Blago’s Pick For The Senate Tried To Execute An Innocent Man

• January 2, 2009

Apparently because he was running for Governor at the time and thought the case made good headlines.

Public fury over the governor’s alleged misconduct has masked the once lively debate over Burris’ decision to continue to prosecute, despite the objections of one of his top prosecutors, the wrong man for a high-profile murder case.
While state attorney general in 1992, Burris aggressively sought the death penalty for Rolando Cruz, who twice was convicted of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl in the Chicago suburb of Naperville. The crime took place in 1983.
But by 1992, another man had confessed to the crime, and Burris’ own deputy attorney general was pleading with Burris to drop the case, then on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.
Burris refused. He was running for governor.

It appears as though Burris pushed forward with the prosecution of Cruz not only when another man confessed to the crime (which isn’t exactly a smoking gun as people confessing to crimes they didn’t commit is more common than you’d think in the criminal justice system), but when DNA evidence actually excluded him as a suspect.
Again, because the case was important to Burris politically.
Which pretty much makes him the scum of the earth, doesn’t it? And remember, this is a guy Obama himself described as “a good man and a fine public servant.”
Yet another blow for Obama’s judgment to chalk up there with Ayers, Blagojevich, Dohrn, Wright and Rezko.
But even with all this, I still think Blago’s appointment of Burris has to go through. Blago is still the Governor, and making the appointment is still his responsibility. He did so legally, and the man he chose fills all the state and federal requirements for being a Senator.
Like it or not, I think Democrats have to seat this guy. Scummy as he is.

Tags: Domestic Issues, Politics

carrick

Hawk, this isn’t about the right wing acting morally superior:

You liberals have the patent rights on that. Dino’s comments on this thread are a perfect example of that.
carrick

Socks:

Dino, once again, I point out that conservative strongholds (such as North Dakota) donate more to charities than liberal strongholds (such as Los Angeles) where most of the people expect the government to do it for them.

This is true only if you qualify it with “donate more of their own money to charities…”
carrick

Dino:

If one person makes all the money they get stuck paying all the taxes.

That’s not the scenario here.

If the last 30 years of pursuing con econ policies hadn’t concentrated wealth in so few hands, taxation would be more distributed.

If you mean that the wealthy get richer more quickly than the not so wealthy, that’s true. They also lose more money during economic downturns (as a fraction of their wealth). This is inherent in how wealth gets created. Since you apparently thing that nobody should have any more money than anybody else, going further down that road is a waste.

Besides, we have a flat tax when deductions are taken into account.

What an idiotic statement. The link above is to net revenue, which obviously includes deductions.

However, your argument is merely obfuscation since taxes do affect liberals as well as cons.

It’s well known that there are wealthy liberals as well as wealth conservatives. The issue isn’t whose money isn’t being absconded with, but who favors it. Even low-income conservatives favor lower taxes, even though higher taxation benefits them personally.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Actually, most of the conservatives on this blog accept the precept “presumption of innocence”.

That’s your fantasy like all the other conservative fantasies they see when they look in the magic mirror. Like their fantasy of being compassionate or generous.

The real image is not very pretty.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Hey! I’ve got a new avatar for you, Big Guy!
carrick

Carrick:

Oh, and for the record, I’m against the death penalty. Have been for years.

Same.

Dino the Mind Reader fails again.
robert108

This country has been on a steep decline ever since we abandoned an agressive policy of wealth redistribution.

Yet another absolutely false statement. The only fair way to compensate people is to make that compensation proportional to what they earn. Any other way is a slippery slope to totalitarianism. Redistribution kills economic growth, and we all get poorer, except for the ruling elite, of course.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Taxation affects everyone. Despite the conservative paranoia, there are no special taxes levied only on conservatives for the sole purpose of taking only their money and giving it to “welfare”.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

In the conservative mindset, there are no innocent criminals.

Earth to Carnac: Try listening to what we actually say sometimes, instead of just making sh*t up!

