or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Am I My Brother's Keeper? McCain, Peabody Western Coal Company & the Dineh-Navajo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Am I My Brother's Keeper? McCain, Peabody Western Coal Company & the Dineh-Navajo

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
As Senator of Arizona, John McCain forced the relocation of Dineh-Navajo in Arizona to get their land for coal mining.

This action (crime I'd say) was condemned by the UN Human Rights Commission.

Quote:
The Black Mesa region in Arizona, USA is home to the indigenous communities of the Dineh (Navajo) and Hopi peoples. This region also contains major deposits of coal which are being extracted by North America's largest strip mining operation. The coal mines have had a major impact on families in the region. Local water sources have been poisoned, resulting in the death of livestock. Homes near the mines suffer from blasting damage. The coal dust is pervasive, as well as smoke from frequent fires in the stockpiles. Not coincidentally, the people in the area have an unusually high incidence of kidney and respiratory disease.

The Dineh (otherwise known as Navajo) were stripped of all land title and forced to relocate. Their land was turned over to the coal companies without making any provisions to protect the burial or sacred sites that would be destroyed by the mines. People whose lives were based in their deep spiritual and life-giving relationship with the land were relocated into cities, often without compensation, forbidden to return to the land that their families had occupied for generations. People became homeless with significant increases in alcoholism, suicide, family break up, emotional abuse and death.
...

"The forcible relocation of over 10,000 Navajo people is a tragedy of genocide and injustice that will be a blot on the conscience of this country for many generations."

-- Leon Berger, Executive Director, Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Commission upon resignation.

"I feel that in relocating these elderly people, we are as bad as the Nazis that ran the concentration camps in World War II."

-- Roger Lewis, federally appointed Relocation Commissioner upon resignation

"I believe that the forced relocation of Navajo and Hopi people that followed from the passage in 1974 of Public Law 93-531 is a major violation of these people's human rights. Indeed this forced relocation of over 12,000 Native Americans is one of the worst cases of involuntary community resettlement that I have studied throughout the world over the past 40 years."

-- Thayer Scudder, Professor of Anthropology, California Institute of Technology in a letter to Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance

I wanted to present this UN report first because this is a very detailed, concise and revealing look into the actions made and the effects it had on these people. Now then, I will submit a more sensational web site concerning the treatment of the Dineh-Navajo from McCain. Let it be obvious that the site is badly designed, misses a few links and hard to read, but view the evidence and read about the Dineh-Navajo people and why not only does this involve John McCain & Peabody, but Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Senators Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller and Attorney General Janet Reno to name a few. So this evil is "bi-partisan".

Quote:
GENOCIDE committed against a gentle people: the Di'neh (Arizona Navaho)...against a beautiful Indian Holy Land: The Black Mesa... the Navaho's "Jerusalem" or "Mecca". Horrifying brutality orchestrated by a cruel, indifferent Senator: John McCain, and business interests from Massachusetts.

Illicitly secured Mining interests on the way to building the Peabody Group (the world's largest coal company), committing RAPE of the LAND for dirty COAL energy: dirty campaigns financed through street names in Nevada; improper Energy Bills meant to deprive the Navaho of their land for it's coal; dirty bills signed into law casually by Bill Clinton, Carter and Ford... McCain, supported by Senators Kennedy and Kerry from Massachusetts, and Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia coal mining country, profits through massive business gained by McCain's Wife and her Alcoholic Beverage Distribution business along with vast street name campaign contributions from the very Nevada casinos who stand to gain the most from the Coal stolen from the Indians: money that fuels McCain's campaign chest the excess of which he can pocket after every Campaign ends.

Horrific BIA thuggery, abuses by the very organization supposedly given to protect them: stolen trust money, casual government and corporate indifference. Thousands of native elders died, many were forced to relocate to Nuclear Spill sites, where double the national average birth defect rate is found among newborns... Who's behind these horrifying events? Press blackouts issued by Rockefeller/Kenney interests at Peabody since 1987 have prevented the American Public from learning of the enormous international hue and cry for justice regarding the deprivation of Human and Civil Rights being committed by McCain, his fellow Senators Kerry and Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Peabody Western, against the Di'neh Navaho in Arizona.

