Bush Is A Good President

[blueodum 0]

These illegals are a net benefit to your country - that's why efforts to stem the tide of illegals has been half-hearted.Despite being illegal, they pay more in taxes (property taxes through rent or ownership, sales tax, sometimes payroll taxes etc) than they receive in services.And they work hard for half the money at jobs that American citizens are unwilling to do. If you magically got rid of all illegals, several industries would collapse and the domino-effect it would have on the rest of your economy would be severe.What you need is a very large scale guest worker program that works in conjunction with the governments in Latin America.

[Farnan 0]

These illegals are a net benefit to your country - that's why efforts to stem the tide of illegals has been half-hearted.Despite being illegal, they pay more in taxes (property taxes through rent or ownership, sales tax, sometimes payroll taxes etc) than they receive in services.

I've heard that but haven't seen any support to back up that claim. If you know of any studies anywhere that you can point to, i'd be interested in reading them.

And they work hard for half the money at jobs that American citizens are unwilling to do. If you magically got rid of all illegals, several industries would collapse and the domino-effect it would have on the rest of your economy would be severe.

Eh, i don't buy that argument. It isn't that these jobs are those that american workers aren't willing to do. This isn't just picking fruit. They're taking factory jobs, meat packing plants, etc. There are cities throughout the west and midwest that are almost ALL mexican because of immigration. And it is the Cargills and the other big time companies that use these workers. It isn't that americans won't do the job--it is that the mexicans are willing to do it for that pay rate and live in conditions that are below an acceptable standard of living.I don't think making these people legal or using a guest worker program will work--because then they'll have the power to demand a better wage and then they're in the same boat as those who were displaced in the first place. Then more illegals cross the border to take those jobs and it so goes all over again...

[Steppin Razor 0]

I've heard that but haven't seen any support to back up that claim. If you know of any studies anywhere that you can point to, i'd be interested in reading them.

You don't need a study to know that illegals pay FICA and will never be eligible for social security.http://www.ajc.com/search/content/auto/epa...bde1e600c5.htmlThey buy gas, and thus pay road taxes, and they pay state taxes with every product or service they buy. They are not eligible for social security, MediCare, Welfare, etc.

Eh, i don't buy that argument. It isn't that these jobs are those that american workers aren't willing to do. This isn't just picking fruit. They're taking factory jobs, meat packing plants, etc. There are cities throughout the west and midwest that are almost ALL mexican because of immigration. And it is the Cargills and the other big time companies that use these workers. It isn't that americans won't do the job--it is that the mexicans are willing to do it for that pay rate and live in conditions that are below an acceptable standard of living.

If you want low priced products, and believe in a free market, then companies should be able to higher workers at whatever wage the worker is willing to take.But don't blame that on immigrants. That's the Walmart-ization of America.

I don't think making these people legal or using a guest worker program will work--because then they'll have the power to demand a better wage and then they're in the same boat as those who were displaced in the first place. Then more illegals cross the border to take those jobs and it so goes all over again...

This doesn't make sense. If you make a workable guest worker program, or legalize workers, then there won't be illegal immigrants. They don't immigrate illegally just to break the law. Make it legal and you don't have the problem anymore.In fact, if the American workers (assuming there are people willing to do the same job) would embrace the illegal workers, then they can organize and bargain to bring up everyone's wages.

[blueodum 0]

Farnan,Your reply is filled with misconceptions and bad logic. It almost sounds like you hate Mexicans per se. You seem to view their willingness to work for less, so that Americans can pursue other careers, as a negative rather than a positive. These people are at the absolute bottom of the totem pole: uneducated, foreign and lacking any legal status to boot. They are no threat to any jobs the vast majority of Americans would like to get.Time and time again, small and medium-sized business owners have complained that they can't find enough "Americans" to fill all the menial jobs they have available, so they use legal immigrants and failing enough of those, illegals. This is not GM and IBM talking, but rather grass roots businesses that would love to hire native-born Americans but can't find enough of them. You think they are making all these stories up?A guest-worker program would make these people legal, and allow them, through their home governments, to bargain for a fairer wage and consequently better living conditions. Once US businesses have the labour they need, then you could impose harsh penalties on both companies that hire illegals and the illegals themselves. Companies would no longer benefit from hiring illegals and so eventually the illegals would stop coming because there would be no jobs available to them. There wouldn't be enough reward for them to outweigh the risks.Don't you see that it is basic economics, namely an acute labour shortage, that is fueling the arrival of these illegals? Don't you see that the business community, as powerful a lobby group as there is, is preventing government and law enforcement from cracking down on illegals? Until the labour shortage is resolved you can spend any number of billions on border security and it will just be throwing money down the drain because you won't stop them.