Your mind reading act? FAIL!
robert108

Carrick: dino drinks the Krugman KoolAid.
Dino

As far as I am aware, there are no tax laws specifically written to tax cons and not libs. In fact, the opposite is true if one considers the exemption for con-heavy religious institutions that are merely fronts for con political action committees.
carrick

Dino:

In fact, class mobility in Europe is greater than here.

I think you’re full of shit. Prove it.

Oh, and Cuba has survived 50 years of bullying and despite that has a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, MUCH higher literacy and MUCH higher per capita population of doctors and engineers than the cesspool US.

So why don’t you go live there? You’ll find out what they do to openly gay people, as opposed to this “cesspool” of a country we live in.
Hawk

Unless there is an adjustment to the income tax code than the repeal of the estate tax is also unfair.

I know you believe that capital gains taxes should be repealed, but as long as we have them, why should the deceased capital gains be ignored?
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Typical Democrat.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Even if this was true, and there's no indication that it is, why would it bother a conservative? You people LOVE the death penalty.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

You people LOVE the death penalty.

For the guilty, moron! Not for the innocent. Although, in your case, I might make an exception for terminal stupidity!
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

In the conservative mindset, there are no innocent criminals. Remember, conservatives always side with the prosecution over the accused. The convicted don't even make the radar.

I can't even count the number of times I've heard or read a conservative complaining about the appeals process or how long it takes to execute someone.

This thread topic is one of the most disingenuous that I've seen here.
carrick

Actually, most of the conservatives on this blog accept the precept "presumption of innocence".

It is liberals like Dino that seem to revel in the immediate assumption of guilty as soon as their prophets, the main stream media and the US attorneys, have spoken. How about Fitzgerald and the Valerie Plame investigation? Murtha and Haditha?

Even the Blago case is a blatant example on the part of the liberals of the immediate assumption of guilt, once the Government Has Spoken [tm].

I frankly will admit that the evidence looks kind of damning in the Blago case, but we haven't heard both sides of this story yet. The liberals, including the Messiah Obama, are completely willing to throw him under the bus without a trial, simply because this has come up at an inconvenient time.

Justice for them, it seems, is a noble cause only when it is politically convenient.
Hawk

Actually, most of the conservatives on this blog accept the precept "presumption of innocence".

How about Fitzgerald and the Valerie Plame investigation? Murtha and Haditha?

How about the William Jefferson investigation? How about all the posts on this blog about Obama being guilty of something (not sure what) in the Blago scandal, regardless of the fact that he was the Mother Fucker who wouldn't give anything except his appreciation?

Stop acting like the conservatives here are morally superior and above the fray. This is a right wing smear site.
carrick

Dino:

That's your fantasy like all the other conservative fantasies they see when they look in the magic mirror. Like their fantasy of being compassionate or generous.

Too bad for you the facts don't line up with the bullshit you like to spew.

You liberals are generous with my money. Conservatives are generous with their own.
carrick

Hawk:

How about the William Jefferson investigation?

The guy was caught with 10s of thousands of dollars in his freezer.

One should keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out.
Hawk

You liberals have the patent rights on that. Dino's comments on this thread are a perfect example of that.

And Robert108 is never morally superior? Both sides have their idiots.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Keep telling yourselves that. Do I need to post those links about stingy christians again or the refutations of the "generous conservative" myth?

Just peruse this blog and see the opposition to spending ANY money on your fellow man.

Liberals are subject to the same taxation as conservatives. And we don't live our lives to cheat on our taxes which is effectively skating on your bills to support the country you profess to love. Though I do believe conservatives should be levied a special tax, perhaps even a confiscation of their Social Security and Medicare money to help pay for the war they supported.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Liberals may not be morally superior, but that doesn't mean conservatives aren't morally bankrupt.
Socks

Dino, once again, I point out that conservative strongholds (such as North Dakota) donate more to charities than liberal strongholds (such as Los Angeles) where most of the people expect the government to do it for them.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

I wasn't born yesterday nor do I live a life without being around conservatives. You don't have to be a mind reader to know how the con mind works.
carrick

Dino:

Liberals may not be morally superior, but that doesn't mean conservatives aren't morally bankrupt.

