DC shooter: Did the gun ban help him? chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: DC shooter: Did the gun ban help him?

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 18 (view)

DC shooter: Did the gun ban help him? Posted: 6/16/2009 10:08:27 AM
the guy was a looney. but isnt' the DC ban a hand gun ban? didn't this guy walk into the museum with two shotguns in tow? how does one do that without attracting attention? also, what about the shooting of the soldier at the recruitment center in arkansas? it's interesting how these two stories are treated in the press. we have two shootings, and both perpetrated by nutcases - one a white supremacist, and the other a religious fanatic of islamic persuasion. the press is foaming at the mouth over this paleo-nazi wack-o, and barely mentions the fanatic violence perpetrated by a man formerly known as carlos bledsoe who felt that killing this soldier was a religious duty, and that he was not guilty of murder. both are nutcases. there is no difference between the two.

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 25 (view)

The Game is afoot: Sotomayor. Posted: 6/16/2009 9:53:22 AM
i am not thrilled with sotomayor. i was disappointed to read about her ruling in a property rights case, which basically tells us where she would have stood on the kilo ruling - a disastrous imminent domain case. i think she is another ruth bader ginsberg, of whom i am also not a fan due in part to her position on this case and several others. i am sure no one knows what i am talking about... not unusual on this forum. i'll see if i can find a link to the case. not that anyone would read it... yawn...

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 91 (view)

Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan Posted: 6/16/2009 9:44:21 AM
shouldn't a person, whether an afghani or an american, be allowed to read about any faith he or she likes? shouldn't a person be able to choose whatever faith he or she wants to belong to? shouldn't people have the freedom to decide for themselves such things? isn't this a personal thing? has it occurred to some of you that the reason these bibles were really burned and destroyed is because in afghanistan, and in many other places on the globe, one isn't free to practice whatever religion he or she may choose. one isn't free to decide such matters for oneself. hasn't this occurred to some of you? free practice of religion was considered to be an unalienable right by our founding fathers. an unalienable right is a "natural right," one that no government can legislate away from a people. i am not a religious person, but thank god (if he exists) that i have the right to make that choice. so i say upset the apple cart. send copies of banned books, the catholic bible, the mormon bible, the vedas, the upanishads, and even a copy of playboy - anything! no government has the right to dictate what religion a person should practice, and it has no right to restrict or limit such rights either. and as far as "forcing" ones views on another - this is a ridiculous statement. persuasive speech is not "force." it's called rhetoric. there is nothing wrong with persuading people to change their opinions or views on something. people change thier minds all the time as they are introduced to new information or ideas. there is nothing wrong with the free flow of ideas. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 6 (view)

A new direction in Government? Posted: 6/16/2009 9:20:28 AM
yes, the country is at a point of divergence with the founding principles. while europe is moving to the right, obama is trying to implement bad ideas that have demonstrably not worked everywhere they have been tried. i am sure alexander hamilton would be turning in his grave right now. the founding father of our economy is buried near wall street, and his grave survived the collapse of the world trade center - a couple blocks away. wall street survived 9/11 as well, but it may not survive this president. most importantly, if we as citizens are at all concerned about corruption, then we should be advocating for separation of business and state. we should be outraged about GM, and the gov meddling in the banking business. the government should not be in the business of, well, business. i came across this piece which pretty much sums up my feelings on obama, and the direction he is going. if you have read robert kiyosaki's book, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad," then you'll really get a chuckle out of this because the author concludes: "Last night, as I reread Robert Kiyosaki's 1997 Bestseller Rich Dad Poor Dad, I realized why Barack Obama will be unable to do what is necessary to fix America's economy. It's not just that he believes in government intervention in business, although that's a big part of it. But what makes it even worse is that President Obama is Poor Dad. http://patriotroom.com/article/rich-gov-poor-gov-why-obama-can-t-fix-the-economy That's just it, Obama IS Poor Dad. Lol! Poor Dad doesn't understand how wealth is created despite being a well-educated man, and neither does Snobama.

