Two Words that will Make Dems Shiver with Fear for 2008 Elections

[Genghis Pwn]

1. Condoleezza

2. Rice

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20030528/i/1054159263.3020374063.jpg

:D

[Malachi151]

Yeah right, Condi, oil tanker Rice, would quickly see just how many Republicans would vote for a black female.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Yeah right, Condi, oil tanker Rice, would quickly see just how many Republicans would vote for a black female.
Wow! One unsupported assertion and two assumptions in one sentence! We may just have our first nomination for the logic thread originating from the Politics and Current Events forum.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Malachi151
...would quickly see just how many Republicans would vote for a black female.

Oh yes we will. Yes we will. :D

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by no one in particular

Wow! One unsupported assertion and two assumptions in one sentence! We may just have our first nomination for the logic thread originating from the Politics and Current Events forum.

You don't even know what I'm talking about do you?

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Malachi151
You don't even know what I'm talking about do you? I think it was quite clear. I am asserting that you do not know what you are talking about, as evidenced by your assumption that a black woman is unelectable. Please, evidence sir.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by no one in particular
I think it was quite clear. I am asserting that you do not know what you are talking about, as evidenced by your assumption that a black woman is unelectable. Please, evidence sir.

Ah, well obviously its impossible to prove that true of false. I beleive its true that Republicans won't vote for a black woman in large enough numbers and that she is too conservative for Democrats, though I'm sure she can just lie and appeal to them.

I thought perhaps you were referring to the oil tanker comments, which is in relation to the fact that Chevron named and oil tanker after her because of her lobbying for multi-national oil interests.

She's a pawn for big business.

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01june/june01names.html

[Ed]

If you are suggesting that Republicans are uniformly racist and sexist I wuld love to see some proof. I thinkk that she would be a good candidte, personally.

BTW, any politition that does not have "close ties" to some buiness or other is probably missing a prime requirement for running the country.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Ah, well obviously its impossible to prove that true of false. Yay, you are backing off your assertions. You are admitting that you are wrong. That is very big of you.

I beleive its true that Republicans won't vote for a black woman in large enough numbers... No, wait…now I am confused. So, based on no evidence whatsoever (as shown by your lack of demonstrating that you have evidence) you hold to your believe. That is fine, politics is not science. Opinions abound.


I thought perhaps you were referring to the oil tanker comments, which is in relation to the fact that Chevron named and oil tanker after her because of her lobbying for multi-national oil interests.Really, it was because of her efforts as a lobbyist? I assume you will demonstrate that assertion later.


She's a pawn for big business.I assume your link will demonstrate this.

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01june/june01names.html Okay, from your link.

Before she became National Security Advisor, [Rice] was on the board of directors of Chevron Corporation. Chevron –– before she left –– named an oil tanker after her. The horror! They named an oil tanker for someone that is, at the time of the naming, on the board of directors! You know even the Braves play baseball in Turner Field. Big deal! Nothing about her being a lobbyist though, strange…

There’s an oil tanker named the Condoleeza Rice. Well, if there is, it certainly is not named for Condoleezza Rice. By the way, thanks for saying the same thing twice.a spokesperson for Chevron said…“If you remember, Carla Hills was on our board, and went off the board to take a role in the administration, and we did not rename the tanker.” Well, apparently Chevron regularly names tankers after existing board members. I wonder, is Carla Hills a pawn as well? Are all ex-board members who move to government positions pawns? What makes said person a pawn?

You haven’t proven or demonstrated the point behind your assertion or your two assumptions. Try harder.

edited to fix a double negative, oops

[aggle_rithm]

The first black President will likely be a Republican because Democrats won't dare vote against such a candidate. The first woman will likely be a Republican for the same reason. It makes sense, then, that the first black woman to be President will be a Republican.

I don't think it's time yet, though.

[Crossbow]

The Democrats are still trying to recover from the absence of Clinton, so I doubt that the Republicans really have to worry about from them.

[Genghis Pwn]

Malachi151 basically proves my point that Dems get very nervous, confused and flustered when they consider having to run against Ms Rice in 2008. ;) :D

[no one in particular]

Malichi, to be in good form I wanted to inform you that while I used this thread to attack the validity of your statement, I used the BillHoyt’s May Logic Prize (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869935706#post1869935706) thread to attack the illogic of your statement. I did not know if you were aware of the thread and I wanted you to have the opportunity to defend your statement against my argument.

[Crossbow]

Actually, now that I think of it, I really doubt that Rice could win the presidental election. While she is an articulate, intelligent, and well accomplished person, she has never held an single elective office.

I have found that most people do want their canidate's first office to the presidency. Eisenhower is the only example I can think of for the past 100 years who won a presidential election without any prior electoral experience.

[Genghis Pwn]

The Eisenhower example will do just fine.

Look, we don't know enough about her yet to be sure she could -- or should -- be president. But Republicans are hopeful about her.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by no one in particular
Malichi, to be in good form I wanted to inform you that while I used this thread to attack the validity of your statement, I used the BillHoyt’s May Logic Prize (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869935706#post1869935706) thread to attack the illogic of your statement. I did not know if you were aware of the thread and I wanted you to have the opportunity to defend your statement against my argument.

Why are you bothering trying to use "logic" to disprve an opinion? That makes no sense. In my opinion there woun't be enough Republicans voting for a black women. There is no logic there to access, its pure opinion. There is no way to address the claim that Democrats "fear" Condi Rice in 2008; its not a logical issue, your claim that Dems fear Condi is just as much an opinion as my claim that they have nothing to fear.

Look me up in 2008 when Condi Rice is in the primaries :rolleyes:

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Malachi151
...your claim that Dems fear Condi is just as much an opinion as my claim that they have nothing to fear.Ahem, my claim?

Edited to say: Warning, Malachi, I am setting you up.

[Dancing David]

Actually the two words for the Dems to fear are

Joe Lieberman!