Just another version of your morally superior game. If conservatives are morally bankrupt, that would make you morally superior wouldn't it?

And yet Hawk, right after several of your morally superiority rants, has the gall to accuse conservatives of acting morally superior.

Accusing your enemies of being guilty of crimes you yourself commit is a common theme among the left.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Socks, go look at the previous threads where I destroyed the "generous conservative" arguments. I don't have time to redo this every time someone new and ill-informed joins the conversation.
carrick

Dino:

Socks, go look at the previous threads where I destroyed the "generous conservative" arguments

The only thing you destroyed there is an illusion that you were intelligent enough to understand why your arguments were so stupid.
carrick

Dino:

Taxation affects everyone. Despite the conservative paranoia, there are no special taxes levied only on conservatives for the sole purpose of taking only their money and giving it to "welfare".

That ignorant statement assumes we have a flat tax.

We don't. People in the bottom 20% actually get money back from the government. Nearly 50% of all income tax revenue comes from the top 5%…

And of course you liberals want to take it and give it to welfare recipients, it's how you buy their vote.
Socks

The top one percent earn approximately 19% of the income, and pay approximately 39% of the taxes.(Source: The FairTax Book, by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder)
robert108

And of course you liberals want to take it and give it to welfare recipients, it's how you buy their vote.

Only after extracting 50% or more for "overhead"(read: growth of govt), depending on which social engineering scheme to which you are referring. Some take more than 70% of the money confiscated from the earners to pay for "overhead". Excuse me; "administrative costs".
carrick

Robert108, that is one of the problems with "plus-ups" (pork). There isn't any restriction on how much the government grabs as overhead. 1/3 is typical, but I've seen cases where they absconded with 2/3s for their own projects. Military plus-ups, 100% can be grabbed f the general/admiral in charge sees fit ("national emergency").

Follow up to Socks: This is a good reference on who pays taxes and who benefits from it.
Socks

Thanks for the source. I like being able use exact statistics instead of putting "approximately" in front of my them.
rightwing conspiracy

Prosecutor(s): Thomas L. Knight (first trial), Brian Kilander and Rick Stock (second trial)

from: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictio…

Although Dugan's confession that he alone killed Jeanine Nicarico was corroborated by overwhelming evidence — as shown by a Chicago Lawyer investigation headed by Rob Warden — prosecutors steadfastly refused to acknowledge that they had put the wrong men on death row. And, after the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the convictions, prosecutors retried Cruz and Hernandez and again won — largely because much of the evidence proving that Dugan had committed the crime was excluded from the courtroom.

In 1990, a volunteer legal team led by Lawrence C. Marshall agreed to represent Cruz on appeal. After four years of arduous litigation, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed Cruz's conviction in 1994, and granted him a third trial. Prior to that trial, newly available DNA testing excluded Cruz and Hernandez as the child's rapists and linked Dugan to the crime. Even so, prosecutors refused to drop the case.

From: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictio…

If anyone has info pointing towards Burris, post the link.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Even if this was true, and there's no indication that it is, why would it bother a conservative? You people LOVE the death penalty.

No indication that it's true…except for things that actually happened like Burris going for a conviction after DNA exonerated the guy.

I guess facts don't count any more?

Oh, and for the record, I'm against the death penalty. Have been for years.
Dino

If one person makes all the money they get stuck paying all the taxes. If the last 30 years of pursuing con econ policies hadn't concentrated wealth in so few hands, taxation would be more distributed. Besides, we have a flat tax when deductions are taken into account.

However, your argument is merely obfuscation since taxes do affect liberals as well as cons. Plenty of rich liberals. Come to Portland and see a city full of them.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Fail again. Money became more concentrated under the Clintone policies than during recent Republican administrations.

Dino failed again.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

By the way Dino, are you happy that the recent financial crisis is costing the super rich more than the middle class?
HG

In the conservative mindset, there are no innocent criminals.

True that. However, there are on occasion the accused that are innocent. Some of those go on to be convicted. But no, none that are innocent are criminals because they have committed no crime.

