Karma catches up to Mayor Daley

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
On 2004-02-08, EDR wrote:
In article , Tom Sixkiller
wrote:

Johnson was the President who first brought in Brown and Root (now a
Haliburton subsidiary) with various contracts in Viet Nam. Brown was a
small Texas construction company whose campaign contributions went to
Johnson.

The Johnson family still has a larger piece of Haliburton than Cheny ever
hoped to have.

Lady Bird racked up the cash when Halliburton bought Brown and Root.

C J Campbell wrote:

LBJ, of course, avoided exposure completely as Senators
Ervin, Tallmadge, and Inouye stopped any further Senate investigation.

And Tallmadge was later nailed in the Abscam sting and failed re-election. The
people of Georgia prefer not to be represented by crooks.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Nevertheless, Johnson had a long career in public service dating back to
1931. He was elected to Congress in 1937, served in WW II as a
lieutenant-commander from 1941-42. He was elected to the Senate in 1948,
Democratic whip in 1951, minority leader in 1953, and majority leader from
1955-61. He then was elected vice president. He had a thorough grounding
in
Texas politics and extensive experience in both the legislative and
executive branches. No President before or since has been so successful in
achieving his legislative agenda.

In short, he changed the politics from statesmenship to pork-barrelling; he
took corruption from a sideline activity to the overwhelming facet of
political life,

He radically changed the role of the
Federal government, perhaps permanently. Much of his Great Society program
continues today. Whether you think these changes were beneficial or not,
he
was certainly effective in getting them implemented.

Well hooray!! for his breaking the neck of limited government. Every
tyrant/dictator is effective in getting their "agenda" implemented.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
|
| "C J Campbell" wrote in
message
| ...
| Kennedy won by fewer votes than were garnered from obvious voter
fraud
in
| Texas alone. He maintained numerous organized contacts. Johnson,
perhaps
| the
| most qualified President we have had in the last century, was also
perhaps
| the most ruthless.
|
| What do you consider "qualified"? Johnson was far and away the most
corrupt
| president in recent memory, and probably any other in this century.
His
| corruption went back before he was even in politics. Barr McClellan
makes
a
| good case that Johnson was heavily involved in the JFK assassination.
LBJ's
| history would make mafia dons blush.

Johnson was corrupt, no doubt about it. He probably should have gone to
prison for tax evasion and bribery with the Brown & Root case in 1944.
Only
the direct intervention of FDR stopped it. Then there was Bobby Baker.
That
was such a liability that Kennedy considered dropping LBJ from the
ticket
for reelection. However, the Senate investigative committee had six
Democrats and three Republicans. It voted solidly on party lines to drop
the
investigation of LBJ. LBJ had Clark Clifford and Abe Fortas organize the
cover-up -- both of these men were later involved in scandals of their
own.
Senator John Williams was subjected to a dirty tricks campaign. In spite
of
all this, Baker was indicted in 1967 and actually went to prison for
seventeen months. LBJ, of course, avoided exposure completely as
Senators
Ervin, Tallmadge, and Inouye stopped any further Senate investigation.
Of
course, all three of these Senators later led the charge against Nixon.

Johnson bragged that he had sex with a secretary on the desk of the Oval
Office. His sexual appetite was enormous.

The reason Johnson kept Hoover on as head of the FBI was because "it is
better to have him inside the tent ****ing out instead of outside
****ing
in."

It is said that Ross Perot got Hoover's records when he died. I suspect
they were helpfut to his '96 run for office. Of course, LBJ made Perot
rich
with Medicare paperwork.

Nevertheless, Johnson had a long career in public service dating back to
1931. He was elected to Congress in 1937, served in WW II as a
lieutenant-commander from 1941-42. He was elected to the Senate in 1948,
Democratic whip in 1951, minority leader in 1953, and majority leader
from
1955-61. He then was elected vice president. He had a thorough grounding
in
Texas politics and extensive experience in both the legislative and
executive branches. No President before or since has been so successful
in
achieving his legislative agenda. He radically changed the role of the
Federal government, perhaps permanently. Much of his Great Society
program
continues today. Whether you think these changes were beneficial or not,
he
was certainly effective in getting them implemented.

LBJ could govern.

LBJ could RULE, not govern.

"EDR" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom Sixkiller
wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Kennedy won by fewer votes than were garnered from obvious voter fraud
in
Texas alone. He maintained numerous organized contacts. Johnson,
perhaps
the
most qualified President we have had in the last century, was also
perhaps
the most ruthless.

What do you consider "qualified"? Johnson was far and away the most
corrupt
president in recent memory, and probably any other in this century. His
corruption went back before he was even in politics. Barr McClellan
makes a
good case that Johnson was heavily involved in the JFK assassination.
LBJ's
history would make mafia dons blush.

