W
WinterBorn
Guest
So what about the people who consume the electricity produced by coal-fired plants? Are they not supporting the "dirty energy corporations" in their quest to create more "poor"?
Conservatives...
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
So what about the people who consume the electricity produced by coal-fired plants? Are they not supporting the "dirty energy corporations" in their quest to create more "poor"?
Bfgrn
New member
It is not a 'quest' to create more poor. But it is a consequence. Do you deny that?
People have little choice about the source of their electricity.
I just read an enlightening article...check it out...
Excerpts:
This week an important protest is taking place in the coalfields of West Virginia. The March on Blair Mountain began on Monday as several hundred people embarked on a five-day journey retracing the steps of over 10,000 miners who 90 years ago staged the largest armed insurrection after the American Civil War. Today's march is a protest against both the attack of the union movement in America and the demolition of the Appalachian mountains.
Blair Mountain's storied history dates back to West Virginia in the 1920s, when the entire state was a company town. Big Coal dominated every aspect of economic life. The industry owned the shops, the homes, of course the mines -- and made sure there was virtually no other source of employment in the state. Working conditions were horrendous: men and their sons worked 12 to 16 grueling hours in dark, dangerous mines dying from a notorious plague of subsurface explosions, cave-ins and black lung.
The companies used local sheriffs to enforce their system of feudal serfdom. When a miner was injured and his family needed to be evicted from their home, the sheriff did the dirty deed. When union organizers appeared, the sheriff arrested, jailed, and routinely beat them, before escorting them to the county line. One sheriff refused to tow the company line: Sid Hatfield, of Hatfield and McCoy lore.
Not only did Hatfield refuse to do the industry's bidding, but he jailed mine operators for mistreating their workers. In the infamous Matewan gun battle, Hatfield helped kill seven mine company private investigators who had evicted union families from their homes.
Hatfield was never convicted for the Matewan shootings, but the mine operators took their revenge and on August 1, 1921 when industry thugs executed Hatfield in broad daylight on the McDowell county court-house steps.
Hatfield's assassination triggered one of the biggest labor demonstrations in American history. Ten thousand miners from the coalfields of Kentucky and West Virginia marched for six days, converging on Blair Mountain to confront their industry bosses. They were met by King Coal's powerful army of thugs and mowed down by Gatling guns.
President Warren Harding, a so-called "friend of coal," like most of the leading politicians of the Gilded Age, authorized the U.S. army to drop bombs and poison gas on the marching miners -- the only time in American History when our military deliberately bombed U.S. citizens. These military measures broke the demonstration but outraged the public, and gave vital traction to the United Mine Workers and the American labor movement.
Over the next 60 years unions became the critical counterweight to corporate power and the principal platform for the growth of the American middle class, which gave our Democracy its wealth, prosperity, and sense of justice as a core value.
More
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
ROFLMAO.... what spinning you moron? YOU stated I was slandering them, when in reality I was stating FACTS about the Kennedy's. YOU continue attempting to build little straw men. I ASKED a friggin question because when you mentioned that story about how much the SS liked the Kennedy's, it made me think of past conversations I have had with people working on protective details (not for politicians, but for celebs). They said they keep it all professional as you tend to relax around friends. I think you are quite wrong about it making people more diligent. I believe it would have the opposite effect. While I think this is an interesting topic for discussion, you are once again trying to spin this conversation AWAY from your MORONIC claims that I was slandering the Kennedy's.
NOT ONCE have you shown where a single thing I have stated is slander. NOT ONCE. Yet you continue to pretend that is what I was doing and NOW you are proclaiming that I am somehow the one 'spinning' this. Bottom line, you are a moron.