In the liberal mindset, there are innocent criminals.
carrick

The liberal conservative divide on inheritance tax is a good case in point. Many conservatives would never personally benefit from a repeal of the inheritance tax, but oppose it because it is inherently unfair.

Liberals typically favor it because they see it as a way of addressing what they see as social inequity associated with the rich/poor divide.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

I hate to tell you this, but the rich are always going to get richer.

After all a good percentage of the population is NEVER going to do what it takes to get ahead. We once had a guy working here that had never had a job where he had benefits and that. It wasn't long until he quit because he "was getting stressed." (not a stressful job).

That means the rest of us while we are getting ahead are leaving them further behind. The thing is there's nothing you can do for those that refuse to help themselves.

The important thing to realize is that we aren't taking a thing from them.
carrick

Dino:

In fact, the opposite is true if one considers the exemption for con-heavy religious institutions that are merely fronts for con political action committees.

More complete bullshit from Dino.

The IRS closely monitoring religious organizations, and if they cross the line to political activism, they lose their tax-free status.

I think it's funny as hell the atheist Dino assumes that all liberals are atheists like him.
carrick

Whistler to follow up on your comment, the rich get richer because they are willing to do what it takes to create wealth, but they also have more means to create wealth. It also means in times of economic downturn that they typically lose more (because they have more invested). A widening of the income gap is a sign of economic good times, a narrowing a sign of economic hardship.

Steve Martin's get quick scheme after all is to "first get a million dollars, then invest it wisely".

Certainly though the people in the bottom bracket are the least likely to do what it takes to get ahead and to create more wealth for themselves (not a blanket statement, obviously some individuals leave that group for higher income brackets).
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

Hawk.

Jefferson was found guilty.

Obama is being railed against because he didn't alert the authorities of what he knew, and is lying in saying he never met with Blago.

All facts.

You fail again, sir.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

Jefferson was found guilty.

If you're talking about Cold Cash Jefferson, I'm pretty sure his trial date was moved forward to sometime early this year.

Sure would like to see the Jefferson was found guilty link.
But maybe you're going on about some other Jefferson.

Ya know, because you are not often right.
carrick

RBB is right on this one.

Jefferson's under indictment, but his case hasn't gotten to trial yet.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

Well that's a real nice way to start the new year, C.

May we also stipulate that because the prosecutor hasn't released ALL the info, we can not assume just what Obama did or did not know?

May I repeat what I have written before: If Jefferson is found guilty, lock him up and throw away the key.

Oh, and Kenny, you fail again, sir.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

May we also stipulate that because the prosecutor hasn't released ALL the info, we can not assume just what Obama did or did not know?

Sure. And we can criticize Obama for not disclosing his information to the public too right?

I mean, you'd think the guy would want to exonerate himself right? He being the head of what he claims will be the most open and honest administration in history.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

Can we stipulate that the prosecutor, while still in the process of deposing more and more witnesses who are coming forward, may have asked Obama not to talk about the case?

What was it that each and every bushco employee said when asked about an ongoing investigation?

Oh yeah, "we can't comment because it's an ongoing investigation".
carrick

RBB:

May we also stipulate that because the prosecutor hasn't released ALL the info, we can not assume just what Obama did or did not know?

Until we know more about what Blago did or didn't do, I'm willing to give Obama 100% slack, other than like Rob, I would have liked to have seen more transparency on his part.

Bush also told his people not to lie and ordered them to be totally forthcoming in the Plame investigation. Haven't heard that language from Obama yet.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

Bush also told his people not to lie and ordered them to be totally forthcoming in the Plame investigation

What was old Scooter (unanimously?) found guilty of?
Hawk

The liberal conservative divide on inheritance tax is a good case in point. Many conservatives would never personally benefit from a repeal of the inheritance tax, but oppose it because it is inherently unfair.

Unless there is an adjustment to the income tax code than the repeal of the estate tax is also unfair. When you inherit assets the tax value of the asset is what it is at the time of the deceased death. Most people who are subject to the estate tax have assets that have acquired value over their life. So when they kick off there is no tax on the capital gains of their assets. The estate tax partly makes up for that.