This has to come to light. I for one will make sure that everyone who feels John McCain is their "friend" they better learn about this horrible human rights violation.

Need more?

Video: Vanishing Prayer: Genocide of the Dineh

Quote:
Native American Grandmothers at BIg Mountain resist relocation

The ACSA challenges Senator McCain on his legislative history of Human Rights Violations: "a Skeleton in his closet: UNFIT to hold public office!"

Quote:
(Public Law 93-531 as amended in 1996 (Partition), 1999 (Settlement), 2001 (Enforcement of Resettlement) and 2005 (Expansion of Resettlement) by bills introduced by Senator McCain - has led to the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Hon Abdeltalif Amor's condemnation of human rights violations inside the US, over the stripping of rights and forced resettlement of these gentle and deeply spiritual band of Dineh-Navajo Indians from Arizona, swept off of lands they'd owned since 1500 A.D. so that Peabody Western Coal could mine the Coal from beneath their farmlands and tap their wells to slurry pipe it to a power station in Nevada).

ACSA study reveals that after assembling a team of "pro-Peabody Western Coal" Indians and obtaining a false "Hopi-Navajo" Tribal Counsel designation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for these paid Tribal representatives, in the period 1974-1996, Senator McCain was able to get large bands of the Dineh-Navajo relocated off their lands, so that Peabody Western could mine the coal under their farms at nominal expense. Common Cause has suggested McCain was indirectly compensated by street name cash contributions to his Federal Election Fund during three Presidential runs, and through family business with Las Vegas Casinos who benefited from the coal driven power he supplied.

Quote:
The ACSA is the world's largest computer science foundation with some 9.5 million registered members, and 15,000 sponsoring companies.
post #2 of 29
Unrestrained capitalism and civilized human conduct do not coexist well, by default (and definition). The former almost always wins in a battle (especially when the public are not aware of such disputes, as is often the case), perhaps because of humanity's built in flawed nature? There is so much of this kind of crap going on, not just here either. But I don't need to tell you that...

As an afterthought, if I was a major stockholder in the mining company, I would probably be equally guilty in similar complicity, if I was making a ton of cash from it. I would like to think that I would come down on the compassionate side;would that be a case of denial on my part, and I would reject it because my own comfort zone is invaded because of it? Scary thoughts indeed.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #3 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Unrestrained capitalism and civilized human conduct do not coexist well, by default (and definition). The former almost always wins in a battle (especially when the public are not aware of such disputes, as is often the case), perhaps because of humanity's built in flawed nature? There is so much of this kind of crap going on, not just here either. But I don't need to tell you that...

As an afterthought, if I was a major stockholder in the mining company, I would probably be equally guilty in similar complicity, if I was making a ton of cash from it. I would like to think that I would come down on the compassionate side;would that be a case of denial on my part, and I would reject it because my own comfort zone is invaded because of it? Scary thoughts indeed.

Well, it's just "Indians" right? They're hardly worth fighting for anymore, much less apologize to.

But seriously, I respect your comments and I am certain that if you knew of the information regarding this criminal activity you would have chosen differently. But you know how hard it is to find the truth, much less inform people of it.

Anyone voting for McCain is voting for someone that has no regard for human life. Let the blood be on their hands.
post #4 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Unrestrained capitalism

Do you care to explain how the forcible and coercive actions of the government and government officials acting in their official governmental roles is the same thing as "unrestrained capitalism"?

Sure it was a business entity that used the government to take (or get away with) these actions (including the trespass onto people's private property and persons). But that's not true free-market capitalism. This example is much closer to fascism than free-market capitalism.