[Farnan 0]

You don't need a study to know that illegals pay FICA and will never be eligible for social security.I'm well aware illegals pay some taxes, SS, etc.--but my question was really whether the resources they consume is more or less than the taxes they pay. If you want low priced products, and believe in a free market, then companies should be able to higher workers at whatever wage the worker is willing to take.But don't blame that on immigrants. That's the Walmart-ization of America.I certainly don't blame immigrants. They're doing that they need to do to get by. I have a problem with the employers who are taking advantage of cheap labor that wouldn't otherwise be available to them if laws weren't being broken. It is a point of "inefficiency" in our markets. This doesn't make sense. If you make a workable guest worker program, or legalize workers, then there won't be illegal immigrants. They don't immigrate illegally just to break the law. Make it legal and you don't have the problem anymore.In fact, if the American workers (assuming there are people willing to do the same job) would embrace the illegal workers, then they can organize and bargain to bring up everyone's wages.Illegal workers take jobs that pay too low for an american to take them. It isn't that an american worker doesn't want to pick fruit or wash dishes. It is that an american worker doesn't want to pick fruit or wash dishes for 4 bucks an hour. When you legitimize these workers, they'll be able to demand a higher wage. When they demand a higher wage, those jobs will, again, go unfilled because those employers aren't going to want to pay those wages. That is when more illegals will come in (and don't saythere won't be any more illegals because the guest worker program would NOT be unlimited). Further, if they organize/unionize--that will also push up wages and benefits--creating another problem for employers who need cheap labor.__________________________Your reply is filled with misconceptions and bad logic. It almost sounds like you hate Mexicans per se. You seem to view their willingness to work for less, so that Americans can pursue other careers, as a negative rather than a positive.Wow. Can we talk about this without accusing someone of being racist?? I'm all for a guest worker program and LEGAL immigration. I don't like the porous border and an ability by our employers to exploit cheap labor that wouldn't be otherwise available to them if the law was followed. It exploits the worker and screws other companies who follow the law.Time and time again, small and medium-sized business owners have complained that they can't find enough "Americans" to fill all the menial jobs they have available, so they use legal immigrants and failing enough of those, illegals. This is not GM and IBM talking, but rather grass roots businesses that would love to hire native-born Americans but can't find enough of them. You think they are making all these stories up?And we're also talking about meat-packing plants and other factory jobs that were the primary source of jobs for our middle class. There are towns in middle america that almost all mexican workers. To those there legally--great. But upwards of 40% of those workers are illegal. But companies such as Cargill are getting away with hiring illegal workers and reaping large profits because of it. It is these mega-companies that are able to exploit this market inefficiency at such a large scale that it HURTS grass roots businesses because they cannot compete. Take a look at wehirealiens.com to look at a rather large database of companies (some EXTREMELY large--hell cargill is one of the largest privately held company in the US with revenues of over 71 BILLION in 2005) alleged to hire illegals. This isn't just mom and pop shops. And you'll notice that there are a wide range of jobs--not just picking fruit and washing dishes.A guest-worker program would make these people legal, and allow them, through their home governments, to bargain for a fairer wage and consequently better living conditions. Once US businesses have the labour they need, then you could impose harsh penalties on both companies that hire illegals and the illegals themselves. Companies would no longer benefit from hiring illegals and so eventually the illegals would stop coming because there would be no jobs available to them. There wouldn't be enough reward for them to outweigh the risks.I don't disagree that we need to have a program like this. But to do this without fixing our broken border will NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. So long as there is a possibility to hire illegal workers at a lower wage, employers will do it. No guest worker program will be unlimited--there'll be millions of people who will want in the program but won't be able to--due to quotas, criminal records, etc. That supply of illegal workers will never go away unless we deal with this problem on ALL fronts--seal the border, drop the hammer on employers (create a better way to verify legal worker status), guest worker program, citizenship status to those who have created a life for themselves here, AND provide aid to Mexico so there isn't an environment that makes them want to move to the US.