ROFLMAO.... so because the kids did SOME good, that makes Daddy's actions all better? You seriously are quite in love with the Kennedy's. You will do anything and say anything to spin the unethical behavior of Joe and some of the others into 'good'.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yet this is EXACTLY WHAT JOE KENNEDY DID.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No you have not. You avoid any question posed to you like the plague. You still have not shown one single piece of 'slander' on my part despite repeated requests for you to back up your moronic assertion.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, it was not. That is where YOU ARE SLANDERING ME. You are projecting what YOU WANT my position to be because it makes it easier for you to shout 'you meanie'.
AGAIN. SHOW ONE THING I STATED THAT IS SLANDER.
Bfgrn
New member
slander
–noun
1.
defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2.
a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
A recurrent urban legend about Kennedy is that he made money in bootlegging, the illegal importation and distribution of alcohol during Prohibition. Although there is no hard evidence of this, Kennedy did have extensive investments in the legal importation of spirits. The "bootlegging" rumor itself may be traceable to Canadian distiller Samuel Bronfman and to New England bootlegger Danny Walsh and his crime syndicate, which did in fact smuggle spirits across the Canadian-American border during this period. Post-Prohibition, Bronfman had a bitter rivalry with Kennedy in acquiring North American liquor distribution rights.
Verdict: SLANDER
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Verdict: You once again prove you are a moron. You managed to cut and paste some of my previous quotes, but conveniently left out the one describing Kennedy's liquor actions. As I ALSO stated, he did indeed get an 'exemption' from FDR (because of a convenient partnership with FDR's son) to bring in alcohol for 'medicinal reasons'. That 'medicinal' alcohol was brought in and sold to the general public. If you wish to pretend that isn't bootlegging just because the President of the US gave him and exemption for partnering with the PRESIDENTS SON.... then by all means... go right ahead and pretend. Tell us genius... was the alcohol brought in by Kennedy sold as medicine? or was it sold to the general public for general consumption.
But I guess special favors from the President to the Presidents son and business partner... well, we should just pretend that is ethical right? You can cling to the technicalities if you wish. But in reality we all know what Kennedy did do. He found a way to circumvent the law of the day and he benefited from it financially. He then went on to manipulate the stock market and trade of inside information, which hurt others (a criteria you mentioned you hated... yet conveniently ignore in the case of Kennedy).
Lastly, my comments on his being a bootlegger are not malicious or defamatory... We all know for a FACT that Kennedy got the distribution rights to several brands DURING prohibition. We all know for a FACT that he sold the alcohol to the general public. If you wish to pretend that it was all sold as medicine. Well then fine. But you are stretching beyond belief in a vain effort to clear the name of your beloved family.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Now Bfgrn.... you also stated my comments on Joe's market manipulation and insider trading were also SLANDER.
You also stated my post on the Kennedy clan's sexcapades was trash....
Where is your evidence of such on those topics?
You also stated my post on the Kennedy clan's sexcapades was trash....
Where is your evidence of such on those topics?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Should David Vitter resign?
Bfgrn
New member
MORE slander freak?
At the repeal of Prohibition, Kennedy and FDR's son James Roosevelt traveled to Scotland to buy distribution rights for Scotch whisky. In addition, Kennedy had purchased spirits-importation rights from Schenley Industries, a firm in Canada.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
READ your own link moron....
They had the alcohol HERE, they were in business the DAY AFTER the repeal..... They brought the alcohol in under the guise it was for 'medicinal purposes' which again was LEGAL, but it was NOT the purpose that alcohol was actually brought in for.... as evidenced by what they ACTUALLY DID WITH IT.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/04/26/the-kennedy-bootlegging-myth.html
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Now again.... WHERE did I slander Kennedy with regards to his insider trading and manipulation as you claimed?
Where was I wrong in the sexcapades of the other Kennedy's?
