Can't you see these nutjob Repubs are always fighting a war, even if they have to create one? >>>>>>>>>>Comment 2: He wants to hand over the abortion debate to the states. Do you really think that's going to make the "moral vote" very happy? He opposes the Libertarian fundamental of leaving the people's choice alone by being pro-life, then tries to back out by saying he could leave it to the states. But we know if federal leg comes down which way he would go. Furthermore, to court the moral vote with that tidbit is leaning away from the Libertarian foundation, they don;t want interference from activist groups. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Comment 3: Should he pretend like the Christian right does not exist? Here is where I'm convinced that you applied no logical thought to what you read. He is trying to convince the religious right that the same civil liberties they sometimes oppose are the same civil liberties that allow them to practice their religion and voice their opinions. To put it another way, he's trying to get them to look at civil liberties in a different light; a light in which they may have to tolerate things they don't like, but with the understanding that they will not be persecuted for their beliefs either. Hardly, the Libertarian mandate is say leave alone people's decisions to themselves. He appeasing a special interest group, plain and simple.

Wow! That's some pretty damning evidence there. I'm convinced. PS I clicked on that link. USNews/Yahoo! should immediately eat shit and correct the (deliberate?) misnomer in the header of that interview "Libertarian Candidate Ron Paul." He's a Republican candidate for f.cks sake... I guess the joke's on you, you are the last guy thinking there is a difference. For fuck's safe, how many times does a candidate/politican have to cross back and forth between Repub/Libertar before everyon figures it out?

Wow! That's some pretty damning evidence there. I'm convinced. PS I clicked on that link. USNews/Yahoo! should immediately eat shit and correct the (deliberate?) misnomer in the header of that interview "Libertarian Candidate Ron Paul." He's a Republican candidate for f.cks sake... Not gonna touch the evangelical / moralist sucking-up, are you? Not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent. See, he's made the assertions that he's different, he's not a neo-con, yet then he runs as a Repub and falls back into the typical neo-con BS...... the burden has shifted upon him or his cult to now explain why he is courting the religious vote in contrast with his claimed agenda. Oh, what agenda? THE AGENDA WHERE HE'S SUPPOSED TO STAY OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES AND CHOICES, then he backdoors some shit about not voting for the homophobe amendment as if it's supposed to wash out the pandering for the religious zealot vote. Address that shit or simply put it in your pipe and smoke it .

Why is it the conservatives describe their feelings without explaining them? You can't refute the observations I made, can you? OK, step 1, take each assertion I made and explain how I misinterpreted RP's assertion.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Yea, I agree, it's great to strike down programs that help people, I mean, we are here to further the corporate agenda, people just suck, I agree.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20071112/ts_usnews/qalibertariancandidateronpaul&printer=1;_ylt=AoYwW8lHeUMNyfa9xkNR6yWSl7MF "Do you feel like a Republican? I think I feel more like a Republican than they should. They're not conservatives, they're neoconservatives, and neoconservatives are big-government people. Why they get called conservatives or Republicans is beyond me. Some people feel loyal to the party, and people hate to break with this loyalty. But when I talk to people and they say, "You can be against the war and still be conservative?" I say, "Certainly." The conservative position is to not start wars and to obey the Constitution. Ronald Reagan not too long ago ran against the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, and he did quite well, and there's this whole idea that all of a sudden that I'm strange to the Republican Party? . . ." Hello asswipe, don't denounce out of control spending and praise Reagan in the same paragraph. Maybe he didn't get the memo, but Reagan trippled the debt in 8 years. "Where should decisions about legalizing abortion lie? If you don't protect life, you can't protect liberty. And we now are at a stage where we allow the national government through the Supreme Court to permit the killing of an unborn baby anytime before birth. How do you protect somebody's right to go out and drink alcohol and smoke marijuana if you can't even protect life? As a physician, it's a legal entity. I could be sued if I hurt a fetus. I've been strongly pro-life, but I don't support nationalization of any of these problems. I voted against the marriage amendment. I want this to be held under our traditional form of republican government and let the states deal with it. . . ." Like a good neo-con, fuck the worries of gov control to trade them for the moral vote as any sell-out would do. BTW, I could use that same argument to support universal healthcare. See, how can we support liberty if the people are ill? And the clincher: "Do you need to court conservative evangelicals? I think so. I have to talk about the Christian just-war theory. We're not supposed to start wars. I talk about civil liberties, and they say, "That lets people do bad things." I say, "Yes, but these are the same liberties that allow you to pray in school, that allow you to have your home-schoolers, to have your own churches." So he back-doors rubbing elbows with the right moralists to avdocate saving money on schools? Yea, and it's not for the moral vote - what a typical fucking lying politician sucking for votes, which is no problem, just that his drones (followers) claim he's not like that. WHATEVER

