Originally Posted by daewoo

Look into Geithner. The tax thing is immaterial. I would not only compare him to the likes of those folks, I would argue that he is worse. He is the guy who has been orchestrating the bailouts for all these jackasses after they run their companies on the ground, but refusing to allow or enforce any limits on those bailouts, so they can keep right on stealing.

It isn't immaterial in my opinion. It is bad image and signifies a more serious problem when you don't admit to the mistake until you are appointed.

The "cronies" are back...but they aren't cronies when they are on "your side" of the political scene. Funny how people are.

Originally Posted by chester

Let's get this straight.

You are seriously comparing someone who owed a mere $34K on his taxes to the likes of Ken Lay, the Rigases, Kozlowski, and the current crop of Gordon Geckos who looted their companies and then bailed?

If you are, I have some oceanfront property in Montana I will sell you cheap.

Let's have a little perspective please, unless, of course, you will grasp at anything to bring our new President down.

See, here is the difference. You say "someone who owed a mere $34K on his taxes" (which by the way is more than many Americans make in a year), and I simply say "that guy who admitted to tax evasion". And, as Daewoo pointed out, it's the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Geithner. I think it is a bad choice, especially when the man will head the IRS. I don't think anyone is using it to try to "bring our new president down", but it clearly does show a major hypocrisy from the man who says that he is going to hold the government to a higher standard and clean up Washington.

I am afraid that we may be headed for a re-run of the Bush administration on the PR front, where Obama will have a cadre of reality detached individuals who will refuse to ever say anything about the man who is not complimentary....or allow others to without coming up with some kind of ridiculous, nonsensical justification for it. It also seems like we may be doomed to 4 years of BUSHDIDITS to justify bad behavior.

Are people actually incapable of learning??

Well Daewoo,

at least people are loyal...I guess. I don't know if there is much honor is going down with the ship if the captain is insane.

It is remarkable to hear people who hated Bush say certain policies are bad and this or that justification/reason is bad but are the same people who use the exact same justification/reason for the same policies that Obama is doing or about to do. I said this in a complicated way but you get my point.

On the other side the Bush loyalties were saying things and now are saying the exact opposite.

Guess what! Both are screwing us over....Ron Paul doesn't seem as crazy as he did in the primaries.

Originally Posted by Jo Bennett

Bear in mind that the Socialist International is not socialist in the strict sense, given that member organisations include the Zimbabwe opposition MDC, Venezuelan opposition Democratic Action, the UK governing Labour Party, the Australian governing Labor Party, the Israeli Labour Party. This is an organisation of social marketeers, not radical socialists. There's really nothing to get worked up about.

I don’t believe an organization of social marketeers is going to stop short of radical socialism. I don’t think history shows us one single case where any organization that forwards an ideology, reaches a plateau and then voluntarily stops. If there’s a higher level in any ideology, it will be sought.

Browner was largely behind auto emissions testing programs - my area suffered through one from Clintons last year in office until it was finally declared a failure in 2005, by the Bush EPA. Millions of dollars wasted, a lot of frustration, and several lavish government garages now sit empty. It will probably be back soon. There's little that works me up more than the public use of existing products being regulated and restricted by government.

Originally Posted by simone

Is that your only source for your claim?

I find that source to be rather questionable.

It’s not my only source. She was controversial, and in the news many times, when she was Bill Clinton’s EPA administrator. Anywhere you look, there’s no question she is a radical.

Carol Browner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carol Browner, master of mission creep - Forbes.com

(Forbes)

Playing mission creep is an old game in Washington. But no one has ever played the game with more skill than Carol M. Browner, Bill Clinton's choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

This newly created position she holds doesn’t require congressional approval - maybe she won’t have near as much power as she did as EPA administrator. But she’ll get attention, and it won’t be positive attention from conservatives. As the Obama administration moves along, and the recognition of the positive things from the past Bush administration come rolling in, somewhere on that long list will be the fact that Bush gave us an 8 year break from the tyranny of Carol Browner.

Marc9000, your quote concerning Carol Browner: "Ms. Browner belonged to Socialist International until 2008 per the Washington Times." ... for Chrissake Socialist International?

What the Hades?

The weird Rev Moon's Washington Times serves not as a reliable source. Nor does the questionable Nolan chart.

They offer opinion, not journalism and reporting of actual facts.

The EPA is an abuse of power and frankly insane. Why not put someone insane incharge of it. the EPA is borderline constitutional at best.