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 133 (view)

Torture-memo-prosecutions … to prosecute or NOT to prosecute … what would be best? Posted: 6/2/2009 8:01:56 AM
well, here's an update on the torture photos. apparently obama rolled over to maliki. here is what is reported by mclatchy... WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama reversed his decision to release detainee abuse photos from Iraq and Afghanistan after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki warned that Iraq would erupt into violence and that Iraqis would demand that U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq a year earlier than planned, two U.S. military officers, a senior defense official and a State Department official have told McClatchy. In the days leading up to a May 28 deadline to release the photos in response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, U.S. officials, led by Christopher Hill, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told Maliki that the administration was preparing to release photos of suspected detainee abuse taken from 2003 to 2006. When U.S. officials told Maliki, "he went pale in the face," said a U.S. military official, who along with others requested anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity. The official said Maliki warned that releasing the photos would lead to more violence that could delay the scheduled U.S. withdrawal from cities by June 30 and that Iraqis wouldn't make a distinction between old and new photos. The public outrage and increase in violence could lead Iraqis to demand a referendum on the security agreement and refuse to permit U.S. forces to stay until the end of 2011. Maliki said, "Baghdad will burn" if the photos are released, said a second U.S. military official. A U.S. official who's knowledgeable about the photographs told McClatchy that at least two of them depict nudity; one is of a woman suggestively holding a broomstick; one shows a detainee with bruises but offered no explanation how he got them; and another is of hooded detainees with weapons pointed at their heads. Some of the photos were of detainees being held in prisons, while others were taken at the time a detainee was captured. "It was not so much the photos themselves, but that the perception that they would be Abu Ghraib-type photos," added the senior defense official, who said U.S. officials were worried "about the potential street consequences" of making the photos public. Iraq is scheduled to hold a referendum by July 30 on the accord, which calls for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011. If the accord were rejected, the U.S. would have to withdraw from Iraq within a year of the vote or by the summer of 2010. Some U.S. officials fear that would be before Iraq's security forces are ready to protect their country on their own. The status of forces agreement calls for the U.S. to train Iraqi forces in specialized areas such as aviation and intelligence gathering and to step to the side as Iraqi forces take control of their communities. Maliki's office, Iraq's deputy prime minister and the foreign minister didn't answer calls seeking comment. Denis McDonough, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, said that Obama "has been clear that releasing the photos would have no benefit except to potentially increase the risk to our troops. He's also made clear that the existence of these photos was only known because the acts were investigated and those who undertook them were sanctioned." With tensions rising again in major Iraqi cities such as Baghdad and Mosul, Maliki feared that "if you add this (the photos) to that mix, it could very easily provide an incentive to the extremists" to use more violence, a State Department official said. That, in turn, might cause U.S. and Iraqi commanders to reconsider the troop withdrawal from urban areas, which would be a major setback to Maliki's government and to the Obama administration, which is determined to withdraw troops from Iraq as it escalates the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. The administration, which as late as April had agreed to release as many as 2,100 photos, said in the two weeks before the deadline approached that the release could trigger a backlash against American troops. After U.S. officials notified Maliki, the prime minister put "heavy pressure" on Hill and Army Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, to stop the release, the senior U.S. defense official said. In early May, Odierno and Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said they objected to the release of the photos. Both Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said they changed their minds largely because of objections from U.S. commanders in the field, but they never mentioned Maliki's reaction. Col. James Hutton, Odierno's spokesman, declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation. The senior U.S. defense official said that Hill and Odierno were the "primary voices" urging Obama to reverse his decision. They were joined by U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command; and McKiernan, who also were concerned that the photos, while not comparable to the pictures of U.S. guards abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, could ignite anti-U.S. violence. The Senate is expected on Tuesday to confirm Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal as McKiernan's successor. Several days after the meeting, Odierno returned to Washington, and he and Gates took their concerns to Obama. It took "considerable lobbying" before the president changed his mind, the senior defense official said. On May 13, Obama appeared on the South Lawn of the White House and said: "The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals. In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger." The photos are part of a 2004 lawsuit that sought the release of photos that were part of investigations of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and a half dozen other prisons. The Pentagon objected to the release of the photos, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court ruling to release them. On Monday, the ACLU released a letter signed by a dozen organizations calling for the release of the photos. "The Pentagon should release the photos while reaffirming to the world that the U.S. repudiates such barbaric behavior and is committed to dismantling the culture that allowed it to occur. In the end, full disclosure of the crimes committed by our government will make us all safer," the letter said.

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 67 (view)

Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan Posted: 5/31/2009 8:46:01 AM
i could so not care about this, but since bibles are banned in the muslim world i'd love to see someone smuggle in some care packages with the following contents: playboy (gotta start 'em out slow) the bible winnie the pooh (they don't like pigs over there either) bottle of markum merlot (the cab would be ok too) ...and basically anything else that would piss off the mullahs...

