Wow, the Wall Street banksters strike back

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Well butter my buns and call me a biscuit. You possibly would vote for a not-Obama?

Pete

I've said for at least the last several months that I'd likely vote for Romney or Huntsmann over Obama. It remains to be seen, however, who Romney (if he's the nominee) picks as his running mate.

If he pulls a McCain and picks somebody akin to Palin to appease the far right, all bets are off. In fact, just the other day, he said he'd love to pick somebody in the mold of Dick Cheney as VP.

[piece-itpete]

For all the 'evil' Cheney is he was the perfect VP. Knew Washington well, and had no interest in running for Pres.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

For all the 'evil' Cheney is he was the perfect VP. Knew Washington well, and had no interest in running for Pres.

Pete

What was for him not to like?. He got to pull the puppet strings but could stay hidden in his undisclosed location. He was a cancer on our republic.

He was a decent fisherman, however. I floated down next to him on the South Fork of the Snake River in Idaho about 7-8 years ago. He was, at best, the second best fisherman on the river that day.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by finnbow

What was for him not to like?. He got to pull the puppet strings but could stay hidden in his undisclosed location. He was a cancer on our republic.

He was a decent fisherman, however. I floated down next to him on the South Fork of the Snake River in Idaho about 7-8 years ago. He was, at best, the second best fisherman on the river that day.

I would give it up to Cheney on fishing skills, marksmanship (although I have never shot a companion), and probably intelligence. I smoke his a$$ when it comes to raising kids.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I would give it up to Cheney on fishing skills, marksmanship (although I have never shot a companion), and probably intelligence. I smoke his a$$ when it comes to raising kids.

Regards,

D-Ray

QFT (though I think I'd beat him at marksmanship as well). Every time I see Liz Cheney on TeeVee, I want to jump through the screen and smash a cream pie in her face, a la Soupy Sales.

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

Ohhh wow!! Interesting, and so misguided.....

(1) "Bush had nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq..." George Bush wasn't the President of the United States? He did not give the marching orders to the U.S. Military? I guess his masters, the leaders of the NWO, in that secret bunker somewhere, did.

(2) "...better insight into the neo-con philosophy of governing the world using military strength." "neo-con philosophy"... LOL. Tell me, what was the philosophy of Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, and so many others through history. Are they all "neo-cons" as their primary philosophy involved world domination through military strength? Or is it only confined to a small number of convenient "whipping boys"?

(3) "I don't give a damn how bad of a guy Saddam was, we had no business invading Iraq. The neo-cons lied this country into a devastating 10 year war. Ask Colin Powell who presented all the bullshit "evidence" to invade Iraq to the UN."

Really? and yet... "Why is Libya different? That is easy to answer.... because the rebels wanted Gaddafi out of power." So what are you saying... That there was on active resistance in Iraq against Saddam Hussein and he was universally beloved by his population? I guess that is why Saddam Hussein gassed his own people with VX, to show his devotion to them.

"The neo-cons lied.." really... yet Congress, including most Democrats, voted for it. How can George Bush be so stupid, such an idiot, yet such a brilliant mastermind at the same time. How is it possible that this man who liberals claim has the intellect of an amoeba can devise such a fiendish plan that fools all the brilliant Democrats to vote his way? Then he got a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do his bidding. Not only that, he manipulated the clandestine intelligence agencies of FIFTY nations or more, including Russia (at that time still the SOVIET UNION), PRC, United Kingdom, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, Brazil, France, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and others.... I can hardly contain my laughter.

Then another lovely caveat to: "Why is Libya different? So George Bush (a Republican), that imbecile behind the NWO with an IQ of 35, is evil for bombing and removing a dictator (Saddam Hussein) who has gassed his own people with VX nerve gas and killed his countrymen by the millions. Yet Barrack Hussein Obama (a Democrat), and without question the most brilliant mind the planet has ever produced, is a hero for bombing and deposing another dictator, one who has never gassed his own people, and never killed 1% as many as Hussein..... just because "the rebels wanted Gaddafi out of power."....

I'm a "rebel" and I want "Big-Ears" Obama deposed... So what are you saying? If I were to ask President Islam Karmov of Uzbekistan to remove him it would be justified by whatever means necessary? Does this mean that I don't have to wait till the 2012 election to celebrate?

(4) "It seems we have been living under a socialist government since 1979. The Republicans have used social engineering in the form of massive tax cuts to move wealth up to the top income earners."

Really... Do you actually know what a definition of a "socialist government" is? "The Republicans used social engineering", since "1979" even... I guess Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama are now Republicans. If they were not, why did they not reverse the course of this "modified" socialism, in the nearly 11 years of their reign? How about Jimmy Carter, since he was in office until January 1981?

Then by your definition, Obama is trying to take the country back to a path of... ummm, true capitalism?

Sheesh, [slap head]

Bill Clinton did reverse the course. He raised taxes and had a budget surplus when he left office.

The CBO study simply started in 1979.

Read the damn PNAC page and you will understand what a Neo-Conservative is. They ran this country from 2000 to 2008.

Saddam never attacked the US. Iraq posed no threat to the US at all after 9/11. The Bush administration fabricated a fear of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction KNOWING it was a lie. Then the story changed to "Saddam had ties to Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his right hand man Osama bin Laden". When that was exposed to be a lie the reason for invading became "we liberated the Iraqis from a brutal dictator and established a democracy, see the pretty blue thumbs."