[shemp]

Yeah, there's a great matchup for 2008: Condoleeza Rice vs. Hilary Clinton.

In preparation, I'm putting my investments into barf bag stocks.

I would vote for Jello Biafra before either of those clowns.

[Samus]

Condoleezza Rice would never win a Republican nomination.

Not because she's black, or a woman. In fact, she's a sharp cookie, wicked smart as they say.

It's because she's single.

With the "religious right" trying to portray the Republican party as the family-friendly, pro-family party, I don't think they would allow a nominee to press forward that doesn't have a family.

Think about it. One of the under-themes of 2000 was that Bush would bring morality back to the White House, he's a dedicated family man. Think of all the political brochures you've seen with the candidate's spouse, kids and dog on them.

It is just an opinion, but I think it's a valid one.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Actually the two words for the Dems to fear are

Joe Lieberman!

LOL, so true. He's just an undercover Republican agent, oh wait, he's not undercover.

I personally don't like the Democrats or Republicans, and plan to vote 3rd party every oppertunity, exept this next presidential election in which case I will be voting for John Kerry, I'm pretty sure that he will make the primaries. Pretty much I'm voting for whatever democrat makes the primaries, but from then on out its third part all the way. If Bush win I'm leaving and you guys can enjoy your fascist hell.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Yeah right, Condi, oil tanker Rice, would quickly see just how many Republicans would vote for a black female.

She black!?

Well, imagine that!

She still gets my vote...

[no one in particular]

Unfortunately Crossbow and dwb make excellent points. As much as I would enjoy devastating two social taboos with one election, Ms. Rice is not a slam dunk candidate.

Originally posted by Crossbow
While she is an articulate, intelligent, and well accomplished person, she has never held an single elective office.This is precisely why I was hoping that Vice President Cheney would not seek the reelection. I was hoping that he would step down for “health reasons” setting up the 2008 candidate.

Originally posted by dwb
It's because she's single.Yeah, unfortunately that element comes with the Republican party. Hey, it is not too late though. She is hot for a 47 year old. Plus, hey, an oil tanker is named for her! That would look good on an internet dating service.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shemp
I would vote for Jello Biafra before either of those clowns.

Now there's an idea...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm
The first black President will likely be a Republican because Democrats won't dare vote against such a candidate. The first woman will likely be a Republican for the same reason. It makes sense, then, that the first black woman to be President will be a Republican.

I don't think it's time yet, though.

Oh, you'd be surprised how racist and sexist liberal democrats can be when the person in question is a conservative Republican.

Can you say "Clarence Thomas"?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow
The Democrats are still trying to recover from the absence of Clinton...

Is that why "Slick Willie" wants to amend the Constitution so that he can run for president again?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I personally don't like the Democrats or Republicans, and plan to vote 3rd party every oppertunity, exept this next presidential election in which case I will be voting for John Kerry

You're voting for one of the wealthiest men in Congress!!!!!! :eek: :eek:

WOW! :confused:

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by dwb
Condoleezza Rice would never win a Republican nomination.

Not because she's black, or a woman. In fact, she's a sharp cookie, wicked smart as they say.

It's because she's single.

...

Good point dwb!

I did not know that she is single and since Republicans still have the 'Family Values' label, that alone could be a serious impediment to presidental aspirations.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by dwb
Condoleezza Rice would never win a Republican nomination.

Not because she's black, or a woman. In fact, she's a sharp cookie, wicked smart as they say.

It's because she's single.

With the "religious right" trying to portray the Republican party as the family-friendly, pro-family party, I don't think they would allow a nominee to press forward that doesn't have a family.

Think about it. One of the under-themes of 2000 was that Bush would bring morality back to the White House, he's a dedicated family man. Think of all the political brochures you've seen with the candidate's spouse, kids and dog on them.

It is just an opinion, but I think it's a valid one.

In addition, with the possible exception of Eisenhower, Americans generally don't elect people because of the foriegn policy ability or experience...George Bush and Bill Clinton being just the two latest examples of men with little or no foriegn policy experience in coming to office. There is a very good chance that by 2008, the country will again be discussing domestic policy...the trillions of $ in new debt (which Candi's boss will have helped build), the lack of health care, the failure of the Bush as the "education" president, etc. Foriegn policy victories today (and, to what extent Rice can claim "credit" -- keeping in mind that her specialty was the Soviet Union) will, in my mind, have little consequence or utility. Even were she to become Secretary of State (a distinct possibility), it isn't really a launching pad to the Oval Office. It seems to me that if she has that ambition, and if the Republicans want her in that Job, than she has to go and run for the Senate from California, or run for Governor in California and create a "domestic" policy record...just an opinion.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by dwb
Condoleezza Rice would never win a Republican nomination.

Not because she's black, or a woman. In fact, she's a sharp cookie, wicked smart as they say.

It's because she's single.

With the "religious right" trying to portray the Republican party as the family-friendly, pro-family party, I don't think they would allow a nominee to press forward that doesn't have a family.

Think about it. One of the under-themes of 2000 was that Bush would bring morality back to the White House, he's a dedicated family man. Think of all the political brochures you've seen with the candidate's spouse, kids and dog on them.

It is just an opinion, but I think it's a valid one.

Haven't you heard? Ms Rice has a former NFL boyfriend (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/xml/uncomp/articleshow?msid=1016).

I saw somewhere that Jeb Bush and Condi might run together in 2008, but to me, that's a bad idea. I don't think Jeb is qualified to polish Condi's shoes.

[jayrev]

I always wonder if the people who bash "Big Business" and "Evil Corporations" at every opportunity realize that without them most of us wouldn't have jobs?

[no one in particular]

Malachi, I was not going to favor you with a retort since you failed to answer direct questions from one of my previous posts. I decided that I would, instead, restate my questions in the case that you missed them and then get on with the business of giving your post a proper retort.

First, my ignored questions:

-Really, it [the naming of the tanker] was because of her efforts as a lobbyist?