Capitalism is merely a word that is used to describe what occurs when private property and freedom are protected rather than stolen or trespassed by force and people are free to enter into voluntary exchange of private property rights.
post #5 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Do you care to explain how the forcible and coercive actions of the government and government officials acting in their official governmental roles is the same thing as "unrestrained capitalism"?

Sure it was a business entity that used the government to take (or get away with) these actions (including the trespass onto people's private property and persons). But that's not true free-market capitalism. This example is much closer to fascism than free-market capitalism.

Capitalism is merely a word that is used to describe what occurs when private property and freedom are protected rather than stolen or trespassed by force and people are free to enter into voluntary exchange of private property rights.

Banana Republic?
post #6 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Banana Republic?

Quote:
In modern usage the term has come to be used to describe a generally unstable or "backward" dictatorial regime, especially one where elections are often fraudulent and corruption is rife. By extension, the word is occasionally applied to governments where a strong leader hands out appointments and advantages to friends and supporters, without much consideration for the law. A banana republic can also be used to describe a country where a large part of its economy and politics are controlled by foreign powers or even corporations.

Sounds about right.

The question is how close the U.S. has come to this description.
post #7 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Do you care to explain how the forcible and coercive actions of the government and government officials acting in their official governmental roles is the same thing as "unrestrained capitalism"?

Sure it was a business entity that used the government to take (or get away with) these actions (including the trespass onto people's private property and persons). But that's not true free-market capitalism. This example is much closer to fascism than free-market capitalism. Capitalism is merely a word that is used to describe what occurs when private property and freedom are protected rather than stolen or trespassed by force and people are free to enter into voluntary exchange of private property rights.

What you're describing sounds like "crony capitalism", where government or official entities "featherbed" businesses, most especially the largest and most influential/powerful corporations. These kinds of practises within the world or "privilege-and-power" capitalism are more the rule, than the exception, and the larger and more influential the corporation, the more likely that wrongful or criminal activity happens; the largest international corporations are unpoliceable, accountable to nobody... and that combined with human nature... 'nuff said. And.. re. fascism... we all know Mussolini's definition of that (the merging of state and corporate power)...its been quoted enough on this board in the past.

Does genuine "Freemarket Capitalism" exists in the real world? I doubt. Our local farmers' market is about the closest thing I've seen to genuine free enterprise.... and even that is compromised to an extent, (favors from the city to certain individual stallholders, and others).
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #8 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Sounds about right.

The question is how close the U.S. has come to this description.

Chiquita's Banana Republic

Quote:
In this era of technological leaps and increasing globalization, Chiquita (NYSE: CQB) has helped keep the notion of "banana republics" alive.

On Monday, Chiquita admitted in federal court that between 1997 and 2004, it paid off Colombian terrorist groups in order to protect the operations of its former Colombian subsidiary, Banadex, sold for $43.5 million in June 2004. As part of a plea deal, the company must pay a $25 million fine, subject to sentencing June 1.

Prosecutors contend that Chiquita paid $1.7 million during this period to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, known as AUC, and designated by the U.S. as a terrorist group in September 2001. Other paramilitary groups the company paid allegedly include the National Liberation Army and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Chiquita claims it needed to make the payments to ensure its employees' safety. Between 2001 and 2004, Banadex was the company's most profitable unit.

Yesterday, Moody's (NYSE: MCO) reaffirmed the company's credit ratings, pronouncing the firm's outlook stable despite the plea deal. That's not surprising, since Chiquita recorded a reserve for the full amount of the fine in 2006 in anticipation of an agreement.

While the fine will not affect the company's ability to do business, one hopes that it will change the way Chiquita operates. To its credit, in 2003 the company voluntarily informed the U.S. Department of Justice of its payments. However, the plea deal does not identify the senior executives who approved the payments, nor whether they remain employed with the company. In fact, Colombia announced that it may seek those executives' extradition.

This is recent news. But believe me, Chiquita's nefarious schemes have gone on for decades. it seems though they always come out squeaky clean.

