Could We Please Stop Calling Obama, Reid, and Pelosi Liberals?

[Meister]

The appearance of conflict of interest means nothing. Like I said above.

True, but an honest person will avoid them.

Bush/Cheney did not... therefore, what does that say about their honesty?

Immie

The problem is there is only a couple of companies in the world that do this stuff. Haliburton is in 112 countries, and are by far the best equipped. It's not like a car dealership, where there's one on every corner.

 

[Immanuel]

Why wasn't it an issue with no bid contracts to Haliburton under the Clinton Administration? Cheney did not benefit with Haliburton under Bush's administration. This has been a non issue except with the left flinging crap at Bush.

Asked and answered in another thread, but I don't remember which one.

1) I didn't know about them under Clinton. I wasn't "into" politics then and didn't care. However, it is not so much the no bid contract that is my problem it is #2 to this reply.

2) Cheney having been the CEO of Halliburton prior to being VP leaves the impression that this was a kickback, whether or not it was. An honest person, will recuse himself from a decision such as this when there is a conflict of interest. In this case both Pres. Bush and VP Cheney should have made sure that this was publicly approved by Congress.

It is simply the appearance of a conflict of interest that bothered me here.

I am an accountant for a private company. I have check signing privilege. I will not sign a check made payable to me, so that I have backup as to the legitimacy of any payment made to me. FOR MY OWN PROTECTION!. Integrity requires such things.

As for slinging crap at the Bush Admin, I am not a leftie and I said this back on other boards the day it happened.

Immie

PS Meister: I think it was you that asked the question in the other thread. It was a very good question and I answered it before, but if it wasn't you that asked please forgive me for sounding like I thought it was you.

Immie, my appologies to you if you thought I was directing the crap slinging to you. That wasn't my intention. I was making that statement to what was going on several years ago with the dem beating the war drum on it.
It probably was me that had made prior statements. I just keep bringing up the same statements when the same topic on Haliburton is brought up.

No apology needed but thank you for offering.

Like I said, it was a good question the first time.

I am 99% certain that even if there had been bids put out, Halliburtion would have legitimately won the bidding simply because of their abilities. I am just one of those people who expect people to avoid these kinds of things.

From the day this scandal began, that is what bothered me and that in and of itself did not "turn" me away for my support of President Bush, it was only the beginning.

Immie

 

[Newby]

The appearance of conflict of interest means nothing. Like I said above.

True, but an honest person will avoid them.

Bush/Cheney did not... therefore, what does that say about their honesty?

Immie

I completely disagree with you on that one. It doesn't say anything about anyone's honesty. Everything was done with full disclosure, and they are the only company in the world capable of doing some of the work that the contracts were for, and several administrations have used them from both political parties.

Why don't you look into ACORN and what they're getting from the stimulus bill as a means of payback if you want to worry about current conflicts of interest.

 

[MaggieMae]

Anyone who wants government ownership of auto makers is pretty damn liberal.

It could be argued that the strong armed tactics used on the banks and the bankruptcy court regarding Chrysler are fascist, but then liberalism is fascist.

Using taxes, even sin taxes, to transfer wealth from a 'disdained group' to a favored group is liberal. (Rich to poor; smokers to SCHIP; pop to health care...)

Demonizing groups of people, (over $200k), to effect change of wealth distribution is liberal.

How upset were you that Big Oil got subsidized by taxpayers even though they showed record profits year after year?

I'm against every subsidy I've ever heard of. To gauge my relative level of righteous indignation I'd have to know why they gave them the money.

For R&D to develop alternative energy supplies. Like they ever did that...

 

[Immanuel]

The appearance of conflict of interest means nothing. Like I said above.

True, but an honest person will avoid them.

Bush/Cheney did not... therefore, what does that say about their honesty?

Immie

I completely disagree with you on that one. It doesn't say anything about anyone's honesty. Everything was done with full disclosure, and they are the only company in the world capable of doing some of the work that the contracts were for, and several administrations have used them from both political parties.

Why don't you look into ACORN and what they're getting from the stimulus bill as a means of payback if you want to worry about current conflicts of interest.

ACORN and my opinion of what they are getting from the stimulus package was discussed above. I think you should go back and read the entire thread. It is not like I am not sometimes guilty of reading a thread from last post up though, so I understand.

Also, we discussed Halliburton receiving the contract even if there were bids placed from other companies and being the only company in the world capable of doing the job. Check that out as well.