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 157 (view)

Right wing radio host gets waterboarded for 7 seconds. Admits it is torture Posted: 5/31/2009 8:40:37 AM
i don't know if anyone else posted on this, but apparently there is some controversy about mancow's waterboarding. there is some discussion that it was a hoax. apparently, the guy who did the waterboarding had never done one, and admitted that he went to wikipedia to see how it was done. also, memos from mancow's publicist were leaked, and she stated that it was supposed to "look real," and that it was "stunt." his publicist is from the jerry springer show. lol! apparently, he really did feel like he was drowning, because he was actually drowning. lol! i haven't looked into this enough to make up my mind either way. i have just caught wind of it. i think it's all pretty funny though. i'll post some links later when i have more time. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 48 (view)

Right wing radio host gets waterboarded for 7 seconds. Admits it is torture Posted: 5/26/2009 4:59:50 PM
NBL why do you consider this man to be a coward? you didn't do the "research" before you made up your mind either, and (cough) now he did do the "research" and he changed his mind. so what? i think you need to come up to present time and realize that bush is no longer president. your guy won! so why are you still soooooo mad... btw... mancow describes himself as a libertarian, and he is a registered independent. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 39 (view)

Thousands flee Pakistan valley as truce crumbles Posted: 5/26/2009 4:35:11 PM
nobushlover we didn't fund the taliban. we funded the ISI - the pakistani intel agency/service. the ISI in turn funded what later became the taliban. this was during the carter admin. this was during the cold war. we were countering russian activities in the region, which were quite extensive. and the books that i mentioned, and there are others i could suggest to you for reading pleasure... do not assert that WE funded the taliban, they assert that we did not. wright very clearly states that it has been a "popular myth" that we funded the taliban and he clearly states that the USA did not. bernard henri levy also points this out too, etc. andrew & mitrokhin discuss this in "the world was going our way: the kgb and the battle for the third world." there are 2 whole chapters covering afghanistan, and another on islam in russia, which details atrocities and pograms against muslims in ussr territories, which provide both context for the russian invasion of afghanistan AND our counter activities. anyway... not that you are interested... regarding iran - the iranian revolution was the result of combined efforts of the secular leftists and the mullahs on the right. they worked together to overthrow the shaw and after the iran hostage maneuver the hard liners pushed the leftists aside and alienated them from power. people on both sides wanted the shaw to go, just for different reasons. iran used to be a fairly progressive country with well educated people. look, worked in hollywood...and half the so-called "artists" that fog up the radio waves a) can't sing, or play thier supposed instruments b) didn't write a damn thing that they are credited with writing, and c) hollywood is about making money and script writers are not journalists. hell, hollywood doesn't even care about art! they only care about making money. citing a movie as a source, regardless of the "author" of the story OR the script, which i can assure he did not write btw (do you know what a script dr is?), would hardly pass the smell test in any peer reviewed anything. in other words, it's not a source, and it's creators did not intend it to be a source. it's a movie, the sole purpose of which is to entertain and make money. hell, they even use body doubles in movies so half of those babes that you think are babes are really not that hot...especially in person... lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 53 (view)

Was The Civil War To End Slavery In The US Worthwhile? Posted: 5/26/2009 9:40:36 AM
78outdoorsguy the USA should have banned slavery like "every other nation did..." what are you talking about? the USA was not the first nor even close to being the last nation to outlaw slavery, nor were we the worst offenders in this barbaric trade. i'm just not sure what you are getting at. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 37 (view)

Thousands flee Pakistan valley as truce crumbles Posted: 5/24/2009 10:59:32 AM
no bush lover~ yeah, tom hanks and hollywood, which is replete with college drop outs, or worse yet, english majors, are certainly authorities when it comes to geo politics. yeah, i always cite hollywood movies and actors as sources when writing an academic paper on some historical figure or event. the ISI is the secret police/intelligence of pakistan. why would the ISI give the CIA money, which we in turn gave to the taliban? this makes no sense. i think what you are trying to claim is that the CIA gave money to the taliban, but the thing is we didn't. we gave money to the ISI, who then disbursed it as they saw fit. we didn't directly fund the taliban; the ISI did. the claims that the US directly funded or created the taliban or osama are not true. i'll respond to the rest of your post later when i dont have to host a barbecue. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 40 (view)