The Cincinnati Enquirer developed an investigative report on them but it seems that the Chiquita Banana lawyer's were one step ahead of them...

Yes, They Have No Bananas

Quote:
The Enquirer's "abject surrender," as The New York Times calls it, is staggering. Based on assertions from Chiquita that reporter Mike Gallagher had illegally obtained internal Chiquita voice mails, the paper has renounced the entire series. It published front-page, above-the-fold apologies to Chiquita June 28, June 30 and July 1. It fired Gallagher and placed the complete blame for the fiasco on him. And it agreed to pay Chiquita in excess of $10 million to settle potential legal claims against the paper and its parent company, Gannett Co.

What's just as staggering are the crucial unanswered questions. How can The Enquirer
renounce the entire series of articles, many of which were based on first-hand reporting at Costa Rican and Honduran banana plantations and had nothing to do with the stolen voice mails?

Are those stories not true anymore? What does the $10 million figure represent? Are there other components to the settlement such as Gannett stock and the transfer of Gannett's part ownership in the Cincinnati Reds to Chiquita Chief Executive Officer Carl Lindner? And how can Gallagher's superiors, including Editor Larry Beaupre and Publisher Harry Whipple, escape responsibility for the actions of an employee who was doing his job?

...

In other words, never mind. Never mind a year's worth of reporting about Chiquita's allegedly unsavory business practices in Central America. Never mind about allegedly unsafe working conditions on Chiquita banana plantations. Never mind that the Colombian government has launched an investigation into Chiquita employees' alleged bribes of customs agents in that country. And never mind that Catholic Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, who visited Chiquita farms in Honduras, called the company "an evil institution for exploiting the poor."

All of the above allegations were contained in The Enquirer's May 3 special section or
additional stories published over the following two weeks. None, except for the long stories on Chiquita's overall business practices, relied on internal voice mails for their facts. Yet all have been renounced by Enquirer management.

"Workers sprayed in the fields," a May 3 story with a dateline of Cocobola Farm, northeastern Costa Rica, contained this passage: "As two Enquirer reporters witnessed, on recently sprayed farms the air is heavy with a stifling chemical stench. Breathing is difficult and the pesticide residue covers everything."

Are we now to believe this scene never happened and that Chiquita doesn't spray pesticides on its farm workers?

Another May 3 story, "Villagers fear brutal guards," carrying a dateline of San Alejo
Plantation, Honduras, featured an interview with a young man who'd been shot by plantation security guards working for a Chiquita subsidiary company: "Lisandro Juarez, 15, showed the Enquirer the huge scars where the bullet entered and exited his back, passing just an inch from his spine."

How can this exchange be renounced by Enquirer management? Should we tell Juarez that his scar doesn't really exist now?

Besides removing the series from the paper's Web site, www.enquirer.com, The Enquirer has also removed any trace of it from its Web archives. A casual look through various search engines such as Yahoo! and Excite turned up numerous references to the paper's Web version of the Chiquita series, but every time a link to the series' individual articles was clicked on, only The Enquirer's official apology appeared.

It goes on and on and on...untold history of corporate & political greed, human degradation and exploitation. Chiquita, Coca-Cola or even MacDonald's...the list goes on.
post #9 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

What you're describing sounds like "crony capitalism", where government or official entities "featherbed" businesses, most especially the largest and most influential/powerful corporations.

Or "corporatism". But, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Does genuine "Freemarket Capitalism" exists in the real world? I doubt.

Hong Kong is probably the closest modern day example. Other places (like the U.S. to a much lesser degree...and lesser every year).

My real point was that much of what people blame on "free-market capitalism" is really, when you look closer (and you don't really even need to look all that hard, just honestly) is something else. Perhaps "corporatism" or "fascism" or "socialism" (or some hybrid of these) are the correct label. It is usually the result of giving government too much power which is then used and abused at the request of special interests (corporate and otherwise).
post #10 of 29
Unrestricted capitalism destroys everything in its path not strong enough to fight it off. It drove the murder of Native Americans, the enslavement of Africans and the near enslavement of Chinese. The list goes on.