[Steppin Razor 0]

I'm well aware illegals pay some taxes, SS, etc.--but my question was really whether the resources they consume is more or less than the taxes they pay.How could they? They pretty much pay every tax that a legal resident does. Unless there's some reason to think that the illegal immigrants who don't have health care are more prone to injury or other serious health problems, or that they have an inordinate number of children in the public school system, it's unlikely they spend more than they contribute. Especially since there are migrant illegals, who work for say 6 months, pay taxes, and then go back. That's free money for American retirees. Free money for schools, etc.Illegal workers take jobs that pay too low for an american to take them. It isn't that an american worker doesn't want to pick fruit or wash dishes. It is that an american worker doesn't want to pick fruit or wash dishes for 4 bucks an hour. When you legitimize these workers, they'll be able to demand a higher wage. When they demand a higher wage, those jobs will, again, go unfilled because those employers aren't going to want to pay those wages. That is when more illegals will come in (and don't saythere won't be any more illegals because the guest worker program would NOT be unlimited). Further, if they organize/unionize--that will also push up wages and benefits--creating another problem for employers who need cheap labor.First of all, legitimizing illegals with the result that they demand a higher wage does not lead to jobs being unfilled. Unless the companies hiring them would rather just not produce than raise prices to cover the cost, it just makes things more expensive.As for whether there will be more illegal workers coming in after some kind of program is worked out, that depends entirely on the program. I will say this: most people would rather abide by the law than break it. Also, it is very expensive for the illegals to come across the border. No one would rather risk their lives as well as substantial cost when there is a legal alternative. Rather than a river, there would only be a trickle of illegals. After all, even if they have to wait or jump through some hoops to get in the program, a lot would rather do that than pay a bunch of money to coyotes (I think that's what they're called?) they can't trust with no guarantee they make it.I saw a program with a guy from Mexico who leaves his family for two years to work in the US and then comes back to his small town in Mexico to support his family on what he was able to save. Then he goes back to the US after he runs out of money. Out of the money he saves working, he's got to cut off the top the money it's gonna cost him to go back. You think he wants to live like that? Give him a legit way to earn some money and he'll take it. Even if it's not easy; all it has to be is easier than what he's doing.I don't like the porous border and an ability by our employers to exploit cheap labor that wouldn't be otherwise available to them if the law was followed. It exploits the worker and screws other companies who follow the law.No argument here that employers exploit cheap labor. There are two key questions - One, do you want expensive labor? Keep in mind inflation is going to blast through the roof if you got rid of the illegal immigrant workforce. Two, what's the most effective way to address the problem. The border is the most expensive and least adequate solution. Enforcing the laws that the companies break is a better solution. Mitigating the circumstances that cause cheap labor is the best.And we're also talking about meat-packing plants and other factory jobs that were the primary source of jobs for our middle class. There are towns in middle america that almost all mexican workers. To those there legally--great. But upwards of 40% of those workers are illegal. But companies such as Cargill are getting away with hiring illegal workers and reaping large profits because of it. It is these mega-companies that are able to exploit this market inefficiency at such a large scale that it HURTS grass roots businesses because they cannot compete. Take a look at wehirealiens.com to look at a rather large database of companies (some EXTREMELY large--hell cargill is one of the largest privately held company in the US with revenues of over 71 BILLION in 2005) alleged to hire illegals. This isn't just mom and pop shops. And you'll notice that there are a wide range of jobs--not just picking fruit and washing dishesProsecute the companies.I don't disagree that we need to have a program like this. But to do this without fixing our broken border will NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. So long as there is a possibility to hire illegal workers at a lower wage, employers will do it. No guest worker program will be unlimited--there'll be millions of people who will want in the program but won't be able to--due to quotas, criminal records, etc. That supply of illegal workers will never go away unless we deal with this problem on ALL frontsThere's too much chaos to get an accurate assessment of how many illegal immigrants cross the border to stay. But, if you have a plan that lets in say, 5 million a year for permanent residency, and 10 million a year for migrant work, you just cut your numbers by 15 million a year. Add to that those willing to wait to get in the program, and really how many do you have left that are excluded by their criminal records? Then the illegals become a drop in the bucket, without enough numbers to effect the market. And, with less supply of illegal work, salaries even for them go up. Now what's the point in hiring them if they aren't much cheaper?guest worker program, citizenship status to those who have created a life for themselves here, AND provide aid to Mexico so there isn't an environment that makes them want to move to the US.I'm with you on that. Trying to seal the border is an impossible and pointless task.