Let me guess, you think Mary Jo never died? Because neither of us was there.... right?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It's not even that good WB... No one lied about death panels, they are IN the Obamacare legislation! The only thing is, they didn't call it a death panel, it's a 'cost advisory board' but the basic function is the same. Now, this thread is not about Obamacare or health care, it's about conservatives, and just like any time you corner a pinhead in an argument they can't win, they attempt to divert the topic to something else. We were discussing personal responsibility for your actions, and the private lives of public servants. Bfoon realized he could never prevail in such an argument on merit, so he attempts to change subjects... let's talk about Ronald Reagan... let's talk about the death panel "lie" that really wasn't! Let's talk about ANYTHING but integrity and ethics in our elected leaders!
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Regarding the issue of a politician's private life, I would like to pose this question:
If you were on a business hiring board, and you had two identical candidates, who had MBA's from Harvard Business School, and 4.0 undergraduates from the same place, with equally impressive internships and job histories, etc., and the only difference between them was that one was known to be an avid adulterer on the outside (without effecting the workplace in any way) and one is known to be a good spouse - which would you select? And are you wrong if you select the guy who's not cheating?
FYI - Dixie and a handful of others do not claim to be remotely libertarian. Dixie openly criticizes the philosophy. But YOU LEFTISTS are clearly all a bunch of commies just because one or two of you may happen to openly be communist.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Should David Vitter resign?
Bfgrn
New member
You mean stored in legally bonded warehouse space? Hey you freak, in your hasty urge to slime and slander the Kennedys, you forgot to READ your own link...
Somerset emitted the pungent air that hovered around most marriages of politics and commerce, but it was in every respect perfectly legal. That last part—“perfectly legal”—was something that Walter Trohan, the longtime Washington bureau chief of the Chicago Tribune, failed to include in an article published some 20 years later, when Kennedy’s son John was serving his first term as U.S. senator from Massachusetts. In that 1954 article on James Roosevelt’s impending divorce, Trohan also related the story of Joseph Kennedy’s Roosevelt-assisted entry into the liquor business. After a brief description of Kennedy’s deal with the British, Trohan added, “At the time, Prohibition had not been repealed.” This was true, as far as it went—but it did not acknowledge that the pre-Repeal liquor Kennedy imported in November 1933 entered the country under legal medicinal permits, and was at first stored in legally bonded warehouse space. From such acorns, nourished by a lifetime’s accumulation of rumors, enemies, and vast sums of money, arose the widely accepted story of Joseph P. Kennedy, bootlegger.
Except there’s really no reason to believe he was one. The most familiar legacy of Prohibition might be its own mythology, a body of lore and gossip and Hollywood-induced imagery that comes close enough to the truth to be believable, but not close enough to be… well, to be true. The Kennedy myth is an outstanding example. The facts of Kennedy’s life (that he was rich; that he was in the liquor business; that he was deeply unpopular and widely distrusted) were rich loam for a rumor that did not begin to blossom until nearly 30 years after Repeal. Three times during the 1930s, Kennedy was appointed to federal positions requiring Senate confirmation (chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, chairman of the U.S. Maritime Commission, Ambassador to Great Britain). At a time when the memory of Prohibition was vivid and the passions it inflamed still smoldered, no one seemed to think Joe Kennedy had been a bootlegger—not the Republicans, not the anti-Roosevelt Democrats, not remnant Klansmen or anti-Irish Boston Brahmins or cynical newsmen or resentful Dry leaders still seething from the humiliation of Repeal. There’s nothing in the Senate record that suggests anyone brought up the bootlegging charge; there’s nothing about it in the press coverage that appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, or The Boston Globe. There was nothing asserting, suggesting, or hinting at bootlegging in the Roosevelt-hating Chicago Tribune, or in the long-dry Los Angeles Times. Around the time of his three Senate confirmations, the last of them concluding barely four years after Repeal, there was some murmuring about Kennedy’s involvement in possible stock-manipulation schemes, and a possible conflict of interest. But about involvement in the illegal liquor trade, there was nothing at all. With Prohibition fresh in the national mind, when a hint of illegal behavior would have been dearly prized by the president’s enemies or Kennedy’s own, there wasn’t even a whisper.