Those on the right are very good at dismissing evils because they are the result of "capitalism". Capitalism is almost as sacred as "the troops". Interestingly, the illegal immigration issue so dear to the right is a direct effect of "capitalism"
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #11 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Stanley View Post

Unrestricted capitalism destroys everything in its path not strong enough to fight it off. It drove the murder of Native Americans, the enslavement of Africans and the near enslavement of Chinese. The list goes on.

Those on the right are very good at dismissing evils because they are the result of "capitalism". Capitalism is almost as sacred as "the troops". Interestingly, the illegal immigration issue so dear to the right is a direct effect of "capitalism"

Don't slide this to the right. Greed is an equal opportunity enabler. Listed with McCain there were; Ford, Carter, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Clinton, Reno and McCain.

It is depressing in a way that these so-called fighters for the people are just as sick and twisted as the ones they're trying to stop. A whirlwind clusterf*ck mess.
post #12 of 29
Agreed Artman. I should not single out the right on this. They just tend to be the most vocal advocates
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #13 of 29
Anti-McCain thread, part deux.

....awaiting next installment.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #14 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Anti-McCain thread, part deux.

....awaiting next installment.

Good to see that you looked in here anyway. How about the Keating Five?

Quote:
The Keating Five (or Keating Five Scandal) refers to a Congressional scandal related to the collapse of most of the Savings and Loan institutions in the United States in the late 1980s.

Let the spin begin...

McCain survived the political scandal by, in part, becoming friendly with the political press;[100] with his blunt manner, he became a frequent guest on television news shows, especially once the 1991 Gulf War began and his military and POW experience became in demand.[100] McCain began campaigning against lobbyist money in politics from then on. His 1992 re-election campaign found his opposition split between Democratic community and civil rights activist Claire Sargent and impeached and removed former Governor Evan Mecham running as an independent.[100] Although Mecham garnered some hard-core conservative support, Sargent's campaign never gathered momentum and the Keating Five affair did not dominate discussion.[100][101] McCain again won handily,[100] getting 56 percent of the vote to Sargent's 32 percent and Mecham's 11 percent.

Honestly, this "Maverick" has some Reagan Teflon®, don't he?
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Hong Kong is probably the closest modern day example.

And what do you know... we have socialist medicine here. We have social security. We have free employment retraining.
post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Good to see that you looked in here anyway. How about the Keating Five?



Honestly, this "Maverick" has some Reagan Teflon®, don't he?

I'm sorry...was the man proven to have done something illegal? I noticed how you left out this part:

Quote:
On his Keating Five experience, McCain said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."

OMG! He's a corrupt piece of shit!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #17 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm sorry...was the man proven to have done something illegal? I noticed how you left out this part:

Quote:
On his Keating Five experience, McCain said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."

OMG! He's a corrupt piece of shit!

He admits it was unethical (wrong). Again, you ignore the fact that what he did was wrong. Though his collusion in this scandal was minimal, tell that to the voters who voted for him, the victims of this scandal and the American people who even consider this person as a presidential candidate.

There is no dispute that he has serious ethical and humanitarian problems. He gives no shit to the Native Americans in the state he represents, nor has he with the POWs, so why should he give a shit about us?
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

He admits it was unethical (wrong). Again, you ignore the fact that what he did was wrong. Though his collusion in this scandal was minimal, tell that to the voters who voted for him, the victims of this scandal and the American people who even consider this person as a presidential candidate.

I see. So the guy did something that he later said was wrong because it created the appearance of impropriety. By all means, let's indict him for all eternity. Seems to me he made and admitted a mistake. I'm sure his opposition is perfect by comparison.

Quote:

There is no dispute that he has serious ethical and humanitarian problems. He gives no shit to the Native Americans in the state he represents, nor has he with the POWs, so why should he give a shit about us?