-I wonder, is Carla Hills a pawn [of big business in general, or of Chevron in particular] as well?

-Are all ex-board members who move to government positions pawns?

-What makes said person a pawn?

I will take your failure to answer these questions as a relent to my point that you do not know what you are talking about.

Now, on to your post:
Originally posted by Malachi151
Why are you bothering trying to use "logic" to disprve an opinion?As stated, the validity of your argument has been attacked in this thread. The logic, not the validity, of the argument was attacked in the other thread. As such, the attack on the illogic of the statement was not to show that it was not valid, just that it was illogical! Honestly, I can not believe that I had to explain that.

That makes no sense. Now that is an opinion. Wrong, but an opinion.

In my opinion Hey, now that is a good way to preface a political rant. Maybe you should rename your 200 page manifesto “In my opinion”.

there woun't be enough Republicans voting for a black women. This is an opinion that you have failed to demonstrate or support. But, you keep on thinking it and typing it as long as it makes you feel better about your position. Do you base a large number of your opinions on…nothing in particular?

There is no logic there to access, its pure opinion. Ha! So you admit that your opinions are based on emotion and what…exactly? We have demonstrated that it is not evidence.

There is no way to address the claim that Democrats "fear" Condi Rice in 2008; its not a logical issue, your claim… I already covered this and the next line in a previous post. But for good measure I will add an “ahem.”

…that Dems fear Condi is just as much an opinion as my claim that they have nothing to fear. Tee hee, you are like a logical fallacy training guide. Here you commit the logical fallacy know as tu quoque. Essentially you are saying that “well, you made that argument, so why can I not make it?” Of course in this special case, it is someone else who made that argument, not I.

Look me up in 2008 when Condi Rice is in the primaries:rolleyes:And you sum it all up with this dismissive remark. You know, some folks have put forth valid reasons why Condoleezza Rice may not be a viable candidate for president in four years. Your argument is based on Republican misogyny and bigotry. You sir, are wrong...and that is my opinion.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by jayrev
I always wonder if the people who bash "Big Business" and "Evil Corporations" at every opportunity realize that without them most of us wouldn't have jobs?

Riiiight, because before the corporations got big no one had jobs right? LOL, damn people wake up! I know that 50 years of propaganda and lies is a hard thing to shake off, but damn, think a little for yourself!

Actually the total opposite is true. Self-employment is the backbone of the American economy. Unfortuantely it doens't pay as well as corporate ownership.

Entrepreneurship and small start-up companies are largely responsible for the impressive performance of the U.S. economy over the past several years. While it is widely believed that big businesses drive the U.S. economy, statistics demonstrate that small firms are, in fact, doing much of the economic "heavy lifting." Small firms are responsible for 52 per cent of sales and 50 per cent of private sector output. Small companies comprise 96 per cent of all exporters of U.S. goods and receive 35 per cent of federal contract dollars. These numbers may be particularly surprising in light of the fact that 53 per cent of the time, these businesses are operating from home.

During the recession of the 1980's, it was small businesses that rallied, created new jobs, and enabled the U.S. economy to successfully transition from the industrial age to the information age. Economists attribute the ability of our nation's economy to outpace Europe and Japan to the innovation of small firms and the opportunities they create for disenfranchised groups to participate in the economy. Small businesses account for virtually all net new jobs in the economy, representing over 99 per cent of all employers and 52 per cent of the private-sector workforce. Between 1988 and 1990, the nation's smallest businesses (those with under 20 employees) created almost 4.1 million new jobs, while large firms experienced a loss of more than 500,000 jobs.

Continued economic growth requires economic participation from every sector of the population. With an overall unemployment rate below 5 per cent–widely regarded as full employment– diversification of the workforce is essential. Small businesses are the primary mechanism by which people who have been socially and economically marginalized, such as younger workers, older workers, and women, enter the workplace. Further, 61 per cent of all private workers on public assistance are employed by small businesses.

Source: US Department of Labor.

http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/business/business.htm

The bad part is that while small businesses constitute such a large part of the economy they don't make up an equal part of the national income. They are the backbone of the American economy, but large corporations get an unfair share of the national income due to the leverage thay they have.

[Malachi151]

-Really, it [the naming of the tanker] was because of her efforts as a lobbyist?

For her role in promoting the interests of the company/oil industry.

I wonder, is Carla Hills a pawn [of big business in general, or of Chevron in particular] as well?

I have no idea, perhaps she is a bishop or rook. :p I have no idea why they named a tanker after her.

-Are all ex-board members who move to government positions pawns?

Maybe not pawns maybe more then pawns. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfled are certainly not pawns, and they did it too.

Obviously being a board member and moving to government is not anything wrong in itself, but you have to look at surrounding circumstances and agendas.

As stated, the validity of your argument has been attacked in this thread. The logic, not the validity, of the argument was attacked in the other thread. As such, the attack on the illogic of the statement was not to show that it was not valid, just that it was illogical! Honestly, I can not believe that I had to explain that.

Pointless.

Now that is an opinion. Wrong, but an opinion.

Pointless.

Hey, now that is a good way to preface a political rant. Maybe you should rename your 200 page manifesto “In my opinion”.

No, because that is backed up by facts, and in fact I do say that I give my opinion in the analysis of the facts.

This is an opinion that you have failed to demonstrate or support. But, you keep on thinking it and typing it as long as it makes you feel better about your position. Do you base a large number of your opinions on…nothing in particular?

Why should I waste time with this? You act like this is a thesis on rocketry or something. Is this your big kick to tear apart a 1 or 2 line opinion statement that's on an inane topic?

You want a reason? Fine, Alan Keys has run for President on the Republican ticket twice and never made primaries. There, that's a basis for my opinion. How about I think that the Republicans house a higher percentage of bigots as well. :rolleyes:

Tee hee, you are like a logical fallacy training guide. Here you commit the logical fallacy know as tu quoque. Essentially you are saying that “well, you made that argument, so why can I not make it?” Of course in this special case, it is someone else who made that argument, not I.

