ACHTUNG!: Alka-Seltzer recommended

[xs650mike]

Handbasket?

Our parents worried that the country was going to Hell in a handbasket. Now it's going to Hell in a rocket!

This thing about seaports being run by the United Arab Emirates has finally brought it before the public that many, if not most, of our seaports are managed by foreign companies. IMO no foreign company should be allowed to manage a seaport, airport or any other transportation infrastructure. Bush is OK with it. What planet is he from? IMO no one from another planet should be allowed to hold any political office. Think that leaves out just about everyone in our current government.

[MAXIMAN]

Truth is Bush isn't doing anything any other president would not do. I'll bet the bank; Clinton, 41, Reagan, or Carter would be doing the same damn thing. Carter has already said he would approve the sale. That alone is enough to scare me!

Thus my point again is proven. There isn't a plug nickel's worth of difference between the two parties ... EXCEPT...EXCEPT...

One getting us to destruction waaaaaaaay faster than the other. But we are still going the same direction nonetheless.

This is a pipe dream because the a-holes in power will never let it happen short of another revolution or civil war. But my feeling is we need to get back from whence we came.

The founders HATED government. But they realized government was a neccesary evil in order to protect rights. Their idea of governement was NOT the massively obese...grotesque behemoth we now have as governement.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said it :

"That governement is best that governs least..."

Brother...do we have the excact opposite of that today. Like "Mommy" ...government is constantly sticking it's nose in...like "Mommy"...micro-managing the living snot out of every facet of our lives.

BLAHHHHHHHHH!! I can't even discuss this in a civil manner. All I can do try to outrun the monster. But I fear my Eleven isn't fast enough!

[Czekus21]

And. No mater how fast the 11 is. Their's nowhere to go that you can't be found when the government wants ya. Think you can go to a different country???? Think agian. We are working toward a one world society and mebee not in my lifetime but in people that are old enough to be my kid, They'll be the ones to have to deal with it. Who knows,,,, Mabee in my old age I can poke fun at some governmental domgraphical,egotistically challenged P.O.S. and they'll just think I'm senial.

[MAXIMAN]

Keep running Czekus! Maybe we'll beat it.

Geez I'm getting cynical in my old age...

[xs650mike]

Originally posted by MAXIMAN
Truth is Bush isn't doing anything any other president would not do. I'll bet the bank; Clinton, 41, Reagan, or Carter would be doing the same damn thing. Carter has already said he would approve the sale. That alone is enough to scare me!

Thus my point again is proven. There isn't a plug nickel's worth of difference between the two parties ...

This is of course all about money and who's going to make it. And I don't agree that the Republicans are getting us there slower than the Democrats would. Seems about equal to me. It only took the Republicans 12 years to become as corrupt as it took the Democrats 50 years to become. Maybe even more corrupt.

At least this port thing has got people discussing it, this thing was just going to go under the radar as it has in the past. Of course all the politicians who are decrying it are only running for reelection, they really don't give a flying you know what about the country, only about lining their pockets.

[MAXIMAN]

I don't subscribe to the "corrupt" line. There are corrupt politician in all parties and there are good politicians in few...but they are out there.

Maybe what you mean is it only took the Republicans a few years to implement vote buying schemes and government programs to keep them in power. Something the Democrats implemented decades ago.

Right now it's a horse race to see who can give away the most and thus "buy votes".

A true conservative like Reagan would have never signed on to a multi-billion drug subsidy plan like Boosch just did. That is where I am totally disgusted with all of them.

There is a damnable entitlement mentality with the American public in general. Everyone thinks the governement owes them free healthcare...a free education...and now free drugs.

What's next free cars for everybody. You can bet your butt if they thought it would get them re-elected...THEY'D DO IT! And who pays for it? YOU AND I.

Maybe TJ was right after all:

"... God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

-- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787.

[xs650mike]

Originally posted by MAXIMAN
A true conservative like Reagan would have never signed on to a multi-billion drug subsidy plan like Boosch just did. That is where I am totally disgusted with all of them.

Cody, the subsidy is not to Medicare beneficiaries, it is to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. I have a stack of paper on my desk that has grown to a foot high, all purporting to explain the prescription drug benefit or attempting to sell a policy from one insurance company or another. The "prescription drug benefit" legislation was written by insurance and drug company lawyers and sold to congress by their lobbyists. I've been wading through this stack of legalese so I can explain it to my older sister so she can pick a plan. Maybe I'll just ask my congressman to explain it. I'll bet dollars to donuts that he's got no idea what's in it either other than some campaign contributions. All I can see in it is that the taxpayers are going to make drug companies and especially insurance companies even richer than they already are. If our legislators didn't get free medical care for life they would understand what it's like out in the real world.