What I am in favor of is repealing the estate tax, but changing the income tax code to state that only the capital gains portion of the inheritance is subject to taxation and you take the asset at the basis of the deceased. This would also keep people from being forced to sell assets to pay the tax since it would only be taxed when they sell it.

Bush also told his people not to lie and ordered them to be totally forthcoming in the Plame investigation.

He might have said it, but that is not what happened. At least a jury of Libby's peers didn't believe he was totally forthcoming.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

Unless there is an adjustment to the income tax code than the repeal of the estate tax is also unfair.

Spoken as if the state owns the wealth.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Considering Hawks position that capital gains on assets need to be paid as not unreasonable a simple enough solution would be to lower the estate tax to the same level as the capital gains tax rate.

Right now that's at 15%.

I consider Hawks position as not unreasonable in that the main criticism of the death tax is that you pay taxes when you earn the money then you get taxed on your assets when you die.

Now there is the question of assets that didn't appreciate in value. I would say that 99.999% of the time the personal exemption (currently 3.5 million up from 2 million in 2008) would take care of that problem.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Why don't you cons simply come out as monarchists? You favor a system where the top 0.1% controls 20+% of the wealth. Why not let them gain control of all of it?

Do you carry knee pads just in case a rich person asks for instant service?

This country has been on a steep decline ever since we abandoned an agressive policy of wealth redistribution. It's not only fair, it's the only way to a just and peaceful society. If not, you eventually have a return of the feudal system.
robert108

Besides, we have a flat tax when deductions are taken into account.

Absolutely false. More economic ignorance.
carrick

Dino, I favor a free country, which includes the opportunity for people to acquire wealth.

You obviously favor a form of dictatorship, in which "fairness" is redefined as those who haven't earned it get the money from those who have. Such a system is doomed to economic stagnation, since without wealth creation you cannot have growth, and when you take the money away from the people with the means to create wealth, you destroy that capacity too.

And that's when you find that ignominious feudal system to which you refer: Cuba, which aggressively redistributes wealth as Dino advocates, has a mean income of roughly $17/month.

What thimblebrains like Dino don't apparently realize is everybody wins in a market where wealth isn't "aggressively redistributed". Today's "poor" in this country resembles what was middle class only 40 years ago.

Allowing people the freedom to create wealth without "an aggressive redistribution of wealth" why the United States, with a mere 5% of the world's population produces nearly 30% of its total goods and services.
carrick

Hawk:

He might have said it, but that is not what happened. At least a jury of Libby's peers didn't believe he was totally forthcoming.

I'm pretty sure he lied too, which was really a stupid thing to have done. Not sure how that's apropos here: The president can call for honesty and cooperation in his people, and he can take punitive action when it becomes clear that they are not following his request (Libby was fired), but he can't force them to be honest.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

You present two polar opposites. There is something in the middle. The first world countries all have redistribution policies, third world countries do not. You're seeing the effects of a non-redistribution policy in the stagnation of most incomes and a marked decrease in class mobility. In fact, class mobility in Europe is greater than here. We are a culture in decline in many ways.

Redistribution of wealth does not mean taking from one and handing to another. That's only in your simple-minded way of thinking.

Without the redistribution of wealth we've already got, 90% of you wouldn't even own a computer to argue on the internet with.

Oh, and Cuba has survived 50 years of bullying and despite that has a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, MUCH higher literacy and MUCH higher per capita population of doctors and engineers than the cesspool US.
carrick

A feudal system:

ECONOMY
The Cuban Government continues to adhere to socialist principles in organizing its state-controlled economy. Most of the means of production are owned and run by the government and, according to Cuban Government statistics, about 75% of the labor force is employed by the state. The actual figure is closer to 93%, with some 150,000 small farmers and another 150,000 "cuentapropistas," or holders of licenses for self-employment, representing a mere 2.1% of the nearly 4.87 million-person workforce.

98% of the population work for the government, with a mean salary of $17/month. That's feudal to me.

By all means, let's create that system here because that would be "fair".
robert108

Redistribution of wealth does not mean taking from one and handing to another.