I challenge your statement's veracity. "Serious ethical and humanitarian problems?" These are the words of an anti-McCain zealot. I doubt almost anyone outside of your ilk would agree, whether or not he/she plans on voting for him. This is a losing battle tactic for Dems. Trying to assassinate McCain's character is going to backfire and backfire huge. In fact, it will hand the election to him. The Dems will come off as inexperienced, angry little children, angry for revenge at the SBVT for what happened in 2004. Going after McCain on humanitarian grounds will be the same. His character, his war record and his support of "humanitarian" causes are no-nos for Dems. Instead, they need to try and paint him as Washington Establishment, tied-at-the-hop with George Bush, too pro-war, antiquated, etc.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I challenge your statement's veracity. "Serious ethical and humanitarian problems?" These are the words of an anti-McCain zealot.

This?

And this is not exclusive to McCain. It included many other political figures and even Supreme Court judges from all party persuasions. You can't discount the evidence or the UN report on this crime. The only exception is that the one involved the most is currently running for President. Honestly, they all should be rounded up and tried for human rights violations in my opinion.

Quote:
I doubt almost anyone outside of your ilk would agree, whether or not he/she plans on voting for him. This is a losing battle tactic for Dems. Trying to assassinate McCain's character is going to backfire and backfire huge. In fact, it will hand the election to him. The Dems will come off as inexperienced, angry little children, angry for revenge at the SBVT for what happened in 2004. Going after McCain on humanitarian grounds will be the same. His character, his war record and his support of "humanitarian" causes are no-nos for Dems. Instead, they need to try and paint him as Washington Establishment, tied-at-the-hop with George Bush, too pro-war, antiquated, etc.

The Democrats should debate him on his record, on his policies and on his willingness to refute the claims that will eventually surface. His own Republican opponents have used unethical character assassination on him too (and they succeeded!). So expect a very intense debate on either side and the slime of all of them to come to the surface. Excluding one. You know who that is.
post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Stanley View Post

Unrestricted capitalism destroys everything in its path not strong enough to fight it off.

I'm afraid that the facts and evidence of (both current and past) history don't comport with your opinion.

Now, if you had said:

Quote:
Unrestricted socialism/communism/marxism (and any of its variants) destroys everything in its path not strong enough to fight it off.

Then you would be right.

Look at China, India, the (now former) communist block countries, Africa (which is mostly socialist) or south and central America where the same ideas are well established.

The trouble with socialism/communism/marxism is that it is more like a slow cancer that imperceptibly (at first) begins its destructive work which means that many so-called intellectuals are enamored of it because they look at (what appear to be) short-term benefits but either do not see or simply ignore the long-term consequences.

I could go on and on about how "unrestricted capitalism" has elevated the standard of living higher and faster and for more people than any other system of social organization know to many. Instead, I'll simply leave you with this recent essay.
post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I'm afraid that the facts and evidence of (both current and past) history don't comport with your opinion.

Now, if you had said:



Then you would be right.

Look at China, India, the (now former) communist block countries, Africa (which is mostly socialist) or south and central America where the same ideas are well established.

The trouble with socialism/communism/marxism is that it is more like a slow cancer that imperceptibly (at first) begins its destructive work which means that many so-called intellectuals are enamored of it because they look at (what appear to be) short-term benefits but either do not see or simply ignore the long-term consequences.

I could go on and on about how "unrestricted capitalism" has elevated the standard of living higher and faster and for more people than any other system of social organization know to many. Instead, I'll simply leave you with this recent essay.

That's so ignorant I don't know where to begin. things like slavery were the direct result of unrestricted capitalism. So was getting an entire population hooked on opium. So was the wiping out of aboriginal populations for land. The Mayans were wiped out by the Spanish because of... capitalism. The Ameerican natives were nearly wiped out because of capitalism. Australian aborigines... capitalism. Apartheid... capitalism. Even the Roman empire and all those they killed in their path was the result of capitalism.