By Caren BohanTue Nov 13, 6:26 PM ET President George W. Bush on Tuesday vetoed a measure to fund education, job training and health programs, marking the sixth veto of his presidency and the latest salvo in a fight with congressional Democrats over domestic spending. Bush signed a separate bill to give the Pentagon about $460 billion for the fiscal year that began on October 1, even though he was disappointed the military bill had less money than he had sought. Even so, the Pentagon would get about $40 billion more than last year, a 9 percent increase. The White House said the bill to fund labor and human services was bloated and filled with special projects. The $600 billion measure was about $10 billion more than what Bush requested. Bush and the Democratic-led Congress have been locked in a heated budget battle for months, with each side accusing the other of fiscal irresponsibility. Democrats who wrested control of Congress last year from Bush's Republican Party campaigned in part on criticisms over the budget deficits that soared on Bush's watch, boosted by spending for the Iraq war. But Bush tried to turn the tables on Democrats, accusing them of seeking to go on a spending spree and said it would only be a matter of time before they sought higher taxes to pay for it. "Their majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it's acting like a teenager with a new credit card," he said in a speech in New Albany, Indiana. He added he would not hesitate to use his veto pen again. Democrats defended the labor bill, saying the extra funds were needed for programs like education and research on cancer and other diseases. They said the money was dwarfed by the Iraq war costs and that overall, they are paying for spending increases with belt-tightening elsewhere. VETO OVERRIDE ATTEMPT SEEN "The president again vetoed a bipartisan and fiscally responsible bill that addresses the priorities of the American people," said House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat. "At the same time, President Bush and his congressional allies demand hundreds of billions of dollars for the war in Iraq -- none of it paid for," Pelosi added. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, said Bush was "pretending" to protect the budget deficit while "asking us to spend another $200 billion on the misguided war in Iraq." Democrats note that while Bush has eagerly wielded his veto pen lately, he did not veto any spending bills in the first six years of his tenure when Republicans controlled Congress. Bush is now trying to burnish his fiscal credentials with conservatives in his party, many of whom have viewed him as a big spender and contend he could have done more to require budget discipline. Not all Republicans have welcomed the vetoes. Many joined with Democrats last week to produce the two-thirds majority needed to override his veto of a popular bill to fund water projects. Democrats are expected to try to override Bush's veto of the labor and health bill this week but may have trouble garnering enough Republican votes to push the bill through over his objections. The Pentagon bill will pay for weapons and soldiers' salaries but does not include $196 billion more Bush wants for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Bush hoped some war funds would have been included in the Pentagon's larger funding bill. Instead, House Democrats are expected to vote this week on a $50 billion war down payment. They also want to attach conditions Bush opposes, including timetables for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq. Bush said Congress should not go home for the Christmas holiday without making sure troops have funding. "I understand some of them in Congress didn't agree with my decision, that's fine," he said. "But whatever their position on the war is we should be able to agree that our troops deserve the full support of those of us in Washington D.C." (Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria and Richard Cowan in Washington; Editing by Rick Cowan and Eric Beech) ____________________________________________________________ What a fucking coward, chops any social programs he can to divert money for the war. This egomanic wanted to be a war president even if there was no need for a war. WTF were you Bush voters thinking?

Same reason people rob banks . . . that's where the money is. Dwight D wasn't an idiot ya know. A Constitutional Law casebook is pretty fascinatiing! You can see that presidents, congress, etc., push and push until the court smacks them down. It's just the way things have been and will continue to be. Totally agree, difference is that some presidents push for the good of the people, some push for the good of corporations and some push in skewed directions. A president that pushes for the people is my guy, however I know SOME people who want their pres to defend corps. Oddly enough Dwight appointed Earl Warren, but he cringed when Warren turned Liberal on him. Even if by mistake, Eisenhower was one of the best recent presidents. Appointed Warren, lowered debt, got us out of Korea - the neo-cons need to go back to those days.