As for everything being done with full disclosure... there you and I will have to agree to disagree, however, I respect your right to disagree with me.

Immie

 

[C-101]

Look. I'm a liberal. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are left-leaning centrists.

Then you must be a full-blown communist.

 

[MaggieMae]

Anyone who wants government ownership of auto makers is pretty damn liberal.

It could be argued that the strong armed tactics used on the banks and the bankruptcy court regarding Chrysler are fascist, but then liberalism is fascist.

Using taxes, even sin taxes, to transfer wealth from a 'disdained group' to a favored group is liberal. (Rich to poor; smokers to SCHIP; pop to health care...)

Demonizing groups of people, (over $200k), to effect change of wealth distribution is liberal.

How upset were you that Big Oil got subsidized by taxpayers even though they showed record profits year after year?

Got a link to that? If true, I'd have to read it. Funny thing, I'm not against government helping fund alternative energy sources or less expensive turning sea water into drinking water. Are you against those ideas?

Of course I'm not against anything like that. But where's the evidence they actually did it? And why subsidize companies that can well afford to do R&D with their OWN money? Why shouldn't small energy businesses who desperately need seed money get the subsidies?
The oil subsidies have since been rolled back, although I'm not sure if it's been formalized as part of the new energy bill.


Despite the Democrats, Big Oil Subsidies Continue at Oil Change

 

[MaggieMae]

Dave, remember the shooting range? Its windy. You have to adjust. If Obama is as far left as you can get, then what is Chomsky and Nader? What is the American Socialist party? The Green Party? They're even more liberal than the three I named.

By voting record.. Obama was the most liberal in congress.. and that says something.. his reference to socialist texts and concepts has been continual...

He is DAMN far left.. maybe not a 'pure' socialist... but loves the concepts and ideals and is a direct neighbor of the socialists

I'm not sure how this lie keeps being told. Obama is no where near as liberal as Kucinich. They're not even playing in the same ball park. Kucinich - single payer, Obama - lame ass corporate welfare for insurance companies.

See the difference? One is a real liberal, the other is still in bed with the multinational corporations that own the world.

The U.S. is hardly in a financial position to go it alone these days.

 

[MaggieMae]

left-leaning centrists...

HA HA HA HA HA HA

You must be kidding.

They are not 'centrist' at all, they are the heart of the left.

Would you have considered Bill Clinton a centrist? If so, then Obama is also one, since many of his policy decisions and triangulation strategies mirror Clinton's.

 

[MaggieMae]

you're funny. believe it or not i am one of the most liberal people here in that I believe personal liberties and freedoms are of the utmost importance.

What Is Classical*Liberalism?



that any democrat can call themselves liberal is laughable

who you call liberals are not liberals. In the classical sense, liberals favor personal freedom and economic freedom above all else. you are in favor of a government that restricts freedoms, via legislation and confiscatory taxes all in the name of "fairness". that is NOT liberalism.

And I bash people like you who are constantly calling for bigger more expensive government. That has nothing to do with liberalism.



I don't hate anyone. that is for you lefties to do. My position on smaller government and lower taxes has always been consistent. But you on the other hand are OK with spend happy, tax happy Democrats while you disapprove of spend happy, tax happy republicans. that is hypocrisy plain and simple. And for the umpteenth time, I did not vote for Bush either time he ran. i am not and have never been a member of the Republican party.



I don't remember ever saying those things to you. But you fail to realize that you can't be pro-jobs and anti-business.



says you.



Think what you want about the GOP. I am not a member. I think we need a new third party movement which is why I have not voted for a republican or a democrat if there is another option.



I don't watch beck, nor do I watch any other talking head stuffed shirt on the boob tube. Maybe you should start reading and forming your own opinions instead.

You do realize that the GOP will never admit Ron Paul is right?

Once again, I don't give a flying fuck what the repudlican party does or does not do.

i will say that Ron Paul should leave the repudlicans. IMO he'd be a good candidate to spearhead a new party. Judd Gregg would be another good choice but we both know it ain't gonna happen.

Off topic, but you know, when you bunch up a whole bunch of quotes from different people, then give your response to each, it gets so convoluted and messy, I for one don't even bother reading it.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh oh, here it comes. In a week, they will be calling them right wing nuts. Just watch!

Look, Bush was a flaming liberal, at least on spending and as for social policies, well, he sure wasn't my kind of conservative. We had every right to toss him your way... but, you ain't gonna pawn those three off on us! No way... no how!!!!