[blueodum 0]

It is a point of "inefficiency" in our markets. Well, no. Economically speaking, the flow of illegals is alleviating a market inefficiency. Namely, the fact that labor can't flow freely throughout the world, so that employers can hire workers with the highest productivity per dollar in wage.I'm not saying this inefficiency is a bad thing, but national borders create inefficient labor markets.You seem to be "laboring" under a misconception. You seem to think that no matter how many guest workers come in, companies will still hire illegals. No! There is a finite number of jobs that are available at any one time. Right now there are not enough Americans and legal immigrants to fill those jobs at the price employers are willing to pay (the business has to be economically viable). If you have a massive number of guest workers, there will be no labor shortage and there will be no "excuse" for companies that hire illegals.The cops, local, state and federal, could round up 90% of these illegals in a week if the government really wanted to. They are not going to do it because they know what the economic consequences would be.

[Farnan 0]

You seem to be "laboring" under a misconception. You seem to think that no matter how many guest workers come in, companies will still hire illegals. No! There is a finite number of jobs that are available at any one time. Right now there are not enough Americans and legal immigrants to fill those jobs at the price employers are willing to pay (the business has to be economically viable). If you have a massive number of guest workers, there will be no labor shortage and there will be no "excuse" for companies that hire illegals.

Actually, i was saying that there is no chance that we'll allow ALL of the guest workers who apply in the country. There WILL be limits to the number of permits. There WILL be employers who don't want to pay minimum wage. THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.A guest worker program is NOT a silver bullet. There are a ton of different parts to this problem--and unless this program, along with border security, amnesty for those in the country for a long time (after sealing the border) and aid for Mexico to improve its conditions (tied to enforcing border security)---we're trying heal a gunshot wound with gauze.

Well, no. Economically speaking, the flow of illegals is alleviating a market inefficiency. Namely, the fact that labor can't flow freely throughout the world, so that employers can hire workers with the highest productivity per dollar in wage.I'm not saying this inefficiency is a bad thing, but national borders create inefficient labor markets.

Actually, a lower supply of workers to work a certain job at a certain pay rate isn't an inefficiency. It just means the market is out of equilibrium--and to bring it back in, wages must be increased. Americans WOULD pick fruit if the pay was acceptable. By allowing illegal immigrants to take jobs, THAT creates an inefficiency by allowing a market to continue to operate out of equilibrium.