Killing innocent people = manly says marks2065 I don't think the majority were for it, as well, those who were are allowed to change their mind as various events play out. If I were an idiot I would pass along that pussification remark to the father of the dead kid. You're brilliant.

I work with a an Air Force 20-year lifer who had both his sons there, talked to him last March and he was nervous about his kids being there, but was a neo-con thru and thru. Then in May his youngest was killed in last May's Memorial Day Massacre. He took months off work and came back a bit different. At first he seemed to despise me for my opinoons of the war, but now he seems to be comming around and as we were all working, someone brought up the subject of the war and I very gracefully asked him what he thought of the war in general. He replied that we have been there too long. I interpret that mean that if this shit had ended a few months earlier his kid would be here. Now on to current events. His other kid wanted to come home and teach troops stateside, his wartime knwoldege would be priceless when teaching new medics about the war and how to cope. But the fucked up military was pissed that he forced their hand by way of the 1-son exception from war, so they said Iraq or out. Fuck the military maggots, now some pos butter bar is gonna try to teach that BS from a book and endanger the lives of the new troops. WHat a piece of shit the military operations are. BTW, the killed kid was on his 2nd or 3rd tour, nit sure about the kid who came home. Anyway, the poor guy (father) at work is a lot more descent to me and I think, although he would never admit it, but he agrees with my philosophy about the war. So if ya stick yer head in the sand and talk to select people you can find only so-called true patriots.

Which is why Americans need to wake up and start electing people that represent their interests, even if it means voting for third party candidates. Of course that means doing a bit of homework, which is why things haven't changed. Goes against our culture of armchair, remote-control convenience. Is this a lead-in to Ron Paul the Republican? Please

>>>>>>everyone seems to forget that we are safer now then at the end of clinton's term Oh are we? How many troops died during Clinton's term? How many civilians? Go re-do the math. >>>>>>>>>>>>all the fighting is in the middle east not here sounds good to me. Right, so if we deliver kids to kill, then we are safe here; so are we safe or just non-military people are safer? I htought we were all a country, nit just the folks unwilling to serve - AKA Republicans >>>>>>>>>i like the way things are, if there is to be fighting over there sounds good to me. Oh, 2 billion $ per week, almost 4k dead troops, I don't like things. >>>>>>>>also if the people over there would do as they said they would there wouldn't be this shit happening. Oh, what should they do, overthrow the government with rocks and bottles? I seriously doubt you have a clue as to the sectarian shit going on, it's not as if they are one people, they are divided by religion and are on the brink of a civl war if not alrwady involved in some. Get it, we put one side to power in government, they use that power to undermine the others. >>>>>>>i like what bush is doing and everyone should be thanking the GI's for thier service to our country. Uh, no and yes, in that order. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Bush has done more with the fewest causalties of any president before him that has had to deal with a war. I seem to remember a little around 1991 where another Bush left with 150 casualties. >>>>>>>>>>>for as long as i have been alive (guessing) 21 years >>>>>>>>>i think a nicely placed nuke would work great but then we would suffer from the radiation Ya, who cares about all the other civilians who would die, fuck, we intentionally bombed and instantly killed 130k mostly women and children in WWII, maybe you're on to something. Maybe you are the true American patriot. >>>>>>>>>>>and the pussy protesters should get a job and become viable members or our country instead of drains on it Wha are ya smokin? Do you think protestors don;t work? Many Republicans disagree with the war. Many of all walks disagree with the war.

The choice now to not impeach is as political as the decsion for your dummies to impeach Clinton. It is a political process, evidence is just for fun.

It's not about evidence, it's about partisan friends. An impeachment is just an indictment, of course there are enough Dems in the House to impeach him. Almost enough votes to remove (67).