Dude, get over yourself. If your looking for some kind of logic in athread thats purely about opinion and simply making childish claims then fine. This thread is equivilent to "The Bulls are going to kick the Lakers ass next weekend!!" I mean come, this si jus childish stupidity.

And you sum it all up with this dismissive remark. You know, some folks have put forth valid reasons why Condoleezza Rice may not be a viable candidate for president in four years. Your argument is based on Republican misogyny and bigotry. You sir, are wrong...and that is my opinion.

There are valid reasons for many people to make the primaries, so what? I don't think it will happen. As I said, in 2008 you can resurect this thread and give me an "I told ya so", then you can be oh so happy.

[no one in particular]

-Really, it [the naming of the tanker] was because of her efforts as a lobbyist?
Originally posted by Malachi151
For her role in promoting the interests of the company/oil industry. You are now switching your claim. I’ll remind you that you said…

Chevron named and oil tanker after her because of her lobbying for multi-national oil interests. Why employ this technique of debate? You made a claim; please support it or withdraw it. When a person mentions the term “lobbying” (especially in political discourse) there is a political connotation. Notice, if you will, the dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lobbying%20) definition of “lobbying”:
v. lob•bied, lob•by•ing, lob•bies
v. intr.
To try to influence the thinking of legislators or other public officials for or against a specific cause: lobbying for stronger environmental safeguards; lobbied against the proliferation of nuclear arms.
v. tr.
1. To try to influence public officials on behalf of or against (proposed legislation, for example): lobbied the bill through Congress; lobbied the bill to a negative vote.
2. To try to influence (an official) to take a desired action.
It has a connotation that the employee is attempting to influence politics. Simple sir, support the claim or withdraw it. If you support it, then we will discuss the relevance of it.

-I wonder, is Carla Hills a pawn [of big business in general, or of Chevron in particular] as well?

I have no idea, perhaps she is a bishop or rook. :p I apologize for not understanding your reference here, I have not played Checkers that often.

I have no idea why they named a tanker after her. I did not ask why they named the tanker after her, why would I? Your link make it clear why they named a tanker after her: She was on the board of directors…the same reason they named a tanker for Condoleezza Rice! Based on our two for two sample, this is something they do. Did you bother to read your own link?

-Are all ex-board members who move to government positions pawns?

Maybe not pawns maybe more then pawns. If I ever used the “lol” contrivance, I would use it here. So, the options for ex-board members are as follows:

1. “Pawns”
2. “More then [sic] pawns”

What? They have no “less than a pawn” or “Planet X” options? Poor ex-board members, they are more pigeonholed than Carrie Fisher! Wow, if you ever become an ex-board member then, be aware, your options are limited! Just for fun, I will explain to you that this is the logical fallacy known as a False Dilemma (http://datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm). But, since you place no value on logic in political opinions (!) this means nothing to you. Don’t worry though; skeptics (that would be me) are used to folks claiming that logic is either on their side of the argument (when it demonstratably is not) or that it is altogether irrelevant.

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfled are certainly not pawns… Then I must assume option #2. Which is another unsupported assertion on your part. Might I first suggest that you first define “more than a pawn” and then demonstrate that those gentlemen meet your definition.

…and they did it too. (emphasis mine) I am lost, sorry. Please, to what “it” are you referring?

-What makes said person a pawn? (Note that this question was not in your retort, but it makes since for it to go here, so I assume accidentally deleted it.)

Obviously being a board member and moving to government is not anything wrong in itself…Obviously, but I am glad you said this.

…but you have to look at surrounding circumstances and agendas. I have to look at surrounding circumstances? You are shifting the burden of proof from the person making the claim (you) to the person asking for clarification (me). This, you know, is a logical fallacy, by the way. Maybe I am just being picky here. Perhaps you still intend to demonstrate that an individual, in general, who was an ex-board member to industry is likely to become a pawn of that industry or that Condoleezza Rice, in particular, is a pawn for the oil industry.

Pointless.

And…

Pointless. Now, I have just claimed that your assertions are both invalid and illogical and you think this is “pointless”. Interesting. Should I take this as a relent to my position that you do not know what you are talking about?

Why should I waste time with this? Because you made several assertions that you failed to back up. You should either back them up with relevant evidence or withdraw your claims. I suggest that your credibility is strained by not supporting your assertions.

You act like this is a thesis on rocketry or something. Is this your big kick to tear apart a 1 or 2 line opinion statement that's on an inane topic? You misunderstand. I am not attacking your opinion, I am attacking your assertions.

You want a reason? Fine, Alan Keys has run for President on the Republican ticket twice and never made primaries. There, that's a basis for my opinion. Here you are supporting one of your three original assertions. Of course you are doing so with…you guessed it, another logical fallacy. It is known as The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#noncausa). It is where: ...something is identified as the cause of an event, but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. Of course that does not say your explanation is invalid, only that it is illogical. Perhaps he did not get the Republican nomination because he is black, but since you are the one asserting it, I suggest that you support your assertion. You may claim that you did not submit this as proof, only as evidence. Okay, I think your evidence is specious.

How about I think that the Republicans house a higher percentage of bigots as well. Sigh, you have the right to think that. You have shown that you do not base your political opinions on logic, so I am not surprised that you would think that.

Dude, get over yourself. I apologize for being a jerk, but you were supporting a fallacious position with a fallacious position.

If your looking for some kind of logic in athread thats purely about opinion and simply making childish claims then fine. Are you suggesting that I am making childish claims? Where?

This thread is equivilent to "The Bulls are going to kick the Lakers ass next weekend!!" I am sorry, I do not follow football, what do you mean? I know, same joke twice, sorry.

I mean come, this si jus childish stupidity. Um, no. The second post in this thread made three unsupported assertions that I am calling to task.

There are valid reasons for many people to make the primaries, so what? I don't think it will happen. That is fine, I have not called you to task on your opinion.