Was The Civil War To End Slavery In The US Worthwhile? Posted: 5/24/2009 9:20:32 AM
OP war is an awful thing, but sometimes it is necessary. throughout history winning or losing a war could mean the difference between being a slave or vanguished people or being able to live lives in pursuit of higher purposes. when you look at history, slavery or some form of serfdom has been the norm for man; freedom has been the exception. regarding the civil war, just think of how many people died or lived lives of brutality because of slavery. i think we need to realize that there some things that are worse then death - and being human chattel is one of those things. around 500k people died fighting the civil war and now millions of african americans live free today because of that sacrifice. was it worth it? absolutely. also, a slave uprising did occur in haiti, and also in dominica. haiti was the first "freed" slave country, freed only because they freed themselves. they also killed the white people on the island, so there was concern that this might happen in the US if the slaves were freed. honestly, could anyone blame african americans if they did this prior to 1865? i don't buy the revisionists assertion that the civil war was really about economics and that the republican party/ north didn't really care about ending slavery. this is utter nonsense. there was great public out cry over slavery building. it was a very divisive issue going back to even before the founding. books such as uncle tom's cabin, and a book by capt riley, who was kidnapped along with his crew aboard a merchant ship off of the barbary coast really raised the public awareness. the accounts of the crews of the uss philadelphia and uss commerce made a huge impact on public opinion. there was also the account of young british thomas pellow, who lived enslaved by the barbary corsairs in northern africa from the time he was about 11 (he was captured aboard a merchant marine ship off of gibraltar). the accounts that emerged from escaped european slaves held in northern africa gave people the slaves perspective. at anyone given time there about 30k slaves of european nationalities living enslaved in northern africa. remember, slavery had existed since time immemorial. it was practiced everywhere, and it was only during the trans atlantic slave trade that race became associated with being a slave. the slave trade is still going on today, google mende nazar or francis bak - accounts of modern day sudanese escaped slaves. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 20 (view)

Right wing radio host gets waterboarded for 7 seconds. Admits it is torture Posted: 5/24/2009 9:07:01 AM
i watched the youtube clip of this. he said it was just like drowning. he actually did drown as a child and had to be revived and said it felt exactly the same. i think this is very interesting, and i am glad he did it - if not for himself, but for the greater debate. hats off to him for having the huevos to do this. should waterboarding be banned? probably. is it something that we should be doing? nope. should we be indicting law professors and psychologists who were hired as consultants by the cia to over see the program? nope. release pictures of the interrogations? absolutely not. images of nick berg being beheaded comes to mind, since his captors made it clear that they were beheading berg in direct retaliation for abu ghraib. i don't really consider mancow a right wing radio host. he's not a pundit. he discusses lots of things on his show. i see him more as a radio host that happens to be right leaning. he certainly isn't religious. i see him more as a south park conservative. and NBL, you hav eto allow people the ability to change thier minds. its called growth. you should not ridicule people for shifting thier positions on issues. i change my mind about things all the time when new information is introduced. those who can't change thier mind or admit when they were wrong about something are simply cowards or too concerned about what others think. people do learn from experience and from example. are you so full of vitriolic hatred for anyone that happens to be to the right of you that you can't give the man props for agreeing to do this? i think he's brave. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 35 (view)

General Motors and China Posted: 5/24/2009 8:47:05 AM
earl so what you are saying is that since the fed gov gave money to a company the gov has the right to do whatever the hell they want - regardless of the law? i think strong arming someone that owes you money, refusing to allow them to repay (which obama did with several of the banks), and basically forcing them into a bad deal (" hey tim...make those Gm creditors an offer they can't refuse") is very "chicagoan" in spirit, but it certainly isn't very american, nor legal. no, your president is acting more like a loan shark then a president. we are supposed to be a nation governed by law not by men. and earl, the country you live in is in the real world. that means that if you want a job you need to have a skill set that is current. it means that you have to know how to do something that is needed. no one owes you a job. just because you like doing something doesn't mean there is a market for it. the other alternative is to hire yourself, start a business, put up a shingle. the only problem is, if the market place doesn't want your service or your product they won't buy. the thing is, looking at the employment numbers, it's the unskilled worker, those without an education that are suffering in this job market. right now the unemployment numbers for those with college degrees is HALF of those who are unskilled and uneducated. the writing has been on the wall for twenty years now. even austin goolsbee, one of obama's economic advisors stated that the gap btwn the rich and poor is really a gap in education. people with college degrees now make 100% over th course of thier lifetimes then those with high school diplomas only. and as far as unions go... they serve a purpose, but when they do not understand that wages and benefits can not exceed profits, well, they just put themselves out of work by destroying the very company they work for. it's very short sighted. the unions' leadership has much to answer for in the demise of the auto industry. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 27 (view)

