5 ms·
He is their George Bush. Seriously, in the last decade we have seen more direct, deliberate corruption and out right political douchebaggery than I would have
by phlux 15y ago
He is their George Bush.
Seriously, in the last decade we have seen more direct, deliberate corruption and out right political douchebaggery than I would have thought possible. And in all of these scandals, not a single politician has paid.
Just like I said when Inside Job came out, if there was any doubt that we are living in a oligarchy, let all doubts now be cast aside.
- sigzero 15y agoSorry, it isn't George Bush's fault. He is a nice scape goat. Congress has the purse strings. It's their fault and it is still their fault. They could have stopped him at any time they wanted. No balls on either side.
- antidaily 15y agoOnly if you don't count Bush taking us into the trillion dollar Iraq war without a congressional war declaration. not that i want to debate the merits of congress.
- neolefty 15y agoThe real question is: will Cheney get a new apprentice, or will Bush kill him and get an apprentice of his own? Or was Rove the apprentice? And was Mitt Romney's true parentage concealed, and was he secretly raised in the Utah desert by trustworthy moisture farmers? Always two there are.
- anamax 15y ago> Only if you don't count Bush taking us into the trillion dollar Iraq war without a congressional war declaration. Congress approved, via explicit votes, the Iraq war at multiple points. There has never been a requirement for legislation that says "we declare war".
- jbooth 15y agoSo who was that on TV constantly boosting the idea and bringing it into the State of the Union address, etc? Are you making the case that the Bush admin doesn't 1,000,000% own the Iraq war? Really? (FWIW, they were pushing tax cuts simultaneously). Just cause Congress got bullied into approving these things doesn't mean they weren't Bush initiatives.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- anamax 15y ago> So who was that on TV constantly boosting the idea and bringing it into the State of the Union address, etc? Huh? The claim was that congress didn't approve the Iraq war. It did, several times. The above has nothing to do with that fact. > Are you making the case that the Bush admin doesn't 1,000,000% own the Iraq war? Really? Do you really think that Congress bears no responsibility for the votes that it takes? > Just cause Congress got bullied into approving these things doesn't mean they weren't Bush initiatives. Poor little congresscritters, can't stand up to that mean old moron Bush. Obama hasn't varied from Bush's Iraq timetable at all. Is he also "bullied"? (As candidate Obama pointed out, President Obama could start withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan with 10 minutes after taking office. PO didn't.)
- neilk 15y agoEven if they are both guilty, that doesn't make either party less guilty.
- dreamdu5t 15y agoAgreed. The constant blame focused on the President is naive and unwarranted.
- ajkessler 15y agoWhenever you give more control to outsiders (whether its government control over private industry or guard control over prisoners) there is greater opportunity for corruption. The reason you're seeing more outright corruption is because there's more at stake now. Government now has a finger in every business pie we make. In many industries you can't sneeze without getting approval first. When, with the addition of a provision, Congress can make or break a quarter, or hell, even an industry, there's massive incentive to cheat. And, to be fair, they did string up Duke Cunningham. They've got to make an example out of somebody every decade or so. Lastly, we're not really an oligarchy: we're turning into a Euro-style corporate state, which have seen this kind of corruption and entrenched powers for decades now.
- shareme 15y agoknow what you meant to say was Roman republic..our democracy is implemented as a roman republic