While we're on the subject of corporate welfare what about the oil companies who've just again posted record profits not paying a dime to Uncle Sam for the oil they extract from U.S. Government owned oil fields. That's our oil buddy, and they are selling it to us. They didn't pay for it. High price of crude? Not that oil. On top of that they take money off their taxes for the "oil depletion allowance". This is a subsidy for the oil that they already sold that they don't have anymore, much of which didn't belong to them in the first place. I wish I could have a boat depletion allowance for the boat I sold. Boo hoo hoo, I don't have a boat to sell anymore. I want money off my taxes! How about the government giving me one of its boats, yeah that's the ticket. Then I sell it and take money off my taxes 'cause I don't have a boat that belonged to the taxpayers to sell anymore. It makes absolutely no sense. These guys aren't "conservatives" or "liberals", they're just crooks. This is what I mean when I say we have the most corrupt government in US history, and believe me we've had some really corrupt governments in the past. We're now being fleeced more than we've ever been fleeced before. What we need is somebody like Teddy Roosevelt to kick some corporate asses as well as some international asses.

BTW, if congress passes legislation nixing the Arab company overseeing US seaports, Bush has threatened to veto it. If he does, it will be the first bill he's ever vetoed since he became president. We've heard these threats before from him but he always signs whatever congress sends him which is basically pork, pork and more pork.

Honest politicians...I'm trying to think of some names but all I can think of is John McCain. Help me out here, can you name some others?

[LoserShoes]

Our two senators from Maine, Snowe and Collins, are pretty straight shooters, and don't take any intimidation from the administration.

Steve

[mro]

John McCain

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2006


WASHINGTON Senator John McCain, a leading 2008 presidential prospect, was kicking off a national campaign in Miami on Thursday promoting an issue that is likely to further alienate him from his party's conservative voters: allowing illegal immigrants to stay legally as "guest workers" who could earn U.S. citizenship.

The Arizona Republican argues that an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws - and forging a path toward legal status for some of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already living in the country - is the best choice on national security, economic and humanitarian grounds. The idea, he maintains, is to bring out of the shadows the millions of undocumented workers who help drive the American economy.

On Tuesday, McCain told reporters during a conference call that his bill, cosponsored with Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, provides the only realistic way to solve the "national security" problem of illegal immigration. Competing proposals that would force out or deport undocumented migrants are not realistic, he said.

"They have to pay a penalty for breaking the law," McCain said, "but saying they have to go back to the country that they came from is something someone is going to have to explain to me how you do that, much less all the humanitarian aspects of it."

Political analysts, however, wonder if McCain should risk making the bill a signature issue so soon before the next presidential election.

"He's got a position on immigration that puts him at loggerheads with the conservative wing of his party," said Bruce Buchanan, a political science professor at the University of Texas. "They've been suspicious of him for years, and his position on this issue only adds to that suspicion."

Conservatives' antipathy toward McCain dates to the 2000 presidential primary campaign, when he assailed Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, two leaders of the religious right.

While McCain stands with conservatives against abortion rights and for the Iraq war, his campaign finance reform plan angered many voters on the right.

In recent years, immigration has ignited passions on the right.

In December, conservative Republican leaders in the House of Representatives fought and defeated President George W. Bush's plans for a guest worker program, adopting even stricter border controls instead.

When Bush reiterated his support for the idea in his State of the Union message, party activists on the right were furious. At a gathering of conservative leaders in Washington this month, several speakers condemned guest worker proposals as "rewarding" illegal behavior; others called for a wall at the Mexico border.

Nevertheless, the business community, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, supports the McCain-Kennedy plan, and a recent public opinion poll by Public Opinion Strategies found some confusion among likely Republican voters.

"There is no consensus position on immigration reform within the Republican electorate," the pollsters concluded.

McCain has made a career of playing the role of political maverick, a lawmaker who supposedly speaks his mind regardless of what opinion polls say. And whether it was calculated or not, Buchanan and other analysts said, McCain's gambit on this issue may pay off if he decides to run for president.

Stephen Hess, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution, said McCain's stance made him look "gutsy" because many of his constituents in Arizona want action to stem the flow of illegal immigrants across the Mexican border. McCain is sending his message to a broader national audience, and on this issue he more closely resembles "George W. Bush than anyone else," Hess said.

Despite their political rivalry, Hess added, Bush and McCain have set aside differences on legislation and Iraq, and both men are border state conservatives with immigration views that put them at odds with much of their party.