[cu in 4years Dan 1]

When did SH tell people to openly attack the western world? Bin Laden? We're talking about Saddam Hussein. Different people, different countries, different wars. I supported the Afghanistan war.SH did? Really? Well if we're going to call telling people to destroy us justification for war---we've got a LOOOOOONG list of countries to attack. So you'd better go sign up for the military--we're going to need the help.Ok, now i'm lost. What in the world are you talking about?Iraq had "big ****ing bombs"? And they were so big and so deadly that we took out that country in, what, 2 weeks? Again, i have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get at here.Ditto. Half of what you said barely had any semblance of a coherent argument. The other half was about Bin Laden. The fact that you are telling ME to think first about what i'm posting is fricken hilarious. On top of that, after all of the nonsensical ramblings, you trumpet the current talking points by accusing me of believing the big bad liberal media too much? Classic. I listen to all forms of media. The good, the bad, the indifferent. And i process that information with my experiences and world view and come up with my own perspective of what is really going on in this world. You can think what you like about where i get my information, etc. but judging by the arguments you offer in your posts, you are in no position to question my sources.Since you offered some advice at the end of your post, i'll offer the same in return:Open your eyes and see the world for what it is. The media isn't 100% right, BUT it isn't 100% wrong either. Don't just find information that reinforces your beliefs--you won't grow or learn. And most importantly, don't be distracted by the shiny ball of aluminum foil the current administration has been tossing around to distract everyone---keep your eye on what is important... RESULTS.

you obviously need help.bin laden SH and a long list of other people have openly said to attack the western world with hate and anger, if anyone says otherwise then they have serious problems, almost as bad as saying hitler was a good man, which many people today still believe i find it sick and twisted that you still think there is no justification to going to war. go home think things over a few times and stop bashing bush.

[paul02085 0]

President Bush is both a good president and a good man. Leftys despise him only because he isnt one of them (note- they love people like Jesse Jackson etc). Lets call a spade a spade.The great thing about Pres. Bush is:1. He isnt a ***** (see liberals for explanation).2. He has guaranteed a conservative direction for our lifetime by nominating good conservative Judges to the Supreme Court.The left wing media makes it sound like Pres Bush is unpopular but the truth is that while his supporters dont whine and make noise like libs they will be at the ballot box in FORCE when the time comes.Anyway GET OVER IT leftys, you are irrelevent.

[mrdannyg 274]

President Bush is both a good president and a good man. Leftys despise him only because he isnt one of them (note- they love people like Jesse Jackson etc). Lets call a spade a spade.The great thing about Pres. Bush is:1. He isnt a ***** (see liberals for explanation).2. He has guaranteed a conservative direction for our lifetime by nominating good conservative Judges to the Supreme Court.The left wing media makes it sound like Pres Bush is unpopular but the truth is that while his supporters dont whine and make noise like libs they will be at the ballot box in FORCE when the time comes.Anyway GET OVER IT leftys, you are irrelevent.

this is why democracy is flawed.bush's approval rating is below 40%. thats democratic voting. that means he is unpopular.you are a dogmatic dope, with no valid opinions, and that is a big statement.

[Farnan 0]

you obviously need help.bin laden SH and a long list of other people have openly said to attack the western world with hate and anger, if anyone says otherwise then they have serious problems, almost as bad as saying hitler was a good man, which many people today still believe i find it sick and twisted that you still think there is no justification to going to war. go home think things over a few times and stop bashing bush.

Do you not understand what i'm saying? There are TONS of people who want to attack the US. Lots of countries/individuals that hate us. The only person proven capable to actually carry out an attack was bin laden--and we went after him (and i supported that). SH on the other hand was a contained tyrant. He couldn't do **** under the policies and watchful eyes we had over his regime. He is NOT a good guy.Where does hitler fit in this? You're all over the place with an unbelievably simplistic world-view. I find it sad and discouraging that people actually think THAT is a coherant argument. Don't go home and think about this---go to school and learn how to think.

[Steppin Razor 0]

The great thing about Pres. Bush is:1. 2.Anyway GET OVER IT leftys, you are irrelevent.

this is why democracy is flawed.

You're right, paul. Intelligence is irrelevant these days.

bin laden SH and a long list of other people have openly said to attack the western world with hate and anger,

Oh, well then that's different. They said? You can totally go to war if people say mean things.It's funny how some 'conservatives' are like goldfish. You guys remember Libya? It's the country that Reagan did not invade and did not start a war against to deal with a terrorist-supporting dictator.