As I said, in 2008 you can resurect this thread and give me an "I told ya so", then you can be oh so happy. I have never asserted that Condoleezza Rice would receive the Republican nomination in 2008. I have called to task your assertions about Condoleezza Rice and the Republican Party.

I would be willing to dismiss your assertions about the Republican Party if you would be willing to admit that your assertions about the Republican Party are based on illogical reasoning at the least. Perhaps you can go here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=logic) to research your decision on weather to relent this position. We will have to disagree on the validity of your claims, I am afraid.

However, you have not demonstrated in any way that Condoleezza Rice is a pawn of industry.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by jayrev
I always wonder if the people who bash "Big Business" and "Evil Corporations" at every opportunity realize that without them most of us wouldn't have jobs?

I usually wonder if the people who bash "Big Business" and "Evil Corporations" even have jobs.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I usually wonder if the people who bash "Big Business" and "Evil Corporations" even have jobs.


HAAAAHAHAHAHA :D

[Malachi151]

You are now switching your claim. I’ll remind you that you said…

Sorry, but that's what I meant. I didn't mean that she was a "lobbyist", I knew she was a board member.

Here you want the surrounding conditions, this is what I worte on the matter in my paper (see sig):

For more on the corporate connections of the administration see:
http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/cabinet.asp

Vice President

Dick Cheney (Signer of PNAC Statement of Principles): Cheney’s political career started under President Ford. In 1975 Cheney was named Ford’s Chief of Staff. In 1979 Cheney was elected to Congress for the state of Wyoming. In 1981 he became the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee. In 1989 is was appointed Secretary of Defense for the Bush Sr. administration where he oversaw the Gulf War in Iraq.

A brief (and admittedly biased) outline of Cheney’s voting record in Congress can be seen here:
http://bush-cheney.net/spotlight/numbers.html
http://bush-cheney.net/issues/labor.html

During Cheney’s congressional term he was one of the most far right members of congress. He voted against pro-labor, pro-environment, and pro-family legislation in favor of pro-industry almost exclusively.

Following his long political career Cheney moved back to Texas and became CEO of Halliburton in 1995. When Cheney became the Vice Presidential nominee for the Bush Jr. ticket he left Halliburton with a $34 million retirement package. Of course it would be illegal for Halliburton to contribute that much money to a presidential campaign, but it wasn’t a campaign contribution was it? It was a retirement package, and after all Cheney was the CEO, so he did have a say in how much that amount would be.

Under Cheney Halliburton saw a 91% increase in government contracts, became the number one American oil-services company, the fifth-largest military contractor, and the largest nonunion employer in the country.

Under Cheney Halliburton also engaged in a large amount of business with Iraq. Through the use of foreign subsidiaries Halliburton did over $73 million worth of business with Iraq while Cheney was CEO, making Halliburton the largest American contractor doing business with Iraq. Of course Iraq’s oil wells are state owned and run so it was essentially doing business with Saddam.

What is interesting to note is that none of this business was done through Halliburton directly; it was all through Halliburton’s subsidiaries in Europe.

Cheney was asked about these allegations and flatly denied them. He has since claimed that those subsidiaries took action without the knowledge of Halliburton, or himself, a statement that has also been refuted by others.

In addition deals with Iraq, under Cheney Halliburton accounting practices were changed and offshore tax shelters were used. Arthur-Anderson, the same accounting company that was implicated in “cooking the books” for Enron, was Halliburton’s accounting firm.

Halliburton setup subsidiaries in the Caymans, the same place where Enron had 692 subsidiary companies. Between 1995 and 1999, Cheney’s term as CEO at Halliburton the company has setup 44 new “tax friendly” subsidiaries.

By 1999 Halliburton had gone from paying federal corporate taxes to actually getting an $85 million tax rebate.

During Cheney’s time at Halliburton, as its CEO, the company landed $2.3 billion in government contracts, and $1.5 billion in government financing and loan guarantees.

Halliburton has also received $2 million in fines for over billing the government.

In August of 2000 Cheney sold his shares in Halliburton for a profit of $18.5 million dollars. Two months later Halliburton made press releases stating that the company’s engineering and construction business were not doing well and the company announced that they were under investigation for over billing.

With this news, and the general stock market bubble burst, Halliburton stock lost 75% of its value hitting a 16-year low. Good thing for Cheney that he got out just in time.

Of all this, nothing has been found yet that indicates illegal activity by Cheney in his time at Halliburton or illegal activity by Halliburton that has not already been addressed, such as the fines it received for over billing. Of course illegal and unethical are two totally different things, and of course Cheney knows the loopholes in the tax code as well as anyone, having worked in the administrations that wrote the loopholes into the codes in the first place that have made highly unethical activity legal.

The guy works in government, works with lawmakers in writing corporate tax code, then goes into private business, uses his government contacts to get huge contracts for the his company, and takes advantage of the loopholes that he helped to create and that he was well aware of because he worked with the people that wrote the laws. Can it get any more unethical then that? And now, he’s back in the White House defining our roles in Iraq!

For more on Cheney and Halliburton see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/business/2002/enron/16.stm
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/GOPCVN_profile_cheney.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/Nightline/douglass_cheney_halliburton_020719.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/cheney.html
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2001/11/109953.php
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13757

Lewis Libby (Signer of PNAC Statement of Principles): Libby is Cheney’s chief of staff and a former Defense Department aid. Libby was involved in Ariel Sharon’s Israeli election campaign. Libby has been a long time promoter of the idea of preemptive warfare as a means of obtaining American global preeminence.

For more on Libby:
http://fpc.state.gov/8488.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/clinton.library/
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3005target_libby.html

Secretary of Defense

Donald Rumsfeld (Signer of PNAC Statement of Principles): Rumsfeld served as Secretary of Defense during the Ford administration, as well as chief of staff. After serving in the Ford administration Rumsfeld became heavily involved in the private sector. Rumsfeld was CEO of G.D. Searle, a pharmaceutical company and General Instrument, a telecom company. Rumsfeld has served on the board of several large companies.