WASHINGTON Senator John McCain, a leading 2008 presidential prospect, was kicking off a national campaign in Miami on Thursday promoting an issue that is likely to further alienate him from his party's conservative voters: allowing illegal immigrants to stay legally as "guest workers" who could earn U.S. citizenship.

The Arizona Republican argues that an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws - and forging a path toward legal status for some of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already living in the country - is the best choice on national security, economic and humanitarian grounds. The idea, he maintains, is to bring out of the shadows the millions of undocumented workers who help drive the American economy.

On Tuesday, McCain told reporters during a conference call that his bill, cosponsored with Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, provides the only realistic way to solve the "national security" problem of illegal immigration. Competing proposals that would force out or deport undocumented migrants are not realistic, he said.

"They have to pay a penalty for breaking the law," McCain said, "but saying they have to go back to the country that they came from is something someone is going to have to explain to me how you do that, much less all the humanitarian aspects of it."

Political analysts, however, wonder if McCain should risk making the bill a signature issue so soon before the next presidential election.

"He's got a position on immigration that puts him at loggerheads with the conservative wing of his party," said Bruce Buchanan, a political science professor at the University of Texas. "They've been suspicious of him for years, and his position on this issue only adds to that suspicion."

Conservatives' antipathy toward McCain dates to the 2000 presidential primary campaign, when he assailed Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, two leaders of the religious right.

While McCain stands with conservatives against abortion rights and for the Iraq war, his campaign finance reform plan angered many voters on the right.

In recent years, immigration has ignited passions on the right.

In December, conservative Republican leaders in the House of Representatives fought and defeated President George W. Bush's plans for a guest worker program, adopting even stricter border controls instead.

When Bush reiterated his support for the idea in his State of the Union message, party activists on the right were furious. At a gathering of conservative leaders in Washington this month, several speakers condemned guest worker proposals as "rewarding" illegal behavior; others called for a wall at the Mexico border.

Nevertheless, the business community, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, supports the McCain-Kennedy plan, and a recent public opinion poll by Public Opinion Strategies found some confusion among likely Republican voters.

"There is no consensus position on immigration reform within the Republican electorate," the pollsters concluded.

McCain has made a career of playing the role of political maverick, a lawmaker who supposedly speaks his mind regardless of what opinion polls say. And whether it was calculated or not, Buchanan and other analysts said, McCain's gambit on this issue may pay off if he decides to run for president.

Stephen Hess, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution, said McCain's stance made him look "gutsy" because many of his constituents in Arizona want action to stem the flow of illegal immigrants across the Mexican border. McCain is sending his message to a broader national audience, and on this issue he more closely resembles "George W. Bush than anyone else," Hess said.

Despite their political rivalry, Hess added, Bush and McCain have set aside differences on legislation and Iraq, and both men are border state conservatives with immigration views that put them at odds with much of their party.

WASHINGTON Senator John McCain, a leading 2008 presidential prospect, was kicking off a national campaign in Miami on Thursday promoting an issue that is likely to further alienate him from his party's conservative voters: allowing illegal immigrants to stay legally as "guest workers" who could earn U.S. citizenship.

The Arizona Republican argues that an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws - and forging a path toward legal status for some of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already living in the country - is the best choice on national security, economic and humanitarian grounds. The idea, he maintains, is to bring out of the shadows the millions of undocumented workers who help drive the American economy.

On Tuesday, McCain told reporters during a conference call that his bill, cosponsored with Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, provides the only realistic way to solve the "national security" problem of illegal immigration. Competing proposals that would force out or deport undocumented migrants are not realistic, he said


think many things wrong with above, but w/o a true border U.S.A. is JUST another location on a map.


mro

[xs650mike]

McCain?

McCain ain't gonna run for prez again, he's too old. I voted for him in the primaries when he ran last time. The Bushies sure sabotaged him with that innuendo that he'd been "brainwashed" when he was a POW. They pulled out the same sort of smear (only worse) against Kerry with that jerk who'd been in Kerry's boat crew for a week and a half before Kerry got rid of him. Disgruntled employee syndrome. Whether or not you agree with Kerry's politics, they don't give out Purple Hearts for "scratches" or Bronze and Silver Stars for nothing.

[MAXIMAN]

Mike,

Concerning "oil" put a cork in it. You are CLUELESS. As is the majority of Americans and you are about to let your mouth overload you ass by showing your utter ignorance concerning the commodity of oil and natural and our utter dependecy upon that commodity

Unlike YOU Mike...I have been a independent oil and gas operator for 25 years. I am also certifed professional geologist. I have been down in the mud, blood, and beer of this business for a quarter of a century. So please don't lecture me about the details of domestic oil and gas production, worldwide demand, or any of the energy challenges we face as a nation. I know from experience. I'm out here fighting it every day.

