Bush is a hero
UIdiotRacesMAkeW orldPeace

United States

#150726 Oct 6, 2012
e will overthrow Parliament in a legal way through legal means. Democracy will be overthrown with the tools of democracy."
Adolf Hitler
UIdiotRacesMAkeW orldPeace

United States

#150727 Oct 6, 2012
'Fascism is on the march today in America. Millionaires are marching to the tune. It will come in this country unless a strong defense is set up by all liberal and progressive forces... A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government, and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. Aboard ship a prominent executive of one of America's largest financial corporations told me point blank that if the progressive trend of the Roosevelt administration continued, he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism to America."
former U.S. ambassador to Germany William Dodd in 1938
UIdiotRacesMAkeW orldPeace

United States

#150728 Oct 6, 2012
" The USA has been quick to voice its condemnation of human rights violations in some other countries and to stress, by contrast, the wealth of civil and political rights which it guarantees within its borders ... however, it has failed to deliver these rights to many of its people and there are signs that, unless urgent steps are taken, these rights will be further eroded . "

Amnesty International oh human Rights
UIdiotRacesMAkeW orldPeace

United States

#150729 Oct 6, 2012
"Americans are too broadly underinformed to digest nuggets of information that seem to contradict what they know of the world . Instead, news channels prefer to feed Americans a constant stream of simplified information, all of which fits what they already know. That way they don't have to devote more air time or newsprint space to explanations or further investigations. Politicians and the media have conspired to infantilize, to dumb down, the American public. At heart, politicians don't believe that Americans can handle complex truths, and the news media, especially television news, basically agrees."

BWHAAHHAHHHAHAHAa
Tom Fenton, former CBS foreign correspondent
UIdiotRacesMAkeW orldPeace

United States

#150730 Oct 6, 2012
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court justice from 1916-1939

BWHHAHHAAAHAHAaaaa
UIdiotRacesMAkeW orldPeace

United States

#150731 Oct 6, 2012
" Among Latin American elites, a peasant asking for a higher wage or a priest helping organize a peasant cooperative is a communist. And someone going so far as to suggest land reform or a more equitable tax system is a communist fanatic. There is no word or act suggesting the desirability of elite generosity toward the poor, or the need for education, organization or material advance for the majority, that has not been branded communistic in Latin America in recent decades.... Since communism is the enemy and peasants trying to improve themselves, priests with the slightest humanistic proclivity, and naturally anyone seriously challenging the status quo, are communists, they are also, by definition, enemies."
Edward Herman, economist and media analyst
UIdiotRacesMAkeW orldPeace

United States

#150732 Oct 6, 2012
" In the United States today, the Declaration of Independence hangs on schoolroom walls, but foreign policy follows Machiavelli."
Howard Zinn, historian and author

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#150733 Oct 6, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Au contraire, mon frere. You're saying that one guy can reply on something a second person writes to a third party, but the second person is to refrain from responding because.....wait, why again?
That's not what's going on. David has asked VA several times to ignore his (DS's) msgs.

VA refuses to comply.

Yes VA has also mentioned DS, while writing to another poster. Doing that AND replying to DS directly is BAITING. Only so much of that can be endured.
UIdiotRacesMAkeW orldPeace

United States

#150734 Oct 7, 2012
Mitt Romney's Federal Bailout; Bain Investigated for Tax Evasion

Mitt Romney may not "apologize" for his success in business, but more importantly, you'll also likely never hear him say "thanks" to the American people for the Federal bailout of Bain Capital.

The trouble began in 1984, when Bain & Company spun off Bain Capital to engage in leveraged buyouts and put Romney in charge of the new operation. To free up money to invest in the new business, founder Bill Bain and his partners cashed out much of their stock in the consulting firm – leaving it saddled with about $200 million in debt.(Romney, though not a founder, reportedly profited from the deal.) "People will tell you that Bill raped the place clean, was greedy, didn't know when to stop," a former Bain consultant later conceded. "Did they take too much out of the firm? You bet."

The FDIC documents make clear what happened next: "Soon after the founders sold their equity," analysts reported, "business began to drop off." First came scandal: In the late 1980s, a Bain consultant became a key figure in an illegal stock manipulation scheme in London. The firm's reputation took a hit, and it fired 10 percent of its consulting force. By the time the 1989 recession began, Bain & Company found itself going broke fast. Cash flows weren't enough to service the debt imposed by the founders, and the firm could barely make payroll. In a panic, Bill Bain tapped Romney, his longtime protégé, to take the reins.
...

In fact, Romney had a direct stake in the survival of Bain & Company: He had been working to build the Bain brand his entire career, and felt he had to save the firm at all costs. After all, Bain sold top-dollar strategic advice to big businesses about how to protect themselves from going bust. If Bain & Company went bankrupt, recalls the Romney deputy, "anyone associated with them would have looked clownish." Indeed, when a banker from Goldman Sachs urged Bain to consider bankruptcy as the obvious solution to the firm's woes, Romney's desperation began to show. He flatly refused to discuss it – and in the ensuing argument, one witness says, Romney almost ended up in a brawl when the Goldman banker advised him to "go f*ck yourself." For the sake of Romney's career and fortune, bankruptcy was simply not an option – no matter who got screwed in the process.