Immie

It's just so damned laughable that not a single soul on this board will admit to ever supporting George W. Bush. George who? Sorry, folks, but the odds say that most of the "conservatives" who post here most certainly DID support him at one time. But it's not a happy place to be, so you pretend you were off somewhere else during his 8 years.

I did support him and I have admitted it a thousand times. Where the hell have you been the last eight years?
I voted for him twice. The second time only because I did not like John Kerry because he was an elitist.

I began disliking George Bush's policy the moment he announced the no bid contract to Halliburton and things only went down hill from there.

Dispite all that, I have admitted so often and I still do that I voted for George Bush and no, it is not a happy place to be.

But, it is all the Democrats fault! If they had run a decent human being instead of an asshole in 2004, I would not have to admit to voting for Bush the second time around.

Immie

Then I guess I claim ignorance by not having read everything you write. You must admit, though, that you are a rarity. Most folks distance themselves so far from Bush that they refuse to admit voting for him. And I just find that hard to believe.

As for Kerry, he wasn't my first choice either. But at the time of Bush's reelection, the Iraq war was becoming such a quagmire, Bush was determined to keep the same guys on his payroll that were making it worse. Since Kerry was the competition, it was a no-brainer for me.

Truth be told, I was a "Deaniac" from Day One. Dean went on to become the mastermind of getting Democrats elected in almost all 50 states, and the slight majority win in 06 on the national level. It's a shame that his entire campaign went down in flames over one "shriek" because he proved to be an invaluable asset to the party, and, except for the war, Howard Dean was truly a "centrist" having been governor of Vermont for 16 years with a Republican legislature and a Republican lieutenant governor.

He should have been Obama's pick for Health & Human Services. I don't know why Obama passed him over for consideration.

 

[Skull Pilot]

who you call liberals are not liberals. In the classical sense, liberals favor personal freedom and economic freedom above all else. you are in favor of a government that restricts freedoms, via legislation and confiscatory taxes all in the name of "fairness". that is NOT liberalism.

And I bash people like you who are constantly calling for bigger more expensive government. That has nothing to do with liberalism.



I don't hate anyone. that is for you lefties to do. My position on smaller government and lower taxes has always been consistent. But you on the other hand are OK with spend happy, tax happy Democrats while you disapprove of spend happy, tax happy republicans. that is hypocrisy plain and simple. And for the umpteenth time, I did not vote for Bush either time he ran. i am not and have never been a member of the Republican party.



I don't remember ever saying those things to you. But you fail to realize that you can't be pro-jobs and anti-business.



says you.



Think what you want about the GOP. I am not a member. I think we need a new third party movement which is why I have not voted for a republican or a democrat if there is another option.



I don't watch beck, nor do I watch any other talking head stuffed shirt on the boob tube. Maybe you should start reading and forming your own opinions instead.



Once again, I don't give a flying fuck what the repudlican party does or does not do.

i will say that Ron Paul should leave the repudlicans. IMO he'd be a good candidate to spearhead a new party. Judd Gregg would be another good choice but we both know it ain't gonna happen.

Off topic, but you know, when you bunch up a whole bunch of quotes from different people, then give your response to each, it gets so convoluted and messy, I for one don't even bother reading it.

excuse me if you can't follow along.

 

[MaggieMae]

Look. I'm a liberal. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are left-leaning centrists. If someone has voted the way Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have, they aren't liberals; they're centrists.

Think of politics as a spectrum. Chomsky is a liberal, Nader is a liberal, the Green Party is liberal, but Democrats are not liberals. Democrats are centrists. Some Democrats voted for the Patriot Act for God's sakes! That isn't liberal. That's as right-wing as you can get from a liberal point of view. Anybody who doesn't immediately act to stop waterboarding isn't liberal. Anybody who supports clean coal isn't liberal. Anybody who maintains a military presence in Afghanistan isn't liberal. Anybody who bails out Wallstreet and the big national banks isn't liberal. If the spectrum goes from blue to red, then liberals are ultra-violet; anyone in the blue is just a liberalistic centrist with some right-wing tendencies.

I know that those of you who see politics from the right-side of the spectrum perceive centrists as liberals, but remember: you have to adjust for bias. Its called Kentucky windage.

If you think the named people are centrist in any way shape or form, you don't understand where you fall in the political spectrum. Believe me, I majored in Poli Sci and I had a 3.9 GPA in those subject. If there's one thing I kinda have down at this point, it's the identification of political ideology.