Johnson was the President who first brought in Brown and Root (now a
Haliburton subsidiary) with various contracts in Viet Nam. Brown was a
small Texas construction company whose campaign contributions went to
Johnson.

And Sea-Train, the heavy shipping company that made a fortune running
equipment to Vietnam, had a majority shareholder in the person of Claudia
Alta Taylor (sp??), AKA Lady Bird.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
|
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
| ...
| Kennedy won by fewer votes than were garnered from obvious voter fraud
in
| Texas alone. He maintained numerous organized contacts. Johnson,
perhaps
| the
| most qualified President we have had in the last century, was also
perhaps
| the most ruthless.
|
| What do you consider "qualified"? Johnson was far and away the most
corrupt
| president in recent memory, and probably any other in this century. His
| corruption went back before he was even in politics. Barr McClellan
makes
a
| good case that Johnson was heavily involved in the JFK assassination.
LBJ's
| history would make mafia dons blush.

Despite Johnson's corruption, I doubt if anyone but Lee Harvey Oswald had
anything to do with Kennedy's assassination. If you listen to all the
conspiracy theories, it is hard to believe that there was anyone in Dallas
on that day who didn't want to kill Kennedy. Mafia gunmen on the grassy
knoll, CIA snipers on the overpass, Cubans in the sewers, Johnson hitmen
everywhere -- indeed, you begin to wonder if there was anybody who was not
in Dallas on that day. And they all wanted to kill Kennedy or, in the more
bizarre theories, Connelly or Jackie.

Wanting to kill JFK and the ability to pull off the the feat of marksmanship
that was performed that day are two whole and separate issues.


Oswald was disaffected, had threatened to assassinate other people, left
his
palm print on the rifle that killed Kennedy, and was a loner. He didn't
need
anyone else to tell him to shoot Kennedy.

And in the Marines he could barely shoot "Marksman". The shots that killed
Kennedy would put the finest sharpshooters in the country to shame.

Again, _wanting_ to do something and actually _performing the act_ are two
different things.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
link.net...
| You are implying the Republicans do better in this regard. I say BS;
both
| parties have demonstrated quite clearly they are unable or unwilling
to
| police their own.
|
| While some of the replies to this statement have been superb, I'm not
| convinced that it's really an issue of political party. At the city
level,
| anytime a single party controls things for any length of time, the
| corruption begin to pop up like mushrooms on an old tree stump.
Pittsburgh
| has painted itself into bankruptcy not because of Democratic Party
policies
| per se, but because the Democrats have been in control -- not a single
| Republican on the city council -- for over 60 uninterupted years. Half
the
| judges and senior officials in town come from the same 3 or 4 families.
| With no competition to keep things honest, the Pittsburgh wing of the
| Democratic Party has morphed into one gigantic self-perpetuating
machine.
| We used to produce steel. Now we produce no-show government jobs for
other
| people's nephews and brother-in-laws.

It would be interesting to find some Republican examples of this.


City of Mesa, Arizona.

"John Gaquin" wrote:
Very few people in Washington who are not Very High Profile
dare seriously cross swords with the Clintons. There are well
over a hundred people associated with the Clintons over the
past twenty-five years who have done so, and subsequently
died in violent or questionable circumstances.

I personally dislike the Clintons, John, but I just can't let this pass
unchallenged: are you seriously contending that they are complicit in
mass murder, and that many people in Washington fear to criticize them
for this reason?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"John Gaquin" wrote:
Very few people in Washington who are not Very High Profile
dare seriously cross swords with the Clintons. There are well
over a hundred people associated with the Clintons over the
past twenty-five years who have done so, and subsequently
died in violent or questionable circumstances.

I personally dislike the Clintons, John, but I just can't let this pass
unchallenged: are you seriously contending that they are complicit in
mass murder, and that many people in Washington fear to criticize them
for this reason?

Complicit, or circumstantial?

It could be that they merely run with a dangerous crowd. That crowd, to
protect it's base, could infer a complicity that isn't really present.

On the other hand, a bunch of presents under the tree on Christmas morning
IMPLIES Santa Claus, but ....

Recall that in the entire history of gangland murder, prosecutors were never
able to directly pin a murder to an order of the mob bosses. They know how
to avoid such blatant directness.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message

.....are you seriously contending that they are complicit in
mass murder, and that many people in Washington fear to criticize them
for this reason?

I can make no unequivocal accusation, because there has never been broad
documentary evidence to provide hard linkage, but certain points hold true:
A) the circumstances I've described are a matter of public record. B) I
stopped believing in repetitive coincidence many years ago. What you (or
anyone else) believe is up to you. When the same type of thing repeatedly
occurs around the same group of people, only a blind man would fail to make
some connection.

How many people in your circle of acquaintances, Dan, have died in such a
manner? Ten? Thirty? Count 'em.