It's no wonder Romney wouldn't want to discuss the details of the bailout during a campaign for office. And then when it came to "negotiating" repayment of the bailout, Romney threatened use of a loophole:

In a letter dated March 23rd, 1993, Romney reassured creditors that his latest scheme would return Bain & Company to "long-term financial stability." That same month, Romney once again threatened to "pay out maximum bonus distributions" to top executives unless much of Bain's debt was erased.

In the end, the government surrendered. At the time, The Boston Globe cited bankers dismissing the bailout as "relatively routine" – but the federal documents reveal it was anything but. The FDIC agreed to accept nearly $5 million in cash to retire $15 million in Bain's debt – an immediate government bailout of $10 million. All told, the FDIC estimated it would recoup just $14 million of the $30 million that Romney's firm owed the government.

Sounds more like blackmail than a negotiation, doesn't it?

continue
UIdiotRacesMAkeW orldPeace

United States

#150735 Oct 7, 2012
As if this bailout doesn't sound crooked enough, Bain is now under investigation for tax evasion. Via Think Progress:

Since July, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been issuing subpoenas to private equity firms including Bain, which he believes intentionally changed management fees into capital gains as a way of hanging onto millions of dollars that would have otherwise been taxed at a higher rate. Bain alone is estimated to have saved “more than $200 million in federal income taxes and more than $20 million in Medicare taxes.” It is unclear whether the tax strategy was used while Romney was at the helm of the company, but the Times reports that Romney is still making money on funds that are using the method in question.

While an attorney for Romney insists that he “can confirm that neither he nor the trust has ever done this, whether before or after he(Romney) retired from Bain Capital," it would certainly be nice, for the sake of transparency, if Romney would release his tax returns.

“Take It To The Limit”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#150736 Oct 7, 2012
Does anyone else think that senility is a disqualifier for the Supreme Court? Scalia is bugnuts, and is still seated.
Why, he's almost as bad off in the head as bobin!
EGADS!!!

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150737 Oct 7, 2012
UIdiotRacesMAkeWorldPeace wrote:
<quoted text>big wars don't benefit the world, it is war-for-profitering enterprises and other hegemonic money agendas benefits on those few in power .Wars only cause dissension, as more people are killed , family devided, childrens left parentless ... And, very few wars are good wars. WW 1 & 2 is about
Most soldier rarely have morals but followed a Code of military ethics that is not moral code of human values absed of sanctity of human live nor uphold under Ten Commandment or rarely follow the constitution but msot time under order to only followed corrupted leaders ill agendas
Pres/Eisenhower warned us all about ever dangers of growing US military Industrail Complex.
WW1 & 2 is about imperialistic agendas.
If understand US Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism does not up hold very principals of people ' social contract , the constitutions not sanctity of life ...
Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler
" I spent 33 years in the Marines, most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for Capitalism…. The general public shoulders the bill. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones, Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations."
Note: Gen smedley not against good Capitalism but Predatory Capitalists.
If you look and study more and research deeper into our ugly American history on the many wars, as US been at war and war and after so many wars since the inception of a nation, i mean An young Empire. If you research US war history , it will few few pages on topix.
Any more question?
Actually,I don't know of any war that was "good." That is different than saying they were or were not necessary from the point of view of at least one side. Hitler's actions started WW II along with Italy and Japan. When people decided it was better to not go along with what Hitler wanted than to do as Hitler wanted, the war was on.

Was the war "good?" No. Was the war necessary? Probably not to Germany; however, I think England, France, Russia, Australia and many other countries to include China, Korea and the BENELUX. thought so.

Was the war devasting personally? Tremendously so. I still personally know of 5 young men (young at the time) that it was so necessary that they were willing to sacrifice a good part of their life or even their lives.

Was Smedley referring to WW I and WW II or was he talking of our actual wars for capitalistic reasons such as the actions in the Banana Republics?

I htink you do a diservice to your argument when you speak of all wars in the same since as you speak of Wars for Capitalistic purposes.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150738 Oct 7, 2012
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>This is really ticking me off. DS is not a rude man, but he has asked you not once but many times to leave him alone, but you insist, and of course he is annoyed. Now you've decided to do get backs and it's your fault. If you left him alone he would not have to get rude with you. No means no, Okb but something tells me you never learned that basic concept of human interaction. There are people willing to talk to you, why can't you leave those who don't wish to alone?
Be ticked off then. You sat by and said nothing while time after time DS posted his personal opinions of me while he was ignoring me AND then after he finally admitted he was not ignoring but would not engage me directly.

When DS started down this path I said up front I would not ignore him. Now you want to do a comparative analysis of who spoke of whom rudely the most frequently? Most of the time I answer DS's posts respectively and to the point. Every so few DS pops out with his diatribe of his thoughts of me. Did you ever once say anything to DS?

He invited me to the dance, I did not invite him. with your training and experience I would think even you could see that.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#150739 Oct 7, 2012
A hero who causes the worst economic crisis ever?