YOU ... on the other hand...obviously get your info from blogs.

Nuff said!

Why do I get the feeling your position is the democrats will sure we all get our FAIR SHARE of energy..."just like mommy does"?

YAWN... I think I'll go take a nap now...

[MAXIMAN]

One more thing Mikey

If...just if...there was corporate welfare as you claim..at least the American people are getting back jobs, infrastructure and cash flow.

Social welfare on the other hand gives us nothing but generation after generation of more welfare recipients.

It's painfully obvious to me now you are one of the "HATE CORPORATIONS FIRST!" guys.

[xs650mike]

Mikey don't like it...

I've had my own businesses in the past so I guess I could be considered a small time capitalist. I don't hate corporations Cody, I just don't like being ripped-off. Do you actually think the oil companies should be given oil for free and a tax break to boot? No one's giving you a tax break. You're covering for them. There is a huge Federal deficit and a war going on. I say it needs to be pay as you go, not passed on to the next few generations with interest.

I agree with you that there has been a "culture" of generational welfare recipients. That particular system needs some more tweaking to "encourage" (coerce) more people to get a job. Strides have been made in this regard. In these parts the welfare reform rules ("workfare") have reduced the welfare rolls considerably. No more permanent welfare. Able bodied welfare recipients must regularly show their social workers documentation that they're actively seeking employment or they get summarily bounced off the dole. Most get minimum wage jobs (Walmart, fast food) which means many still qualify for Food Stamps (in reduced amounts) but at least they establish a work history so they can get better jobs or advance in pay scale where they are. They're also paying taxes, it's about time.

I suppose you favor ending all social welfare programs entirely in which case the government would have to spend even more money for police to arrest all the criminals breaking into your house, more courts, more prisons etc...

[MAXIMAN]

Re: Mikey don't like it...

Originally posted by xs650mike
I don't hate corporations Cody, I just don't like being ripped-off.

Yes be honest Mike YOU HATE corporations because your "MOMMY"...the democratic party has told you to hate them.

Do you actually think the oil companies should be given oil for free and a tax break to boot? No one's giving you a tax break. You're covering for them. There is a huge Federal deficit and a war going on. I say it needs to be pay as you go, not passed on to the next few generations with interest.

Mike...the 70's are over. You can quit smoking pot now and come out off your high. You are making NO sense whatsoever buddy. I still consider you a buddy because we both ride Elevens. If you should decide to make sense...then I will answer you accordingly. But just to blast a broad sweeping statement that "oil companies" get free oil and tax payers are paying for it is not only laughable...but could seriously get you committed to the nearest state hospital. ....................seriously.

I agree with you that there has been a "culture" of generational welfare recipients. That particular system needs some more tweaking to "encourage" (coerce) more people to get a job. Strides have been made in this regard. In these parts the welfare reform rules ("workfare") have reduced the welfare rolls considerably. No more permanent welfare. Able bodied welfare recipients must regularly show their social workers documentation that they're actively seeking employment or they get summarily bounced off the dole. Most get minimum wage jobs (Walmart, fast food) which means many still qualify for Food Stamps (in reduced amounts) but at least they establish a work history so they can get better jobs or advance in pay scale where they are. They're also paying taxes, it's about time.

Here's where we may have common ground. You sound tough on able bodied people not working. I like that. see mee smile. However make no mistake I am not a "hardcore" capitalist. there are people in our society that are for all practical intent and purpose incapable of working. We do not "kick them to the curb"...we are civilized. however like you I am sick of raisingin generation after generation of people on the dole. The system cannot support it any longer without collapse.


I suppose you favor ending all social welfare programs entirely in which case the government would have to spend even more money for police to arrest all the criminals breaking into your house, more courts, more prisons etc...

No no...as I just described above. However I am ready for some REAL welfare reforms.

When FDR created the Public Works people "woked" for their subsidy...if that is what you could call it. I am all for that now for able bodied people. It would give them the incentive to do something better.

NOW that we have disposed of the formalities...please state your grievance with these big bad oil companies and please ...please try to articulate it in a fashion that is cohesive. No broadcast charges of conspiracy or alien invaders.

I think if you see the otherside and the workings of the petroleum industry ...you might...just might alter your view of us slightly......just maybe.

regards

[mro]

don't like it...

Point was ALL named politico's in news article have same position. From wacko Kennedy to Bush.

Seems to me no matter who's "running" the country, we end up w/same results.

Out of curiosity, where do the BIG oil corps get the money to pay the taxes that they do pay


ALL ABOARD,
trains gota keep moving



mro