In the 1950s, another presidential appointment provoked another investigation of Kennedy’s past. This time, Dwight Eisenhower intended to name him to the President’s Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activities, an advisory group meant to provide oversight of the Central Intelligence Agency. The office of Sherman Adams, the White House chief of staff, asked the FBI to comb through Kennedy’s past associations and activities. The fat file that resulted touched on nearly every aspect of his life, including his business relations with James Roosevelt. But nowhere in the file is there any indication of bootlegging in the Kennedy past, or even a suggestion of it from Kennedy’s detractors.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Hey SF, at least we know how to get a rise out of Bfoon. Just bring up some dalliance or misdeeds of the Kennnedy clan and he'll start foaming at the mouth.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You mean stored in legally bonded warehouse space? Hey you freak, in your hasty urge to slime and slander the Kennedys, you forgot to READ your own link...
Somerset emitted the pungent air that hovered around most marriages of politics and commerce, but it was in every respect perfectly legal. That last part—“perfectly legal”—was something that Walter Trohan, the longtime Washington bureau chief of the Chicago Tribune, failed to include in an article published some 20 years later, when Kennedy’s son John was serving his first term as U.S. senator from Massachusetts. In that 1954 article on James Roosevelt’s impending divorce, Trohan also related the story of Joseph Kennedy’s Roosevelt-assisted entry into the liquor business. After a brief description of Kennedy’s deal with the British, Trohan added, “At the time, Prohibition had not been repealed.” This was true, as far as it went—but it did not acknowledge that the pre-Repeal liquor Kennedy imported in November 1933 entered the country under legal medicinal permits, and was at first stored in legally bonded warehouse space. From such acorns, nourished by a lifetime’s accumulation of rumors, enemies, and vast sums of money, arose the widely accepted story of Joseph P. Kennedy, bootlegger.
Except there’s really no reason to believe he was one. The most familiar legacy of Prohibition might be its own mythology, a body of lore and gossip and Hollywood-induced imagery that comes close enough to the truth to be believable, but not close enough to be… well, to be true. The Kennedy myth is an outstanding example. The facts of Kennedy’s life (that he was rich; that he was in the liquor business; that he was deeply unpopular and widely distrusted) were rich loam for a rumor that did not begin to blossom until nearly 30 years after Repeal. Three times during the 1930s, Kennedy was appointed to federal positions requiring Senate confirmation (chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, chairman of the U.S. Maritime Commission, Ambassador to Great Britain). At a time when the memory of Prohibition was vivid and the passions it inflamed still smoldered, no one seemed to think Joe Kennedy had been a bootlegger—not the Republicans, not the anti-Roosevelt Democrats, not remnant Klansmen or anti-Irish Boston Brahmins or cynical newsmen or resentful Dry leaders still seething from the humiliation of Repeal. There’s nothing in the Senate record that suggests anyone brought up the bootlegging charge; there’s nothing about it in the press coverage that appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, or The Boston Globe. There was nothing asserting, suggesting, or hinting at bootlegging in the Roosevelt-hating Chicago Tribune, or in the long-dry Los Angeles Times. Around the time of his three Senate confirmations, the last of them concluding barely four years after Repeal, there was some murmuring about Kennedy’s involvement in possible stock-manipulation schemes, and a possible conflict of interest. But about involvement in the illegal liquor trade, there was nothing at all. With Prohibition fresh in the national mind, when a hint of illegal behavior would have been dearly prized by the president’s enemies or Kennedy’s own, there wasn’t even a whisper.
In the 1950s, another presidential appointment provoked another investigation of Kennedy’s past. This time, Dwight Eisenhower intended to name him to the President’s Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activities, an advisory group meant to provide oversight of the Central Intelligence Agency. The office of Sherman Adams, the White House chief of staff, asked the FBI to comb through Kennedy’s past associations and activities. The fat file that resulted touched on nearly every aspect of his life, including his business relations with James Roosevelt. But nowhere in the file is there any indication of bootlegging in the Kennedy past, or even a suggestion of it from Kennedy’s detractors.