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150740 Oct 7, 2012
UIdiotRacesMAkeWorldPeace wrote:
Project for the New American Century (PNAC), letter to Bill Clinton, 1998
Sorrows of Empire, Chalmers Johnson, p228
keyword(s)
letter to Clinton, 1998
They called for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power," and in a letter dated May 29 1998 to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senate majority leader Trent Lott, complaining that Clinton had not listened to them, they reiterated their recommendation that Saddam be overthrown. As they put the matter, "We should establish and maintain a strong US. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the [Persian] Gulf-and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power?'
These letters were signed by Donald Rumsfeld; William Kristol, editor of the right-wing Weekly Standard magazine and chairman of PNAC; Elliott Abrams, a convicted Iran-Contra conspirator who would be named in 2002 as director of Middle Eastern policy on the National Security Council; Paul Wolfowitz, who would become Rumsfeld's deputy at the Pentagon; John Bolton, who would become undersecretary of state for arms control and international security in the Bush fils administration; Richard Perle, who would become chairman of the Defense Science Board; William J. Bennett, President Reagan's education secretary; Richard Armitage, who would become Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department; Zalmay Khjad, a former Unocal consultant who would become Bush's "ambassador" to Afghanistan and later the chief liaison with the Kurds and anti-Saddam exiles in Iraq; and several other prominent American militarists. In addition to the signatories PNAC included Vice President Dick Cheney; I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff; and Stephen Cambone, a Pentagon bureaucrat in both Bush administrations. They have made their ideas readily available in a report issued in September 2000 entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century and in a book edited by Robert Kagan and William Kristol, Present Daniers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy.
Disregarding whether or not we have a right to intervene in other countries, I honestly believe that there are those that believed getting rid of Saddam would fix many problems in the middle east. I think as time has shown predicting the outcome of any event of this size and scope is a crapshoot at best. It does prove however that some of our smartest people can be jaded by their own dreams and aspirations.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150741 Oct 7, 2012
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Why aren't they in Gitmo? You do realize that the Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch, and not Congress, don't you?
what happened when they were going to try the terrorist in NY? Why is it not happening this time? Where is the outrage of the right?

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150742 Oct 7, 2012
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so fast, monsieur. Dave made it clear SEVERAL times, that he had NO interest in ANYthing VA had to say, and subsequently went to "ignore" mode.
But the master baiter refuses to honor DS's request, and has instead pestered him incessantly. And I believe you know perfectly well, there'e only so much raggin' one can put up with
until the pest needs to be sprayed again.
Yes Bob, DS was telling me so often that he was ignoring me that it became a joke, literally. Since that time he shifted his position to not egaging me in direct conversation. He did that so he could continue mentioning me and what I say to others making it obvious that he was not ignoring me at all. So far, he has stayed true to his second word and has not engaged me in direct conversation. Lets hope that continues.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150743 Oct 7, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Hold on. Let me try and understand, because the rules seem to change by the hour, and I sure wouldn't want to break any of your rules.
Let's see - Higgins wrote >to him<. In that post that he wrote >to him< he inserted the obligatory ad personam that go for high political discourse around here, then closed with a comical, "...and I'm not talking to you."
So, in a nutshell.....if you write to me, it's bad form if I reply? Is that it?
I think if I understand his current position it is that he will refrain from egaging me in direct discourse on a topic of substence. This leaves him free to engage me in topics without substance which would be his thoughts of me and things he says.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150744 Oct 7, 2012
Rudyard Kiplingesque wrote:
Does anyone else think that senility is a disqualifier for the Supreme Court? Scalia is bugnuts, and is still seated.
Why, he's almost as bad off in the head as bobin!
EGADS!!!
While I don't disagree with the intent of your message (there should be some criteria for determining a sitting judge is no longer capable of diligently performing their duty?) it opens up a whole trash can of problems.

Once criteria are accepted the race is on by the opposing side who has their President sitting in office to show how those judges in ideological conflice with the Presidents views meet said criteria.

We have enough partisanhip at this time.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#150745 Oct 7, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Hold on. Let me try and understand, because the rules seem to change by the hour, and I sure wouldn't want to break any of your rules.
Let's see - Higgins wrote >to him<. In that post that he wrote >to him< he inserted the obligatory ad personam that go for high political discourse around here, then closed with a comical, "...and I'm not talking to you."
So, in a nutshell.....if you write to me, it's bad form if I reply? Is that it?
If I ask you to leave me be I would hope that you would leave me be. I admit I'm better at just ignoring than DS is and that may come from practice. Women tend to get alot of unwanted attention at times. But when the person won't stop I've had to yell at them to "leave me alone." If you can't see that Okb likes to bring people's names into a post that have no business being there, as an additional form of peskiness, than I can't help you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Stilgar Fifrawi 882,031
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min Michael 603,865
The Christian Atheist debate 22 min Critical Eye 4,220
News The Latest: Husband: Kentucky clerk is 'standin... 24 min Lawrence Wolf 70
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 35 min WasteWater 6,422
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 51 min WasteWater 8,460
Habesha 2 hr Insta names 1
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 2 hr The swamiji 7,718
More from around the web