I am sure the Iraqis would have been more than happy if we had never invaded their country. Ditto, for American service men and women. In the end the Iraq war did nothing but create a huge vacuum in the Mid East and we have no clue who or what is going to fill it. It also caused the deaths of 4479 American soldiers and wounded an estimated 100,000. Iraqi deaths are estimated at 112,000. There is no telling how many Iraqis fled the country and are living as refuges.

al Gaddafi did directly attack American citizens using terrorist methods first in Berlin in 1986 when the East Berlin Libyan embassy planned and carried out the bombing of a West Berlin night club La Belle killing two American service men and wounding 79 other American service men. Reagan bombed Tripoli in retaliation. Then as i mentioned before he blew a Pan Am 747 out of the sky in retaliation for the US sinking two libyan warships in the Gulf of Sidra after they sank a US patrol boat. That was not written in stone. The Pan Am bombing was not solved until Libya admitted responsibility in 2003.
In many respects the US did have a good reason to remove al Gaddafi from power.

Socialism can have many different definitions and there are more than one social theories out there. Which do you want a definition for? Utopian versus scientific, Marxism, socialism from above and below, reform versus revolution, or equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.

How about the economics involved. State directed economy, market socialism a favorite of the Communist Chinese, planned economy, or self managed.

Now for the fun part; the politics. Leninism, anarchisim, syndicalism, social democracy, libertarian socialism, or what I think you are looking for democratic socialism.

I tell you what, you give me your definition since I seem to know nothing about the subject. Oh and social engineering is not socialism.

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I would argue against your definition of socialism, not to say that the inequitable distribution of wealth isn't a problem. I would say that the system in place today is edging closer and closer to a plutocracy as opposed to socialism.

It seems from their actions that the GOP favors this plutocracy and from their point of reference, any action to reduce the concentration of power and wealth at the top by the Democrats is socialism. I suppose it's all a matter of perspective.

It was a joke. should have made that more clear

[whell]

OK, so here's an attempt to pull the thread back on topic.

So, you 99% types are all PO'd at Bank of America moving derivatives out of Meryl Lynch and into its banking unit, right?

Well, it turns out that BOA did what they were required to do under the Federal Reserve Act and alerted the Feds that they wanted to move the assets. The Fed APPROVED the transfer of assets. It also turns out that they would have been able to do it under that wonderful magic bullet, Dodd - Frank, which, we were told, was going to really reform the market.

http://news.businessweek.com/article...PUDP0B29EON1R4

So, you 99% folks can go right on petitioning the government to "fix all this." You'll continue to get screwed every time.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by wgrr

Sheesh, [slap head]

Bill Clinton did reverse the course. He raised taxes and had a budget surplus when he left office.

The CBO study simply started in 1979.

Read the damn PNAC page and you will understand what a Neo-Conservative is. They ran this country from 2000 to 2008.

Saddam never attacked the US. Iraq posed no threat to the US at all after 9/11. The Bush administration fabricated a fear of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction KNOWING it was a lie. Then the story changed to "Saddam had ties to Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his right hand man Osama bin Laden". When that was exposed to be a lie the reason for invading became "we liberated the Iraqis from a brutal dictator and established a democracy, see the pretty blue thumbs."

I am sure the Iraqis would have been more than happy if we had never invaded their country. Ditto, for American service men and women. In the end the Iraq war did nothing but create a huge vacuum in the Mid East and we have no clue who or what is going to fill it. It also caused the deaths of 4479 American soldiers and wounded an estimated 100,000. Iraqi deaths are estimated at 112,000. There is no telling how many Iraqis fled the country and are living as refuges.

al Gaddafi did directly attack American citizens using terrorist methods first in Berlin in 1986 when the East Berlin Libyan embassy planned and carried out the bombing of a West Berlin night club La Belle killing two American service men and wounding 79 other American service men. Reagan bombed Tripoli in retaliation. Then as i mentioned before he blew a Pan Am 747 out of the sky in retaliation for the US sinking two libyan warships in the Gulf of Sidra after they sank a US patrol boat. That was not written in stone. The Pan Am bombing was not solved until Libya admitted responsibility in 2003.
In many respects the US did have a good reason to remove al Gaddafi from power.

Socialism can have many different definitions and there are more than one social theories out there. Which do you want a definition for? Utopian versus scientific, Marxism, socialism from above and below, reform versus revolution, or equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.

How about the economics involved. State directed economy, market socialism a favorite of the Communist Chinese, planned economy, or self managed.

Now for the fun part; the politics. Leninism, anarchisim, syndicalism, social democracy, libertarian socialism, or what I think you are looking for democratic socialism.

I tell you what, you give me your definition since I seem to know nothing about the subject. Oh and social engineering is not socialism.

One contradiction after another. One level of assumed "fact" after another. Conjecture sold as "fact". "Research" (if one can even refer to it by that term) done with one goal in mind: to affirm a pre-established premise.

I never said that social engineering is socialism, you did in your original post...

How do you know, REALLY KNOW, what went on inside the Bush Administration? Who is "they", specifically? Do you have any credible sources to back your wild assertions? Did Al Qaeda ever kill anyone in Iraq? Because it is asserted by to you, all killing was done by US forces.

Others may not question your information, motives, and assertions, because you present a quasi-liberal viewpoint. There have been no demands (with one exception) made of you to produce credible sources... I will ask for those sources and you can "slap your head" as many times as you like. Just because you present a rosy, "liberal" viewpoints with currently unsupported data, doesn't mean you will get the customary free pass....

All you have said: "Bush is evil! Bush is evil! Bush is evil! Obama is good!" and nothing more.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

What was for him not to like?. He got to pull the puppet strings but could stay hidden in his undisclosed location. He was a cancer on our republic.

He was a decent fisherman, however. I floated down next to him on the South Fork of the Snake River in Idaho about 7-8 years ago. He was, at best, the second best fisherman on the river that day.

I always figured he had the UDT boys swimming along and putting fish on his line.

Chas