[timwakefield 68]

President Bush is both a good president and a good man. Leftys despise him only because he isnt one of them (note- they love people like Jesse Jackson etc). Lets call a spade a spade.

Did you just call Jesse Jackson a spade??? jk

The great thing about Pres. Bush is:2. He has guaranteed a conservative direction for our lifetime by nominating good conservative Judges to the Supreme Court.

Are you serious? That's the worst argument I've ever heard. HALF the country sees that as an implicitly BAD direction for our lifetime. In no way can his being a conservative be objectively seen as "good."

Anyway GET OVER IT leftys, you are irrelevent.

Eat it.

[Deepkoncntrtion 0]

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppressionby David Martin, author of America's Dreyfus AffairStrong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party. 1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen. 2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "how dare you?" gambit. 3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.") 4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike. 5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down. 6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not). 7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful. 8. Dismiss the charges as "old news." 9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets. 10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable. 11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report the leak. 12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. For example: If Vince Foster was murdered, who did it and why? 13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions. 14. Scantly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting. 15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source. 16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money. 17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.http://www.dabney.com/wacomuseum/library/martin1.html

[Balloon guy 158]

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppressionby David Martin, author of America's Dreyfus AffairStrong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party. 1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen. 2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "how dare you?" gambit. 3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.") 4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike. 5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down. 6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not). 7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful. 8. Dismiss the charges as "old news." 9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets. 10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable. 11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report the leak. 12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. For example: If Vince Foster was murdered, who did it and why? 13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions. 14. Scantly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting. 15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source. 16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money. 17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.http://www.dabney.com/wacomuseum/library/martin1.html

Let me be the first on the far right to admit that we are at times guilty of many of these things.

[gilbertology 0]

Bush is like the president on 24. He acts like a goofy, know-nothing, it's pronounced NEW-KEE-LER weapons kind of guy. But deep down, him, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, are working together to promote their own interests. Is it really that much of a stretch to say the presidential office was somewhat responsible for 9/11. They knew it could be used as a justification for war, in which they would get another trillion dollars from Congress over the next five years to be used on god knows what. The defense deparment does not publish exactly what they use their money on, for obvious reasons. If even $50 billion of the money used for war went to satisfying the Republican's and Bush's own interests, this is an incredible and extremely powerful amount of money that can be used to guide the country's future. Some in their company's pockets, the pockets of big business and the media, all in a longterm scam to fool the American public into thinking our way of life and culture is the only way of life for us. We should fight for our so called "freedom" forever. I won't go into my feeling on how false, sinful, and ridiculous our present culture is, because I could probably write a thesis on it. But in conclusion, I blame the Republicans and Bush a bit more than the Democrats because they are pure evil.

[Balloon guy 158]

So Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld are trying to push their agenda? Who's agenda were they suppose to push? Kennedy's? When you get elected, you get to run things your way......why wouldn't you?Your post is what you would find if you asked David Martin for example of number 6Everyone who hates Bush 'KNOWS' Bush's motive, his personal ambitions, and his desires. Must be nice to have such a good read on him as a human. You must be awesome at the poker table, since you've probably never even been in the same room with Bush but know his innermost feelings.

[gilbertology 0]

Maybe I should have added an IMO to my post, but I thought you could infer that. I'm not saying that I "know" Bush's agenda, because there is no way any one of us could know. Not even his own wife. I just write what I think like Daniel does.

[Farnan 0]

Everyone who hates Bush 'KNOWS' Bush's motive, his personal ambitions, and his desires. Must be nice to have such a good read on him as a human. You must be awesome at the poker table, since you've probably never even been in the same room with Bush but know his innermost feelings.

Well, you can judge someone by their actions. And either he is a fool or is trying to fill the pockets of his buddies.