General Motors and China Posted: 5/18/2009 9:54:42 PM
what do you mean by "system?" political system? economic system? the reason GM can't turn a profit is a complex question. one part of the problem is that they have a lot of union contracts that they have to honor - that is, paying the pensions of retirees. GM has been losing money for decades. i wish i could find the article on it, it is from the WSJ and it details exactly how unprofitable GM has been. if you read this it would make you FURIOUS. why we have bailed them out i do not know. but the fact remains, these manufacturing jobs are going going gone...it's not just the auto industry - and for every young male i try to talk sense into about going to college there is only about 1 or two that actually listen. they don't seem to "get it." the days of going to work for a company right out of highschool and joining the "union," paid vacations, benefits, and a pension - those days are over. the only hope for halting globalization will be the end of the oil economy. as long as the cost of making something over seas is feasible it will be done. the american worker can not compete with the pennies on the dollar labor over in china. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 21 (view)

General Motors and China Posted: 5/18/2009 9:19:07 AM
make an example out of GM? for what? trying to survive and doing what every other company has had to do - ship factories over seas in order to compete. they aren't the first corporation to do this, nor will they be the last. the real problem is that there is a significant segment of the US population that didn't get the memo on manufacturing - manufacturing is dying, there will be no manufacturing jobs, you need to go to college! manufacturing has been dying since the 70's! look, globalization is a fact of life and is not going to go away. it sucks but GM is hardly unique. people just need to wake up and get retrained for new jobs. according to the latest job figures, the unemployment rate for people with college degrees is half of what it is for the workers with no college degree. half. that's somewhere around 4.8% unemployment rate. that is basically considered full employment. this recession is hitting the working class and unskilled laborers disproportionately. tell president obama to "take over" GM? since when does a president of the US have the legal authority to "take over" any publicly traded corporation? such an act would be unconstitutional. if you are at all concerned about corruption in government then you might want to advocate a separation of business and state. the last thing we need is for the gov to be running corporations. GM has been losing $$ for decades. we shouldn't have bailed them out, nor any other auto maker for that matter. but the idea of the government just swooping in at the provocation of the electoral mob is absolutely shocking. that is something right out of hitler's germany, or russia circa 1917. just curious... what country do you think you are living in? in the meantime you may want to check out this finance article, because the author is wondering just what country we are living in now too...this is some insider info about the whole Chrysler debacle... http://www.finemrespice.com/node/56 "I Can Only Hope This Proves to Be Inflammatory Nonsense One of the great pleasures of writing finem respice relates to the wide variety of surprises that one finds in one's inbox as a consequence of having an audience of any size at all. Write about finance long enough with the same electronic mail address and a number of interesting anecdotes will flutter your way. Write just a little bit longer and a shocking tale will pass under your eyes once or twice. Stick it out for two and half a hundred weeks and one is likely to hear something quite disturbing. Hang in for more than a pair of years and a truly horrifying, bone chilling narrative will eventually confront you. Today, I have the distinctly unpleasant distinction of being on the receiving end of exactly this sort of recollection. That is, a bit of dialogue so genuinely awful that- were it not from a source I consider impeccable, and unimpeachable- I would not dare to credit at all. Unfortunately, I must do precisely this, and personally believe it to be totally, frightfully accurate. I take no pleasure in relaying it, instead hoping that someone more directly in the business of running such matters down and printing them will carefully document it and- if true- expose it, or- if not- discredit it quickly and finally. This (as yet unproven) yarn goes exactly like this: Confronting the head of a non-TARP fund holding Chrysler debt and unwilling to release it for any sum less than that to which it was legally entitled without compelling cause, this country's "Car Czar" berated the manager of said fund with an outburst of prose substantially resembling this: 'Who the **** do you think you're dealing with? We'll have the IRS audit your fund. Every one of your employees. Your investors. Then we will have the Securities and Exchange Commission rip through your books looking for anything and everything and nothing we find to destroy you with.' Faced with these sorts of threats, in this environment, with valued employees in the crosshairs and AIG a fresh, open wound upon the market, the fund folded. It is a tale literally so outlandish and difficult to picture that, in these circumstances and given the source, it rings absolutely true. Consider all this in a larger context where: You