That's exactly what it means. Duh.
carrick

Dino:

Redistribution of wealth does not mean taking from one and handing to another.

LOL.
robert108

The first world countries all have redistribution policies, third world countries do not.

Wrong again! Third world countries have near total redistribution systems, where the dictator or monarch takes everything, and doles out minimal resources to the peasants. That's what makes them third world countries.
First world countries all have systems which allow some fair distribution, based on achievement. The US, which has less redistribution than any other country, has the most productive economy. Duh again.
carrick

And by the way:

…despite that has a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, MUCH higher literacy and MUCH higher per capita population of doctors and engineers than the cesspool US.

This assertion is based on official statistics from a country that does not have a free press. No doubt it is a flat out lie.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Here's an article sounding an alarm about the income and tax disparities. It's from a liberal publication. The Wall Street Journal.

It really wasn't fair for this country to pull away from the King. After all, he deserved all he had. Why should he give his colonies away?

I'm pretty sure most conservatives would have been very content slaving in the sun of the ancient Egyptian desert building a pyramid for the one guy with all the money.
carrick

Dino:

Without the redistribution of wealth we've already got, 90% of you wouldn't even own a computer to argue on the internet with.

This is a totally absurd statement.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Redistribution in the way we and other countries use it is to take from ALL and reinvest the money in the culture. The more you make the more percentage you pay. That system created a huge, thriving middle class, incredible infrastructure and amazing technological advancement.

Since we largely abandoned that system we have been on the decline. We're looking more and more like a third world culture every day.

You can't dismiss the successes in Cuba simply because you don't want to believe them. They're real. The social indicators of Cuban culture beat the pants off the cesspool we call the US. I know it's hard to admit your country isn't the Utopia you imagine. And it's about to get much worse.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Besides, you people HATE the free press! You prefer World Net Daily.
carrick

Dino:

Here's an article sounding an alarm about the income and tax disparities. It's from a liberal publication. The Wall Street Journal.

The editorial section is fairly conservative, but there is a disconnect between that and the general newsroom. That's been demonstrated by media studies.

Anyway the statistics that have your panties in such a knot is that the top 400 taxpayers share of income increased from 1.02% to a whopping 1.15% in roughly 10 years.

Big "wow".

In any case, that's hardly a county with "royalty". (In feudal Europe, as in Cuba, the government owned nearly 100% of the nations wealth.)

I'm pretty sure most conservatives would have been very content slaving in the sun of the ancient Egyptian desert building a pyramid for the one guy with all the money.

This is particularly hilarious since you were just lauding a feudal system (Cuba) that is just like that.
carrick

Dino:

Since we largely abandoned that system we have been on the decline. We're looking more and more like a third world culture every day.

You're an idiot.

The percentage that the upper 1% pays has actually INCREASED MONOTONICALLY from 8% in 1980 to 22% in 2007!

In terms of your "fairness" system, it has become MORE fair, not less.

You can't dismiss the successes in Cuba simply because you don't want to believe them.

I can dismiss them however, because they are based on lies by officials who don't have a free press to keep them honest. See my link above.

Besides, you people HATE the free press!

No, actually I prefer a free press. You're the ones who are trying to control it with your "Fairness Doctrine".

You prefer World Net Daily.</blockqoute>Carnac, you need to calibrate that mind reading device of yours. I neither prefer them, nor even pay them any mind. After CNN & BBC, my main news sources are WaPo and NYT.
http://Array robert108

Redistribution in the way we and other countries use it is to take from ALL and reinvest the money in the culture.

Wrong on two counts: One, the govt takes from the earners(by definition) and gives to those who earn little or nothing. It's called social engineering. Two, the govt doesn't invest, it spends. The majority of what govt spends goes to maintaining itself. As a business, govt would go bankrupt very quickly. Even with the ability to confiscate money from the earners, govt is still spending its way to bankruptcy. You can't violate basic econ principles without going bankrupt, in fact.
carrick

OK,Dino. I'm out of here. Cya.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Blago’s Pick For The Senate Tried To Execute An Innocent Man

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments