Dear Juror #1

Feel free to disagree with me any time you want. If you can, post "Why" so I can learn why you think or feel that way.

As for me: I try to let the readers weigh and decide for themselves. I often post information that one doesn't find on ABCNNBCBSCIAFoxNoiseNutworks or The New York Times. They're the "respected sources" who told you Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy, North Vietnam attacked the United States Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq had WMDs and was going to send them any day toward Washington. You see, I remember the times they did that, 1963, 1964 and, for Iraq twice, 1991 and 2002.

Wanting to share what I know and learn what others know is democratic. It's why the press is the only business mentioned by name in the Constitution. It's why the press is so important for safeguarding the republic and maintaining justice.

Wanting to share and learn is the exact opposite to your approach, where you and others on DU, including the rightwing lurkers and the asshole shitstain wankers, label me as a "CT theorist" in order to denigrate me as a poster and demean anything I post. That's a form of censorship, which is undemocratic.

BOOKMARK THIS.

I've asked you, repeatedly over the years, to show what you term my "propensity for promoting and legitimizing the work of noted bigots, racists, homophobes and conspiracy theorist lunatics. You're a guy who thinks white-nationalist Paul Craig Roberts and insane homophobe Wayne Madsen are credible, and appropriate sources for use on a progressive message board."

Seeing how you fail to actually show any of that, I want these to be in the record for all DU to see:

Where I quoted Roberts when he supported Don Siegelman:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022073759


Where I quoted Madsen recently to document the business links between Bush and bin Laden:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6059251


Where I first quoted Madsen on DU2 in 2003 (earlier examples exist, but none so illustrative):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x610051


Where you smear Naomi Klein, making me think the practice is your speciality:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5318151


You will note that I did not support any theory, smear, or lie; I only posted what these people wrote. And as far I as I knew or know, none of these people are anything like what you describe, SidDithers of DU.

What's a person called who repeats something that is not true, SidDithers of DU?

Money. Those with a lot of it seem to want a lot, lot, lot more.

Maybe that's why there's not much room in their hearts for sharing it. Ask Larry Summers, seems like he would know:

Wall Street Pays Bankers to Work in Government and It Doesn't Want Anyone to Know

by David Dayen
The New Republic, Feb. 4, 2015

EXCERPT...

The handouts recently received attention when Antonio Weiss, the former investment banker at Lazard now serving as counselor to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, acknowledged in financial disclosures that he would be paid $21 million in unvested income and deferred compensation upon exiting the company for a job in government. Weiss withdrew from consideration to become the undersecretary for domestic finance under pressure from financial reformers, but the counselor position—which does not require congressional confirmation—probably still entitles him to the $21 million. The terms of the award are part of a Lazard employee agreement that nobody has seen.

These payments are routine at major banks, several of which have explicit policies, found in filings with the SEC, outlining automatic awards for executives who rotate into government. Goldman Sachs offers “a lump sum cash payment” for government service, for example.

Other banks’ policies are subtler. Banks often defer certain types of compensation in order to retain talent. When an executive terminates employment, unvested stock options and other forms of deferred compensation are usually forfeited. But several companies let executives’ equity options continue to vest if they leave for a government position, or allow them to keep retention bonuses that would otherwise be returned to the firm. A 2004 tax law banned accelerated payments but made an exemption for employees who leave for government service. Critics wonder whether the gifts are intended to fill the government with friendly faces who will act in their former employer’s interests.

“It fuels the revolving door between banks and the government,” said Michael Smallberg, an investigator for the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), whose 2013 report detailed these types of compensation agreements. The average executive branch salary is substantially less than these millions in awards, so the bonuses effectively supplement the lower pay, raising questions about who the government officials actually work for.

SNIP...

Last November, Trumka wrote letters to seven mega-banks—Citi, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Lazard—asking their compensation committees to explain why giving incentives to executives for government service benefits shareholders or the company. The labor federation holds shares in many public companies through its pension funds. “We oppose compensation plans that provide windfalls to their executives unrelated to performance,” the letter states.

CONTINUED...

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120967/wall-street-pays-bankers-work-government-and-wants-it-secret

Goes a long way toward explaining why, no matter how hard we work for change, the rich keep getting richer and the wars go on and on and on.

Secret Government is why the pendulum won't swing back.

Prof. Alfred McCoy studied the history of the crimes of the secret national security state and found that when they previously occurred, there usually was a reaction from the party not in executive power. LBJ and COINTELPRO/CHAOS were countered by the Repuke investigators in the House and Senate; Nixon and Watergate were countered by the Church Committee and new Congressional oversight. Today there has been no response from either party when the other's treasons were exposed, thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act and the NSA warrantless full-spectrum spying op preventing the Constitutional pendulum from swinging.

Last Days In Vietnam (Rory Kennedy) online stream Feb 5-7

The guy uses same M.O. in the JFK assassination debate.

You're a Liberal?

I've seen you described as a "Democratic strategist" on FOX television.



Doesn't say, "Liberal." BTW: Are you paid by either FOX or the Party?

Believing the CIA, too.

And the NSA making it easy to see how Gulf of Tonkin was exactly as good as Curveball.

NSA bosses feared releasing Gulf of Tonkin intel would draw ''uncomfortable comparisons'' with Iraq

Some ideas are as old as dirt.

A cartoon, FWICF, just before the First World War:



Goes a long way to explaining how some memes can stop people talking about CIA spying and its impact on inequality PDQ.