Hmmm … according to this, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) [I had to look up the acronym … to me “CRP” stands for the “Critical Reagents Program” ] accounted for ~8% of the farm bill on FY05. It sounds like the CRP is different from what you describe in the first paragraph. The stated goal of the CRP seems to be to facilitate the planting of native vegetation in order to proactively minimize or reverse soil erosion, facilitate nitrate filtration before reaching drinking supplies, and minimize degradation of natural weather breakers. Considering the real costs associated with landslides on the west coast, loss of barrier islands to lessen hurricane impacts in places like New Orleans, soil erosion, the Dust Bowl, this doesn’t sound like a poor investment. But, as we all know, goals do not always resemble the final implementation and execution of programs (government or otherwise). What are the criticisms? Is this program just an easy target? VR/Marg You are correct as that is what the program has turned into today. It is what it is but, that is not how or why the program started out. Intentions are good and in most cases (not all) it works as designed. I can show you land under that program that is was never intended to cover. Again, initially this was a price control type program as well as an environmental one. The program name has changed some over the years Can you dance around and roll with the punches any more? Remember, the issue? Government pork and private pork being completely seperate? Agreed, thy are intertwined.

go figure opss, go firure Funny how a Rush concession turns into a blame for the left.

go figure Really, go figure

Exactly. this type of program was first set up to boost prices of corn and beans. They had another program that went with it to offer loans against "target" prices. If the crop price was below the target price the farmer could take a "loan" out against the crop and seal the bin. When the crop hit or went above the target price the farmer had to sell and repay the loan. Today, the CRP program pays the farmer to idle the land. This land is supposed to be at the lower end of productivity but is not always the case. CRP programs were to take land out of production to boost the price. Today however, this program is pushed more by sports groups and environmentists. go figure. When you say, pushed by, you are tyring to blame these groups. These groups may aplaude it, but it takes, well, an act of Congress to pass it, as well as a presiedential sig. Can't you concede without blaming the left?

I realize this is a foreign concept anymore in the US, but remember the concept of competition? Anymore there are CEO entitlements, of course we blame the poor and middle class for begging for entitlements such as socialized meds, but there are far more corporate entitlements. Guys like Herb Keller and Buffet are considered fools, cut throat guys like Trump are revered as genius and brilliant. That doesn't nearly answer my questions. Corporations exist to make money for the owners by providing a product or a service that people need. By their nature companies have to stay competitive if the owners are going to continue making money. ". Many farms are paid by the government NOT to produce. Taxpayers subsidize many corporations either directly, as in the case of farms, or indirectly. You make a good point. When something completely counter-intuitive or stupid happens like farms being paid not to produce, you can bet your ass the government has intruded on the free market in some way. Surely you don't digress. The gov intrudes constantly, making the best system of gov in the world, trash. Capitalism becomes fascism when the gov intrudes to the level they have here.

I realize this is a foreign concept anymore in the US, but remember the concept of competition? Anymore there are CEO entitlements, of course we blame the poor and middle class for begging for entitlements such as socialized meds, but there are far more corporate entitlements. Guys like Herb Keller and Buffet are considered fools, cut throat guys like Trump are revered as genius and brilliant. That doesn't nearly answer my questions. Corporations exist to make money for the owners by providing a product or a service that people need. By their nature companies have to stay competitive if the owners are going to continue making money. There's a huge difference between a private entity (corporation) having "pork" and "entitlements" and a public entity (government) having "pork" and "entitlements". You asked: Why would they sacrifice their bonuses when they can just pass the cost of increased taxes on to the consumer? Next question: why should they? Why would they/ should they sacrifice their bonuses, which is essentially the same question. Right, this is America, the land of the so-called free market, shouldn't the CEO's get their bonuses even in light of of corporate or American disasters? You and Rush advocate CEO's getting paid before anyone else, even if it bankrupts the company/corp. Astonishing. Does that answer your question the way you want, US corps are garbage and this lovely country defends them, so they won't / shouldn't do the ethical thing; they should continue to exploit. If your party had the guts they would demand ethical behavior from corps or at least intervien into theCEO side the way they do the worker side by threatening to void contracts if workers excercize their rights. But your party is for class seperation and defends the CEO's and corps in general. So thy should be as sleezy as a sleezy country allows them to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>There's a huge difference between a private entity (corporation) having "pork" and "entitlements" and a public entity (government) having "pork" and "entitlements". Not when they work together. Corporations and the government have merged in many ways. A great example of that is the legal sharing of your personal information between them for the greater good of the 2 intertwined entities. The example I gave of the American Airlines CEO taking his bonus after 911, employees were laid off, then your boy granted the ailines millions/billions to keep them afloat. So you say the gov pork and private corp pork are in no way connected huh? How about Boeing with all the gov programs they have and the CEO's fat check and bonuses? See, you really can't disconnect the two, as much as you would like to. But I'm sure the CEO's appreciate the underclass supporting them, they thank you.