Now... as I've said before, capitalism is by no means a bad thing. It's a great thing. But not unrestricted it isn't. Unrestricted capitalism results in militarism, colonialism and at its highest point, economic anarchy.

Socialism is also not a bad thing. But complete socialism (Marxism and Maoism) is.

What we all need is a balance. And looking at standard of living indexes, it's obvious which nations' examples should be followed.
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I'm afraid that the facts and evidence of (both current and past) history don't comport with your opinion.

Now, if you had said:



Then you would be right.

Look at China, India, the (now former) communist block countries, Africa (which is mostly socialist) or south and central America where the same ideas are well established.

The trouble with socialism/communism/marxism is that it is more like a slow cancer that imperceptibly (at first) begins its destructive work which means that many so-called intellectuals are enamored of it because they look at (what appear to be) short-term benefits but either do not see or simply ignore the long-term consequences.

I could go on and on about how "unrestricted capitalism" has elevated the standard of living higher and faster and for more people than any other system of social organization know to many. Instead, I'll simply leave you with this recent essay.



My criticism of unrestricted capitalism should not be interpreted as a nod for socialism or communism. Capitalism is a great thing, but it will devour everything in is path if unbridled. I stand by my comments.
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Stanley View Post

My criticism of unrestricted capitalism should not be interpreted as a nod for socialism or communism. Capitalism is a great thing, but it will devour everything in is path if unbridled. I stand by my comments.

I don't know whose quote this is, but it sounds on the money, so to speak.

"If we allow ourselves the privilege of capitalism, then we must pay the penalty of socialism in the form of a safety net, in order to maintain a civil society".
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

This?

And this is not exclusive to McCain. It included many other political figures and even Supreme Court judges from all party persuasions. You can't discount the evidence or the UN report on this crime. The only exception is that the one involved the most is currently running for President. Honestly, they all should be rounded up and tried for human rights violations in my opinion.



The Democrats should debate him on his record, on his policies and on his willingness to refute the claims that will eventually surface. His own Republican opponents have used unethical character assassination on him too (and they succeeded!). So expect a very intense debate on either side and the slime of all of them to come to the surface. Excluding one. You know who that is.

Obama cannot debate McCain on his record. Obama needs to avoid talk of records and experience, especially when the issue is national security. Mccain will make Obama look like a 12 year old boy on these matters. He'll come off as the wise grandfather figure who has both experience war and those that wage it. Obama will come off as the cute kid with big ideas and bigger ears.

No, Obama needs to continue to do what he has been doing: Talking about Change and The 21st Century. The only way he can use McCain's record is to paint him as part of the Washington Establishment.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obama cannot debate McCain on his record. Obama needs to avoid talk of records and experience, especially when the issue is national security. Mccain will make Obama look like a 12 year old boy on these matters. He'll come off as the wise grandfather figure who has both experience war and those that wage it. Obama will come off as the cute kid with big ideas and bigger ears.

No, Obama needs to continue to do what he has been doing: Talking about Change and The 21st Century. The only way he can use McCain's record is to paint him as part of the Washington Establishment.

Would be all fine and dandy except to most voters this time around, security is not even on the list of top 5 issues. Military is, but Obama can certainly attack McCain on Military. American voters are against the Iraq war and they are against pre-emptive action on Iran.
post #26 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obama cannot debate McCain on his record. Obama needs to avoid talk of records and experience, especially when the issue is national security. Mccain will make Obama look like a 12 year old boy on these matters. He'll come off as the wise grandfather figure who has both experience war and those that wage it. Obama will come off as the cute kid with big ideas and bigger ears.

Clever. You have every right to ridicule Obama all you like. I will refrain from ridiculing McCain as much as I would with Bush for this reply.

Quote:
No, Obama needs to continue to do what he has been doing: Talking about Change™ and The 21st Century™. The only way he can use McCain's record is to paint him as part of the Washington Establishment.