The only way that you can say they are centrist is if you take every possible ideology in the world into account. In the context of US politics, they are practically falling off the scale to the left. If they are, in turn, to the right of you, you have the ideology of Che Guverra.

But I wonder if the leftist label for Obama hasn't occurred since he took office and needed to infuse all that spending due to the economic situation? It seems to me that he has made plenty of overtures to the GOP to offer up some remedies, but they have turned on him in unity. Obama's foreign policies are proving that he has learned to be careful what you wish for, and that it's far more difficult a task (especially regarding the Middle East/Southeast Asian regions) than he was expecting. He thus changes course as events unfold. To me, that's not being a rigid leftist, but a centrist.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why is it Bush's fault that no one else put a bid in against Halliburton? Should he have formed a company that can do what Halliburton does so that there would be two?

It is not that no one else put a bid in. He didn't take bids. That is the problem.

Now, truthfully, people claim that Halliburton is the only corporation that could have done the job. If that is the case, then fine, put the contract out for bid and then choose Halliburton. They did not put the contract out for bid and there was a connection between the VP and Halliburton giving the entire thing the appearance of being a kickback. There was a conflict of interests involved and even if every 'I' was dotted and every 'T' crossed the whole thing just plain smelled.

It just plain smelled. But as I said, things definitely got worse from there.

Immie

Initially, Halliburton was touted as being the only company with the expertise to fix, maintain and secure the oil pipelines in Iraq. That much I understood. But when Halliburton began getting ALL the contracts in Iraq (through it's myriad subsidiaries) to do everything from pipeline repair to laundry services, that was highly suspect. They were even chosen, on a no-bid basis, to construct a second prison at Gitmo (Delta 2). You can't tell me there weren't other building contractors fully capable of putting up a concrete building with metal bars.

 

[MaggieMae]

Liberal is in the eye of the beholder.

18th century liberalism and 21st century liberalism are hardly the same thing.

Likewise, conservatism of this century and conservatism of precious ages aren't remotely the same.

These words have become mostly meaningless labels designed, now, mostly to divide us into oppossing camps.

The dems throw us an occasional liberal bone, like they'll put a pro choice woman on the Supreme Court and give kids healthcare, but still healthcare, oilmen and bankers run washington.

And there ya go, people. True liberals are up in arms over some of Obama's decisions. The most recent (yesterday) of deciding not to allow the additional photographs of torture to go public. But he may not have that luxury, since it's not his decision to make. It's up to the courts.

 

[Immanuel]

It's just so damned laughable that not a single soul on this board will admit to ever supporting George W. Bush. George who? Sorry, folks, but the odds say that most of the "conservatives" who post here most certainly DID support him at one time. But it's not a happy place to be, so you pretend you were off somewhere else during his 8 years.

I did support him and I have admitted it a thousand times. Where the hell have you been the last eight years?
I voted for him twice. The second time only because I did not like John Kerry because he was an elitist.

I began disliking George Bush's policy the moment he announced the no bid contract to Halliburton and things only went down hill from there.

Dispite all that, I have admitted so often and I still do that I voted for George Bush and no, it is not a happy place to be.

But, it is all the Democrats fault! If they had run a decent human being instead of an asshole in 2004, I would not have to admit to voting for Bush the second time around.

Immie

Then I guess I claim ignorance by not having read everything you write. You must admit, though, that you are a rarity. Most folks distance themselves so far from Bush that they refuse to admit voting for him. And I just find that hard to believe.

As for Kerry, he wasn't my first choice either. But at the time of Bush's reelection, the Iraq war was becoming such a quagmire, Bush was determined to keep the same guys on his payroll that were making it worse. Since Kerry was the competition, it was a no-brainer for me.

Truth be told, I was a "Deaniac" from Day One. Dean went on to become the mastermind of getting Democrats elected in almost all 50 states, and the slight majority win in 06 on the national level. It's a shame that his entire campaign went down in flames over one "shriek" because he proved to be an invaluable asset to the party, and, except for the war, Howard Dean was truly a "centrist" having been governor of Vermont for 16 years with a Republican legislature and a Republican lieutenant governor.

He should have been Obama's pick for Health & Human Services. I don't know why Obama passed him over for consideration.

A rarity? Thank you, nicer words have never been written about me. When it comes to being considered a rarity or a Limbaugh dittohead, I will take anything close to being a rarity... even an antigue!