In December of 1983 Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq as a special envoy of the Reagan administration to restore relations with Saddam Hussein. He Presented Saddam with a hand written letter from Ronald Reagan.

For more on Rumsfeld, and his role with Iraq, see:
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-528574,00.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

Paul Wolfowitz (Signer of PNAC Statement of Principles): Wolfowitz served under Cheney during Cheney’s time as Secretary of Defense. Dr. Paul Wolfowitz is considered to be the strongest advocate of preemptive warfare strategy.

From 1973 to 1977 Wolfowitz was a part of the Arm Control and Disarmament Agency.

From 1977 to 1980 Wolfowitz was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs. In the Pentagon he helped to create the United States Central Command. He also established the Maritime Pre-positioning Ships Program (MPS) a.k.a. (MPF).

For more on the MPS program:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c11/11sect2.htm

A link that discusses logistical problems of the MPS program:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/KRL.htm

Wolfowitz served as head of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff from 1981 to 1982.

From 1983 to 1986 he was Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific affairs.

From 1986 to 1989 he was US Ambassador to Indonesia (an OPEC country).

From 1989 to 1993 Wolfowitz was Under Secretary for Defense Policy.

The popularly known “Wolfowitz Doctrine” states that America’s mission is to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge. His focus is on the concept of benevolent domination by one power and rejects the idea of collective internationalism.

For more on Paul Wolfowitz:
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/depsecdef_bio.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1564448.stm

Secretary of State

Colin Powell: General Colin Powell served as the 12th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense, from October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1993, under both President George Bush and President Bill Clinton.

Powell served two short tours of duty in Vietnam, and as a battalion commander in Korea. He later commanded the 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air Asssault) and V Corps, United States Army, Europe.

Powell served on the corporate boards of Gulfstream Aerospace and America Online.

For more on Powell:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1073212.stm

Richard Armitage (Signer of PNAC letter to Clinton): Armitage served in Vietnam. In 1973 he joined the he joined the US Attache Office, working in Saigon. He worked as a Pentagon consultant for Middle Eastern affairs starting in 1976, then left public life and it is believed that he entered the CIA as a covert operative at that time. Armitage has worked with Bob Dole and worked in the Reagan administration.

In 1989 Armitage was passed over for appointment as Assistant Secretary of State due to links to Iran-Contra and other scandals, including links to a Vietnamese women running prostitution and gambling rings in America, who’s character he had previously vouched for.

During the Iran-Contra hearings Armitage was named as a Department of Defense official that had been responsible for illegal weapons transfers to Iran and the Contras of South America.

Powell and Armitage have a deep friendship going back many years. In an interview with the Washington Post in 1995 Powell referred to Armitage as his “white son”.

“William Tyree, Special Forces Veteran who has provided much reliable information and documentation to FTW in the past said, "Armitage used to 'sit ambush' on the trails in Laos and Cambodia. He liked it. Now when Powell, 'the dove,' sits down at a table with Armitage 'the killer' beside him the message will be that Armitage can reach across the table and deal with the other party on the spot." That message will not go unheard.”

Information from the US State Department states that:

“Fluent in Vietnamese, Mr. Armitage left active duty in 1973 and joined the U.S. Defense Attache Office, Saigon. Immediately prior to the fall of Saigon, he organized and led the removal of Vietnamese naval assets and personnel from the country.”

Interestingly, what this statement leaves out is that the pullout from Saigon was considers a tragic failure, leaving thousands of Vietnamese loyal to America behind with no American support as the North Vietnamese forces moved in on Saigon.

For more on Richard Armitage:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/2991.htm
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/politics/armitage_SS.html
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=673

National Security Adviser

Condoleezza Rice: Rice had a Chevron oil tanker named after her, the Condoleezza Rice, after she became part of the Bush cabinet political pressure resulted in Chevron changing the name of the tanker. Rice was on the board of directors of Chevron prior to her appointment to the position of National Security Advisor by Bush.

As National Security Advisor Rice has given speeches to the Manhattan Institute, which was founded by William Casey, author of The Bell Curve. The MI is a far right political organization. It’s is somewhat amusing that she has given speeches to the organization due to the fact that The Bell Curve argues that blacks are genetically inferior to whites intellectually, and of course Condi is black.

For more on the Chevron tanker:
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01june/june01names.html

For more on Condi Rice:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1561791.stm

Chief of Staff

Andrew H. Card Jr.: Card was a lobbyist for GM prior to joining the Bush administration. Card helped lobby against stricter fuel emission standards. Card also testified before Congress against the airline industry’s “Passengers' Bill of Rights". Card also made campaign contributions to John Ashcroft and Spender Abraham, both members of the Bush administration when they were running for Senate.

Card also has long standing ties with the Bush family. Card was a limo driver for Bush Sr. After Reagan was elected President with Bush as his Vice President Card was given a job as a White House liaison.

For more on Card:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/card-bio.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/bush_advisers_card.html

Treasury Secretary

Paul O’Neil: O'Neil was CEO of Alcoa prior to his entry into the Bush cabinet.

Note on Alcoa: O'Neil was the first person from outside the company in Alcoa's 99-year history to be elected to a top position. Top positions in Alcoa have traditionally been reserved for long time Alcoa loyalists. It has also been proven that Alcoa was a major contributor to the Nazi regime prior to America's entry into WWII. In 1941 Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes stated, "If America loses this war, it can thank the Aluminum Corporation of America [Alcoa]."

Alcoa is currently one of the top polluters in Texas, which has been allowed by a loophole that has been grand fathered in for Alcoa with Bush support.

For more on the Alcoa pollution loophole:
http://www.texasenvironment.org/alcoa.htm

O’Neill was the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1974 to 1977 during the Ford administration.

O'Neil is also a long time friend of the Bush family, having been friends of George Bush Sr. for years.