[Steppin Razor 0]

I think he's clearly a fool. There was an article in GQ a while back about Alan Greenspan that was pretty enlightening. Greenspan, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Paul O'neil were all in the Nixon White House. After Watergate, and then Ford losing to Carter, they devised a plan to get a less than intelligent President who could be manipulated (the goal being scaling back government regulations on businesses). At the 1980 Republican convention, they proposed an idea to Reagan. Select Ford as his running mate and establish basically a Co-Presidency. They were talking late into the night until Reagan's advisors came into the room, heard the proposal and said, 'Are you crazy?'.Well, it looks like they've found their guy. Right off the bat, Cheney grabbed Executive Privilege - a Presidential power, for the Vice President.Anybody who thinks Bush (or Cheney/Rumsfeld) is just trying to fill their friends' pockets are missing the point. Once you get to that level of power, your ambitions are beyond mere personal considerations. People who want to be in power are looking to steer the course of the future.For Cheney, etc. it appears to me their goal is to privatize war. Ever since World War II single handedly pulled the US out of the Depression, war has been recognized as an extremely profitable business. There is a military industrial complex and it makes money off of war. This war is the most contracted out in history. The scary thing is that people don't recognize it.Eventually, the only thing government will have to do with war is supply the manpower. The Corporations will decide where, when, and why.

[gilbertology 0]

A lot of your ideas make sense Razor. But who knows, maybe the corporations are already deciding where, when, and why.

[Balloon guy 158]

All that's happening is the left is twisting around the conspiracy theory of the far right with their tri-lateralist commsion, Rothschild's etc. plan to take over the world, into their own conspiracy theory.The flaw is the thought that greedy power hungry people would set in motion plans that will almost always come into fruition decades, or generations later. Why? If you don't mind manipulating governments you can accomplish money goals in weeks, not decades. Half of congress is bought and sold, both sides. Companies aleady are wealthy beyond comprehension, and money is made by handshakes across poitical aisels everyday. Study currancy trading if you want to see why corruption is so huge that noone will control it.With your lines of thought, they set up Clinton to be their "Idiot" because Bin Laden almost took out the WTC when Bill was in charge. I guess Greenspan snuck into the Ryder truck and deluted the ammonia enough to prevent the explosion from bringing down the WTC, so they could get Bush elected and 'run' the country. First they had to get Ma Barker to ruin the Texas economy, make it easy for Bush to fix it ( Rumsfeld, Cheney, and greenspan weren't on his staff while Gov of Texas) Then get Jeb elected in Florida, convince the Democrat controlled election board of Palm Beach County to okay a confusing ballot, make sure the Supreme court was filled with people that would vote to accept the Florida Supreme Court's decision. Man they were some busy guys. Especially since they did this with people that NEVER became upset or dissatisfied enough to rat them out.Dude, tin foil hats are just two steps away. It's okay to disagree with Bush, not like his policies, and disagrees with his philosophy, without trying to read so much into his actions.Like Freud said: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"

[mrdannyg 274]

Let me be the first on the far right to admit that we are at times guilty of many of these things.

just wanted to say thanks for that article. pretty interesting.

[gilbertology 0]

Half of congress is bought and sold, both sides. Companies aleady are wealthy beyond comprehension, and money is made by handshakes across poitical aisels everyday. Study currancy trading if you want to see why corruption is so huge that noone will control it.

You are basically proving my original point Balloon. Who knows if any of these "conspiracy theories" are true? But we do know there is massive corruption in government, and the majority of this does not help the people. I'm not saying that Bush caused everything that is wrong with this country, but that our CULTURE needs some serious changes/improvements. Bush and his office are only perpetuating this country's moral downward spiral, despite his ties to faith based groups. What we need in this country will most assuredly never happen. We need a leader with the right ideals, the right personality to get people to understand what is wrong with the U.S. culture today and how to fix it. If enough people unite together and demand change, maybe some changes will come about. But that is all wishful thinking. I would much rather live a simple life as a Buddhist monk in Nepal than raise my kids in this country. If you are born into a certain way of life, that is what your mind absorbs and most never stop to think, is this really the right way to live? This post is not saying go find religion, or a purpose in life. I simply believe people would be happier, the common man would be happier, if our culture changed. Maybe I'll discuss some of the specific changes that I'd think would make sense later, but I'm tired of writing right now, lol.