As for Kerry, I just didn't like him. That cheesy smile and the air of "I'm better than you all" just really turned me off. I realize that should not have been used against him when I vote, but, I despise arrogance and in my opinion, he reeked of it. Then there was his position on the UN...

As for Dean, when the campaign started he seemed like a good choice, but, the shriek surely did do him in. As for the rest of his politics, I must admit I don't recall much about his stance on things.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

Immanuel- do you see a conflict of interest between Obama giving $2 billion to Acorn and Obama spending government money to pay for windmills made by the same people who run the news networks, which all supported him?

He didn't give $2 billion to Acorn. That's another urban myth. Get your nose out of those right-wing viral blogsites and you might learn the truth. The money is set aside in the Stimulus Bill for the redevelopment of abandoned and forclosed homes in the form of Community Development Block Grants, which Acorn has the chance to bid for just like any other interested contractor.

 

[Immanuel]

Liberal is in the eye of the beholder.

18th century liberalism and 21st century liberalism are hardly the same thing.

Likewise, conservatism of this century and conservatism of precious ages aren't remotely the same.

These words have become mostly meaningless labels designed, now, mostly to divide us into oppossing camps.

The dems throw us an occasional liberal bone, like they'll put a pro choice woman on the Supreme Court and give kids healthcare, but still healthcare, oilmen and bankers run washington.

Conservatives were promised the same kind of sh... er crap only in reverse with Bush.

Don't seek sympathy here.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

What I think is confusing our discussions of right - left, liberal - conservative is that we've have a recent spat of "leaders" that do not fall neatly into the boxes that we've been told - by the popular media - to place them.

Let's look at G.W. Bush. We're told over and over that he's a conservative and what he did was in the name of conservatism. He spent like a drunken sailor with a bonus. Is that a conservative value? NO. He invented new social welfare programs and enthusiastically supported more. Is that a conservative value? NO. He greatly expanded government by creating the Department of Homeland Security. Is that a conservative value? NO. He did not support protection of the nation's southern border. Is that a conservative value? NO. He greatly expanded the control features of the central government and eschewed the New Federalism concepts set forth by Reagan. Is that a conservative value? NO. He made profligate use of the military. If those on the left think this is a conservative value, you are misinformed. The conservative value is that the military should be very strong and lightly used. In that way, we may best pursue our national goals abroad. Thus, Bush's over use of the military was not a conservative value.

Do you really think Bush himself instigated all of that? Of course not. With the "Republicans-Forever" mindset of people like Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay and Karl Rove, and others, they did whatever they wanted because of their huge mandate and convinced Bush there was no harm being done. You forget that George W. Bush was kept in a bubble, never allowed to read or discuss dissenting information, so he happily thought his administration was doing an excellent job.

Despite all of this, we're forced to call him a conservative.

I think a far more useful paradigm is to look at whether politician support expanded control by the state into the lives of its citizens or not. Whether it comes from the left or the right is of little moment. Once control over your life has been wrested from you, it's gone. This is what we should guard against.

In that view, both Bush and Obama are statists. They wish the government would have greater control over the individual rather than lesser control. Granted they don't have the same ideological bent, but the result is you have less control. IMO, that's not a good thing.

I don't think EITHER has (had) a personal goal of controlling individuals. I think they both did (and are doing) what they a think necessary for the hard times, at the time.

My greatest fault of George W. Bush is that he proved to be too weak to recognize what was going on all around him. The jury is still out on Obama.

 

[MaggieMae]

They did take bids. When they went to renew the contract they didn't bother as it was completely pointless. When the government actually does something logical we should all freak out, we should encourage them.

No, the did not. They did it as a "No Bid Contract" which means they gave the contract to Halliburton without offering any other corporation the chance to put a bid in.

Immie

I don't deny that they got some no-bid contracts. Regardless, what is the point of the government taking bids for contracts? To get a good price. Have they? Absolutely. If I were in charge at Halliburton I'd fire the crap out of the guy who set it up. A .5-1% profit is not acceptable to me. If they were charging $20,000 for toilet seats I'd be pissed. $16 for a hot meal on the other side of the world in the middle of a war zone is a bargain. Hell, I pay that much down the street. The whole Halliburton flap is really a non-issue. Sure it has the appearance of scandal which warrants investigation, but there isn't one there, so you move on.

There were several investigations of Halliburton's over-charging and outright fraud, but they went nowhere because Republicans ruled.