For more on O'Neil:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/profile_oneill.html
http://www.rand.org/hot/Press/oneill.html
http://www.treasury.gov/organization/bios/oneill-e.html

Secretary of the Interior

Gale Norton: Norton was Attorney General for Colorado for eight years prior to her entry into the Bush administration. As Attorney General she strongly promoted the corporate "self-audit" laws that allow companies to police themselves without federal or state oversight.

Prior to her time as Attorney General Norton worked for Mountain States Legal Foundation, which is "a conservative think tank that opposes the government's role in environmental protection."

Norton also has a long history with the Reagan and Bush administrations. Norton worked for the Western Water Policy Commission for former President Bush, and she worked under Reagan's Interior Secretary.

During her time with the Reagan Administration "she advocated opening up the protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration."

Norton was also chairman of the Coalition of Republican Environmental Advocates.

That organization is partially funded by Ford Motor Company and BP Amoco, a huge oil company.

Now, as Secretary of the Interior, Norton is responsible for the oversight of America's parks and wildlife.

For more on Norton:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/inauguration/transition/norton.html
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/stop-norton/
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair0905.html

Secretary of Commerce

Donald L. Evans: Evans is known as President Bush's best friend. Evans was also national finance chairman for George Bush's gubernatorial campaigns.

Evans was CEO of oil company Tom Brown Inc, having worked for the company for 25 years. He also sat on the board of TMBR/Sharp Drilling, an oil and gas drilling company.

For more on Evans:
http://www.commerce.gov/bios/evans_bio.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/business/2002/enron/19.stm

Secretary of Energy

Spencer Abraham: Interestingly, prior to his appointment as Secretary of Energy, Abraham had proposed three times to get rid of the Energy Department while he was a Michigan Representative. Abraham has close and strong ties to the auto and oil industries, but he is also an advocate of fuel cells for more fuel-efficient cars.

Abraham also received campaign contributions from Enron.

For more on Spencer Abraham:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/abraham-bio.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/Abraham_profile.html
http://www.culturechange.org/hydrogen.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/business/2002/enron/18.stm


US Special Envoy to Afghanistan and the Iraqi opposition

Zalmay Khalilzad (Signer of PNAC Statement of Principles): Khalilzad was an assistant to Paul Wolfowitz for the Bush Sr. administration. In the 1990s he was a paid consultant to Unocal. Unocal was seeking contracts to build a large natural gas pipeline in Afghanistan. Unocal is the worlds ninth larges oil company.

In 1997 Unocal was charged with human rights violations in connection with allegedly hiring Burmese militants to protect their operations from striking workers.

Unocal has also been sited for supporting General Suharto of Indonesia, who is known as the most brutal dictator of Asia.

It should be noted though that Khalilzad's work with Unocal was brief.

Khalilzad was born in Afganistan, then later moved to the United States to earn his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago.

Khalilzad has played a very strong role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and the construction of the interim government there.

For more on Khalilzad:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.14A.Zalmay.Oil.htm
http://www.afghan-info.com/Politics/Zalmai_Khalilzad_ShortBiography.htm
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/islam/p123101.htm
US Ambassador to the UN

John Negropronte: Negropronte has had a long career as a US diplomat. What he is most known for though is his time as Ambassador to Honduras 1981 to 1985. During that time Negropronte helped to cover up human rights violations, including torture and executions, committed by the US supported Honduran army. Negropronte also played a role in the Iran-Contra affair where he helped to funnel money from arms illegally sold to Iran to the Contras in Honduras.

For more on Negropronte:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0109/iran-contra.html
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/negroponte/eng.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2001_cr/s091401.html

US trade representative and Chairman of WTO

Robert Zoelick (Signer of PNAC letter to Clinton): Zoelick served as assistant Secretary of State under Bush Sr.

Zoelick was also a paid consultant for Enron.

Chairman of the FCC

Michael Powell: Michael is Colin Powell's son. Bush named Michael head of the FCC. The FCC will be presiding over a case involving AOL. Colin Powell served on the board of AOL and is a significant holder of AOL stock. Michael Powell was the only member of the FCC to advocate that the AOL-Time Warner merger go through without investigation.

The Bush adminsitraion is an bunch of oil industry insiders and people gunning to wage war in Iraq. She is on the team because she is an oil industry insider. I made an off the cuff remark about it, and I don't feel like wading through volumes of inforamtion on this issue because it really does not interest me. If you think that she's a good girl, then fine, I don't care. I've looked into her history and I think that she is very "pro-big oil", and I someone who will sell her soul to make money. If you don't think so becuase you have failed to look into her career then fine, I could care less, but I'm not going to dig up information for you, do yoru own research, I've already done it. Just google her + oil + Chevron or something. Internet research is not that hard to do you know.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I usually wonder if the people who bash "Big Business" and "Evil Corporations" even have jobs.

Yes, but my jobS, don't involve hiring private armies in third world countries, paying off local officials and rigging elections, lying to the American public, and committing major fraud that costs the country billions or even trillions of dollars.

Oh but wait, your own of those mindless Americans that is willfully ignorant of everything. Perhaps you don't even remember that in 2001 almost every major large corporation came out saying they had been cooking the books for years, contributing to the collapse of the economy and several of the country's biggest companies filed for bankruptcy causing hundreds of thousands of people's retirements portfolios to go from great to not enough to even live on for one year.

Yeah, but that s**t does not matter to you, you have an American flag that was made in China waving in your yard and you wear that Old Navy T-Shirt with the "Old Glory" on it that was made in Indonesia. :rolleyes:

Give me a break and get a clue. And you probably don't pay attention to things like Coke-a-Cola and Pepsi being in bidding wars for children's schools paying schools districts big money to reserve exclusive rights to use their schools as marketing areas where they put in ALL Pepsi products, or ALL Coke products and plaster the schools with advertisements, etc, because "if you can get em hooked when they are young then they are lifelong customers". And you probably don't read the memos from Coke that say things like "We want Coke-a-Cole to be the premier drink in America, served at every occasion, with every meal", and then go on to discuss marketing techniques on how to get young people to become life long users of their products, etc.