You mean with records and experience, Obama respects McCain's experience so I think he'll challenge the record. I believe Obama can handle the pressure and he has shown that he can abstain of even using ridicule against his opponent. But I think he knows that McCain speaks from the hip and it's only one step away from a "Bomb, Bomb Iran™" or a "100, 1000, 1 Million Years™".*

The quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq wars (and edging toward another) are not helping our security one bit. It's bleeding our soldiers, civilians, ourselves and our coffers dry.

* Sorry, couldn't help myself.
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Would be all fine and dandy except to most voters this time around, security is not even on the list of top 5 issues. Military is, but Obama can certainly attack McCain on Military. American voters are against the Iraq war and they are against pre-emptive action on Iran.

It depends on how the question is asked and how the responses are measured. For example, take this USA Today Gallup Poll:

Quote:

"Now I am going to read a list of some of the issues that will probably be discussed in this years presidential election campaign. As I read each one, please tell me how important the candidates' positions on that issue will be in influencing your vote for president: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important. How about [see below]?"
.

Extremely/
Very Important\t\t
%\t\t
.

The economy\t 89\t\t
.

The situation in Iraq\t 87\t\t
.

Education\t 81\t\t
.

Corruption in government\t 79\t\t
.

Health care\t 79\t\t
.

Energy, including gas prices\t 79\t\t
.

Terrorism\t 77


So, it's down the list, but 77% of people refer to "terrorism" as extremely or very important. Iraq is number two, with 87% saying it's extremely or very important.

Now, look at this CBS Poll on "the most important issues" facing the country.

Quote:

Economy/Jobs 38\t\t
War in Iraq 21\t\t
Health care 6\t\t
Immigration 4\t\t
Terrorism 3\t


The question is whether the above holds true if the issue becomes just "national security" if the numbers change, and I suspect they will. It's still a very important issue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Clever. You have every right to ridicule Obama all you like. I will refrain from ridiculing McCain as much as I would with Bush for this reply.

I'm not ridiculing him. I disagree with him and don't feel he should be President. [/quote]



You mean with records and experience, Obama respects McCain's experience so I think he'll challenge the record. I believe Obama can handle the pressure and he has shown that he can abstain of even using ridicule against his opponent. But I think he knows that McCain speaks from the hip and it's only one step away from a "Bomb, Bomb Iran" or a "100, 1000, 1 Million Years". [/quote]

Well, we'll see if McCain goes off. He doesn't speak from the hip as much as Michele Obama, apparently!

Quote:

The quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq wars (and edging toward another) are not helping our security one bit. It's bleeding our soldiers, civilians, ourselves and our coffers dry.

* Sorry, couldn't help myself.

I disagree they are quagmires and I disagree we are not safer for having removed both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban from power.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #28 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm not ridiculing him.

Quote:
Mccain will make Obama look like a 12 year old boy on these matters. He'll come off as the wise grandfather figure who has both experience war and those that wage it. Obama will come off as the cute kid with big ideas and bigger ears.

I am quibbling though, from now on McCain = "Crazy Grampa" to me.

Quote:
I disagree with him and don't feel he should be President.

Should or could? I know my answer already...

Quote:
Well, we'll see if McCain goes off. He doesn't speak from the hip as much as Michele Obama, apparently!

What, you mean the bullshit stirring on her "I'm proud of my country" statement? You've been watching O'Reilly again haven't you.

Quote:
I disagree they are quagmires and I disagree we are not safer for having removed both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban from power.

In order to have failed in doing so, we've made a mess of both operations. We are throwing millions of dollars a day into them and getting nothing back. Occupying either country will not prevent terrorism or become successful. And we'll lose our country (economically) as well.

Oh and we'll not know whether The Surge™ has worked or will continue to work until this guy lifts his cease fire.
post #29 of 29
Boy, I was really unsure the first 7 posts, but the eighth convinced me!
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Am I My Brother's Keeper? McCain, Peabody Western Coal Company & the Dineh-Navajo