Originally Posted by simone

Marc9000, your quote concerning Carol Browner: "Ms. Browner belonged to Socialist International until 2008 per the Washington Times." ... for Chrissake Socialist International?

What the Hades?

The weird Rev Moon's Washington Times serves not as a reliable source. Nor does the questionable Nolan chart.

They offer opinion, not journalism and reporting of actual facts.

So it can't be true if you don't want it to be true?

You make me throw my hands in the ayer a ayer - ayer a ayer.....

What is Socialist Internationale?

What are its goals?

Where is its center?

How can one determine its membership?

Originally Posted by simone

What is Socialist Internationale?

What are its goals?

Where is its center?

Socialist International - Progressive Politics For A Fairer World

How can one determine its membership?

Socialist International - Progressive Politics For A Fairer World

Ricardo Lagos, former President of the Republic of Chile and a Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General on Climate Change, and Göran Persson, former Prime Minister of Sweden, have been appointed Co-Chairs of the Commission, and other members are: Hilary Benn, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom; Carol M. Browner, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency under President Bill Clinton; Elio di Rupo, leader of the Socialist Party of Belgium; Mohamed El Yazghi, leader of the Socialist Union of Popular Forces, USFP, and Minister of the Government of Morocco; Sigmar Gabriel, Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany; Aleksandr Kwasniewski, former President of the Republic of Poland; Sergei Mironov, President of the Federal Council of Russia; Cristina Narbona, Minister of the Environment of Spain; Beatriz Paredes, President of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) of Mexico; Anand Sharma, Minister of State for External Affairs of India; Marina Silva, Minister of the Environment of the Federative Republic of Brazil; Martin Torrijos, President of the Republic of Panama and leader of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD); and Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of South Africa.

I thought it best to c/p this membership list, because her name could be scrubbed off of it at any time. Check it quickly, because as is reported by the Washington Times and others "the group's web site was recently scrubbed to remove Browner's picture and biography,..."

I think it's worth reiterating just how non-radical the Socialist International is. Look at the name immediately preceding Browner's on the list - Hilary Benn, arch Blairite and about as moderate as they come. Now, if it had been his Dad, Tony Benn, then you might have had something to be concerned about. I fail to see how an organisation with affiliations from the UK, Israeli and Australian Labo(u)r parties can be in any way considered radical.

Originally Posted by Jo Bennett

I think it's worth reiterating just how non-radical the Socialist International is. Look at the name immediately preceding Browner's on the list - Hilary Benn, arch Blairite and about as moderate as they come. Now, if it had been his Dad, Tony Benn, then you might have had something to be concerned about. I fail to see how an organisation with affiliations from the UK, Israeli and Australian Labo(u)r parties can be in any way considered radical.

I think the best way to determine their radicalism is to look at their Declaration of Principles page rather than individual names or small affiliations from significant countries.

The opening paragraph of their principles says this;

The idea of Socialism has caught the imagination of people across the world, promoted successful political movements, decisively improved the lives of working men and women, and contributed to shaping the 20th century.

And, much further down;

A critical and fundamental challenge of worldwide dimensions is the crisis of the environment. ln both the North and the South, the ecological balance is jeopardised.

These two things, and most everything in between them on that page, represent radical one-sided U.S. (Democrat) political beliefs.

One of the things stated in between them said this;

Peace is equally a necessity within nations. Violent ways of handling conflicts destroy opportunities for development and human rights. Education for peace and disarmament must be intensified.

The U.S. Constitution authorizes the Congress to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas........to declare war.........to raise and support armies.......to provide and maintain a Navy....."

The bottom line is, membership in a global political organization cannot be reconciled with the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. There's simply no room in it for worldwide decision making in U.S. affairs.

Saying that war happens too much and is harmful is a statement of fact, as is saying there are too many weapons in the world. So is that fact that socialism, through education, health and welfare systems, has improved the lives of ordinary people immeasurably. Likewise saying the environment is under threat is pretty much a given. Even if one were to accept that these are opinions, the first it common to anyone even remotely left of centre, and many on the right, and certainly to most Christian denominations. The second is simply a reflection of the history of the 20th century, where socialism took us from the "5 giants" (Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness) to situations where, in parts of world, everyone had enough to eat, healthcare, education, sanitation and work. The last is, again accepted by government across the political spectrum, even Margaret Thatcher, who is hardly a radical socialist.