I bet that you side with tobacco companies and don't see that they should have been sued either eh?

No, you don't pay attention and you don't give a f**k.:rolleyes:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Yeah, but that s**t does not matter to you, you have an American flag that was made in China waving in your yard and you wear that Old Navy T-Shirt with the "Old Glory" on it that was made in Indonesia. :rolleyes:

What the hell do you have against China and Indonesia?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn

1. Condoleezza

2. Rice

:D


1. Hillary

2. Clinton

http://www.hillary.org

:D

[Dancing David]

I expect some flack cause i did vote for her and then regretted it:

Three words the democrats should fear

Carol Mosley Braun

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Kodiak


What the hell do you have against China and Indonesia?

Umm... massive human rights violations, by people kept in power with US dollars.

[Jude]

I can't say I know too much about Ms. Rice. 2008 is pretty far away, but I'd like to see Jeb Bush run. Heck, I'd vote for him over Dubya in 2004 if he ran. His disciplined fiscal policies in Florida have really impressed me. I'm a fan of Dubya's tax cut, but he forget to cut spending along with it--it could really spell disaster if it doesn't stimulate the economy as much as he anticipates.

[Supercharts]

Here she is:

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Sorry, but that's what I meant. I didn't mean that she was a "lobbyist", I knew she was a board member. I will accept that you accidentally transposed the terms “lobbying for multi-national oil interests” and “a board member”. I think it strains plausibility, but I have no reason to think you are dishonest. I would suggest that your confirmation bias allows you to reason what many folks would view as a mundane situation into malevolence. I very well could be wrong about this analysis of your behavior. I apologize if you find my analysis unreasonable; I only know of you what I have read here and in the other threads in which you have participated.

Here you want the surrounding conditions, this is what I worte on the matter in my paper (see sig): Sigh, I expected this to come to the point at which you would start posting large sections of your manifesto. I have skimmed the paper. Honestly, I have not been interested in reading your paper after many of your statements in this thread (inapplicability of logic in political opinions and such), but I will review the section/sections you have quoted.

Your manifesto, specifically the Condoleezza Rice section:

You offer no evidence that in any way supports your assertions about her. You have written a short bio, followed by three links.

Your first link is the “oil tanker” bit that I believe I have demonstrated to be invalid to your point. Am I wrong in this belief?

The next link is WhiteHouse.gov! Certainly you do not expect me to locate incriminating evidence about The National Security Advisor on the official web site of The President of the United States! Are ye daft?!

The last link, the bbc website, actually offers a glowing review of her. I have NO IDEA what you could possibly be offering here.

The Bush administration is an bunch of oil industry insiders and people gunning to wage war in Iraq. I will agree with this statement. I will also agree with the administration’s actions.

Edited for clarification: The statement that I said I agree with may be interpreted in a couple of ways. If you intended to mean that “The Bush Administration has several members that, in the past, have worked for oil companies/interests. Furthermore, the administration wanted to have a war in Iraq.” Then yes, I agree.

She is on the team because she is an oil industry insider. (emphasis mine) Again with, sigh. This is what is know as the Fallacy of Exclusion (http://datanation.com/fallacies/exclus.htm). You seem to be saying that there are no other reasons that she would be qualified to be the National Security Advisor. Since you sent me to three different bios on the lady, I will assume you have read them. You should also understand how laughable this assertion is. It also falls into the realm of a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (http://datanation.com/fallacies/posthoc.htm) fallacy because you are assuming that the former situation is the cause of the latter. Don’t misunderstand! It is entirely possible that the only rationale for Condoleezza Rice to be the National Security Advisor is that she had/has close connections to the oil industry, but I suggest that it would be an incredible strain on logic, reason and common sense to assert such a thing.

I made an off the cuff remark about it, and… You later exasperated your “off the cuff” remark will more unsupported assertions and illogic. I suggest that this is systematic of the issue that I listed above.

I don't feel like wading through volumes of inforamtion on this issue because it really does not interest me. That is fine, I will suggest an agreement on which we may end this controvert at the end of this post.

If you think that she's a good girl, then fine, I don't care. I've looked into her history and I think that she is very "pro-big oil"…Yes, and I am very “pro-optical thin film coating”, you are very “pro-manifesto writing”. Why does this matter? Seemingly only you and fellow conspiracy theorists know.

…and I someone who will sell her soul to make money. Just good ol’ fashioned slander.

If you don't think so becuase you have failed to look into her career then fine…Another laugher. You assume that because I have not come to your irrational conclusions that I have not looked enough at the issue.

I could care less…Fascinating, I did not think you would care at all for my opinion. Well, you go ahead and work on caring less than you do now.

…but I'm not going to dig up information for you, do yoru own research, I've already done it. Just google her + oil + Chevron or something. Internet research is not that hard to do you know. Here you are employing a tactic that skeptics get hit with often. You are shifting the burden of proof from the person making the claim to the person asking for cairification. Actually, I have already explained this concept to you when I posted: I have to look at surrounding circumstances? You are shifting the burden of proof from the person making the claim (you) to the person asking for clarification (me). This, you know, is a logical fallacy, by the way. I am just copy/pasting my own post here. I now accuse you of being willfully ignorant.

At this point our debate has little to do with your “off the cuff” remark. I think you are blinded by your ideology and confirmation bias. If you would agree that it is reasonable for me to think this then we may call this controvert to an end.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Umm... massive human rights violations, by people kept in power with US dollars.

Umm...in the obvious context of your original comment, I thought it was clear I was referring to the people of China and Indonesia earning American dollars by making those goods you mentioned, not the governments of those countries.

I'll try again:

What the hell do you have against the people of China and Indonesia with regards to their earning income from goods sold in America?