Wow, the Wall Street banksters strike back

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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.

Here is the main problem with that. If you don't want to end up living in a plutocracy or worse a plutarchy, it would be wise to hold your nose and vote for Obama like I am going to do.

The SCOTUS is by far the strongest branch of government out there since the Marbury v. Madison case was decided in 1803?. The next President will be appointing several new justices.

The Citizens United decision is enough to make me quake in my boots. If we get a few more hard right judges the 1% will control this country lock,stock and barrel. They will just buy the justices off like they have Thomas and Alito. Any time a bill is passed in Congress and is signed into law by the President if the 1% does not like it they will simply bring a case like FEC v. Citizens United and the court will fabricate some BS theory on the case and rule on it the way they are expected to. FEC v. Citizens United had nothing to do with making corporations people and equating money with free speech.

Romney has stated he will use Robert Bork to choose his potential SCOTUS appointments. Of course he flip flops more than a fish out of water.

Huntsman I might consider. But there is this thing I hear about snowballs and hell.

Cain I would vote for. He would probably appoint the Pointer sisters to the court as soon as he figures out what the SCOTUS actually is.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by wgrr

If we get a few more hard right judges the 1% will control this country lock,stock and barrel. They will just buy the justices off like they have Thomas and Alito.

Do you ever, EVER, present any credible sources to back your wild assertions? Who is "they"? So, Justices Thomas and Alito are bribed? Where are your facts? Where are your sources to support these crazy accusations?
WHO is this "1%"? Did you know that the majority of the wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats for example?

Ohhh I forgot: Liberal viewpoint = free pass

"If we get a few more hard right judges the 1% will control this country..."
--- insert the theme from the Twilight Zone ---

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

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.

Complete nonsense for a response.

I've had enough of you buh bye.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by wgrr

Complete nonsense for a response.

I've had enough of you buh bye.

Of course its "nonsense", as I don't agree with you and had the audacity to ask you for source material to support your insane assertions.

Again, where are your currently non-existent "sources"? All I want to know is where I can examine the sources that say that certain Supreme Court justices are bribed?

I guess it was too much for you when someone asks you to produce verifiable, credible sources to back the outlandish accusations you are making.... ohh well, I guess you cannot produce them (because they don't exist).

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

Conjecture sold as "fact".

To be fair (and I haven't followed this thread enough to know what you're talking about specifically) you did a pretty heaping helping of conjecture sold as fact that I called you on in a pretty dramatic manner.

Just ironic.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

To be fair (and I haven't followed this thread enough to know what you're talking about specifically) you did a pretty heaping helping of conjecture sold as fact that I called you on in a pretty dramatic manner.

Just ironic.

Eddie, perhaps you can help the other gentleman out. Could you please tell me then, where I can find any credible source material that indicated that two current Supreme Court justices are bribed? I believe this to be a wild assertion. When I asked for source material on this, none was forthcoming and I was told that I post nothing but "complete nonsense".

I just want to know, if in fact these two esteemed Justices, are taking bribes and where that information is coming from? Would you not ask the same question?

There is a double standard here: liberal viewpoint = free pass (generally)

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

Eddie, perhaps you can help the other gentleman out. Could you please tell me then, where I can find any credible source material that indicated that two current Supreme Court justices are bribed? I believe this to be a wild assertion. When I asked for source material on this, none was forthcoming and I was told that I post nothing but "complete nonsense".

I just want to know, if in fact these two esteemed Justices, are taking bribes and where that information is coming from? Would you not ask the same question?

There is a double standard here: liberal viewpoint = free pass (generally)

I will help you out since you are too lazy too type into a Google search alito thomas ethics.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews...r_paul_singer/

http://open.salon.com/blog/jimmy_zum...h_two_supremes

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/natio...lations/38986/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us...omas.html?_r=1

http://modeducation.blogspot.com/201...ted-armed.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_769843.html

How many do you want. I can do this all night.

KG, I don't type out of my ass. I can read, remember, and recall massive amounts of info. I have a bad habit of assuming others do to. In the future I will have links for you to read.

I am sorry for saying I have had enough of you. I kind of like you. You are very opinionated like me. Now about that definition of "government socialism" I asked for. Start a new thread. Warning: some sources may require a visit to the library or Amazon to buy a book.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by wgrr

I will help you out since you are too lazy too type into a Google search alito thomas ethics.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews...r_paul_singer/

http://open.salon.com/blog/jimmy_zum...h_two_supremes

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/natio...lations/38986/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us...omas.html?_r=1

http://modeducation.blogspot.com/201...ted-armed.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_769843.html

How many do you want. I can do this all night.

KG, I don't type out of my ass. I can read, remember, and recall massive amounts of info. I have a bad habit of assuming others do to. In the future I will have links for you to read.

I am sorry for saying I have had enough of you. I kind of like you. You are very opinionated like me. Now about that definition of "government socialism" I asked for. Start a new thread. Warning: some sources may require a visit to the library or Amazon to buy a book.

Quite frankly, you are... about the typing. The only "reliable" source here is the NY Times. There is not one mention, of any bribes, of any kind, that any Supreme Court justice are even accused to have taken. In fact, there is not even the most minor assertion of graft made.

Huffingtonpost.com, Atlanticwire.com, alternet.orq...

You are quite right... you may have to "buy a book", or visit a library.... how sad, but it would be so good for you.

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by 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.

Petitioning the current government is a waste of time, yes, I agree. The fact is that BOA could do what they did is because the Congress watered down Dodd-Franks and the bill did not prevent it. (get your own damned link to read) The Fed may Have APPROVED it but I did not vote for anybody in the Fed.

Merrill Lynch = investment house, BOA = bank, Under Glass-Steagall the two could not intermingle and this potential financial SHIT STORM would have never happened. the facts changed, but the outcome did not.

Congratulations on being a 1%'er. Why are you here.

[d-ray657]

I won't go as far as WGRR with respect to the direct corruption of current justices on the SCOTUS. The corruption is more systemic.

The establishment is able to afford the most able and effective representation, although not all of the able and effective lawyers are for sale.

The Fourteenth Amendment contained an equal protection clause designed to assure that freed slaves would be able to enjoy the full protection of the law afforded to their former owners. In the fifty years that followed it's passage, the vast majority of the equal protection challenges that made it to the Supreme Court involved involved corporations challenging economic regulations that states had enacted to curb corporate power. During those years, the SCOTUS heard two cases brought on behalf of racial minorities who had not received the equal protection of the law.

Folks who have clerked for the Supreme Court or appellate judges are in significant demand - and such individuals are quite likely to be quite able practitioners. The folks who are most able to compete for the services of such individuals are those who are already well-heeled. The system seems to direct the best legal talent toward the best funded enterprises. The pool of people representing the moneyed interests also dominates the pool of those from whom judicial appointments are made. The world view among those who hold positions on the bench and among those who practice before the courts is therefore inclined to the interests of those with money.

A Republican administration, particularly with its fealty toward the moneyed class, faces significant pressure to nominate judiciary candidates who are loyal to the interests of the financial elites. A Democratic administration is drawing from a similar pool of candidates, but is more likely to nominate a person who does not have absolute fealty to the members of the corporate plutocracy. This collection of circumstances allows the president to exercise influence well beyond the end of his term. That is not the only, but certainly a sufficient reason for concern about the type of judges a Romney, Cain, or any of the GOP candidates would nominate when given the chances.

Regards,

D-Ray