Hey you fucking moron.... DO TRY TO PAY ATTENTION.... you keep saying the SAME thing I do and then pretending it is something different.
I stated what Kennedy did was LEGAL.... just highly UNETHICAL.... I know a moron such as yourself has a hard time with reading comprehension.... but DO try to keep up if you are going to attempt to defend the unethical behavior of Joe Kennedy.... you know... the guy that MADE his money while hurting others.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You mean stored in legally bonded warehouse space? Hey you freak, in your hasty urge to slime and slander the Kennedys, you forgot to READ your own link...
Somerset emitted the pungent air that hovered around most marriages of politics and commerce, but it was in every respect perfectly legal. That last part—“perfectly legal”—was something that Walter Trohan, the longtime Washington bureau chief of the Chicago Tribune, failed to include in an article published some 20 years later, when Kennedy’s son John was serving his first term as U.S. senator from Massachusetts. In that 1954 article on James Roosevelt’s impending divorce, Trohan also related the story of Joseph Kennedy’s Roosevelt-assisted entry into the liquor business. After a brief description of Kennedy’s deal with the British, Trohan added, “At the time, Prohibition had not been repealed.” This was true, as far as it went—but it did not acknowledge that the pre-Repeal liquor Kennedy imported in November 1933 entered the country under legal medicinal permits, and was at first stored in legally bonded warehouse space. From such acorns, nourished by a lifetime’s accumulation of rumors, enemies, and vast sums of money, arose the widely accepted story of Joseph P. Kennedy, bootlegger.
Except there’s really no reason to believe he was one. The most familiar legacy of Prohibition might be its own mythology, a body of lore and gossip and Hollywood-induced imagery that comes close enough to the truth to be believable, but not close enough to be… well, to be true. The Kennedy myth is an outstanding example. The facts of Kennedy’s life (that he was rich; that he was in the liquor business; that he was deeply unpopular and widely distrusted) were rich loam for a rumor that did not begin to blossom until nearly 30 years after Repeal. Three times during the 1930s, Kennedy was appointed to federal positions requiring Senate confirmation (chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, chairman of the U.S. Maritime Commission, Ambassador to Great Britain). At a time when the memory of Prohibition was vivid and the passions it inflamed still smoldered, no one seemed to think Joe Kennedy had been a bootlegger—not the Republicans, not the anti-Roosevelt Democrats, not remnant Klansmen or anti-Irish Boston Brahmins or cynical newsmen or resentful Dry leaders still seething from the humiliation of Repeal. There’s nothing in the Senate record that suggests anyone brought up the bootlegging charge; there’s nothing about it in the press coverage that appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, or The Boston Globe. There was nothing asserting, suggesting, or hinting at bootlegging in the Roosevelt-hating Chicago Tribune, or in the long-dry Los Angeles Times. Around the time of his three Senate confirmations, the last of them concluding barely four years after Repeal, there was some murmuring about Kennedy’s involvement in possible stock-manipulation schemes, and a possible conflict of interest. But about involvement in the illegal liquor trade, there was nothing at all. With Prohibition fresh in the national mind, when a hint of illegal behavior would have been dearly prized by the president’s enemies or Kennedy’s own, there wasn’t even a whisper.
In the 1950s, another presidential appointment provoked another investigation of Kennedy’s past. This time, Dwight Eisenhower intended to name him to the President’s Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activities, an advisory group meant to provide oversight of the Central Intelligence Agency. The office of Sherman Adams, the White House chief of staff, asked the FBI to comb through Kennedy’s past associations and activities. The fat file that resulted touched on nearly every aspect of his life, including his business relations with James Roosevelt. But nowhere in the file is there any indication of bootlegging in the Kennedy past, or even a suggestion of it from Kennedy’s detractors.
I will let you read what I wrote AGAIN....