see Non-TARP entities claiming that: '...we have been systematically precluded from engaging in direct discussions or negotiations with the government; instead, we have been forced to communicate through an obviously conflicted intermediary: a group of banks that have received billions of TARP funds.1' ...not to mention the fact that the salary, bonus and "stress test" results for TARP banks are all within Treasury's control. Then you have White & Case attorney Tom Lauria, describing the experience of one of his clients, holders of Senior debt in Chrysler, to Frank Beckmann: Lauria: One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House, and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence. Beckmann: Was that Perella Weinberg? Lauria: That was Perella Weinberg.2 We see the White House Chief of Staff (whose primary finance and economics qualifications appear to be a Bachelor of the Arts degree from Sarah Lawrence College- apparently appealing because of its strong ballet program- and a Master of the Arts in Speech and Communications) calling the plays over at Treasury for the last several months. To wit: On Jan. 20, Timothy Geithner took control of the Treasury Department, directing the government's response to the financial crisis. Within three weeks, the White House tightened its grip, alarmed by the poor reaction to Mr. Geithner's performance during the rollout of his rescue plan, government officials say. Since then, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been so involved in the workings of the Treasury that "Rahm wants it" has become an unofficial mantra among some at the Treasury, according to government officials.3 We have senior government officials apparently ordering, or at least strong-arming, the Chief Executive of a publicly-held firm to make or avoid certain disclosures and to close a merger, "or else."4 We watch the White House fire the Chief Executive of General Motors after he makes the most generous settlement offer to bondholders (to whom he owes fiduciary duties) up to that point, and smile gently when Wagoner's successor puts the screws to financial creditors and eases up on the UAW. It is my deepest wish at this point that there is nothing about this latest bit of Car Czar thuggery even remotely based in fact- as this would mean that this country has truly and unarguably descended into fascism. I use this term, "fascism," quite deliberately. I also use it well aware that many will consider it needlessly inflammatory. Be this as it may, I submit there is simply no other term that properly describes the style and tenor of government emerging both in public and behind once closed doors. While it has seemed fashionable in past to brand the leanings of the current administration towards the left-biased "socialism," or even "communism," neither of these definitions withstands simple scrutiny. Nothing about these goings-on rises to the level of sophisticated argument required to sustain a claim that the state should a priori own the means of production. Nor does the present administration seem to harbor this as a goal. (It is not entirely clear if this is the result of philosophical or practical limitations, though I suspect the latter). Instead, the rhetoric flashing about commands subservience to the state, particularly by those industrialists and financiers whose acquiescence is required to maintain the machinery of commerce and the illusion of normalcy. Consider, then, these more elaborate definitions in light of what we have seen just in the last sixty days: Fascism varied from nation to nation, but in its simplest terms it was a doctrine that sanctified the interests of the nation-state and minimised the rights of the individual. The roots and antecedents of fascism can be traced back to the French Revolution of 1789, which ushered in ideals of liberalism and representative government that eventually spread across Europe as the old political and social order was overturned. During the nineteenth century, liberalism went hand-in-hand with a wave of nationalism that resulted in the unification of Italy and Germany in the 1860s and 1870s. Many believed, however, that liberal democracy had failed to curb the excesses of capitalism, providing instead the conditions under which the strong could prey on the weak. The 1890s saw an intellectual revolt against the dominant ideology of liberalism and capitalism. As a result, two major doctrines gradually emerged in opposition to liberalism. On the Left it was challenged by Marxism, which burst onto the European scene in Russia; and on the Right it was attacked by a right-wing movement that came to be known as fascism. Fascism therefore emerged in direct opposition to liberal democracy, because fascists contended that democracy had created class conflict and that individual rights undermined the authority state. Fascists opposed communism because they argued that communism (or socialism) deliberately inflamed class conflict for revolutionary purposes, and this also threatened the nation-state. What distinguished fascism from other right-wing political movements was its 'revolutionary' intention to replace the existing political structure with the 'one-party totalitarian state' that would eliminate class conflict by encouraging the people to place the nation-state before their own self-interests.5 The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation's imminent rebirth from decadence.6 [Fascism is] a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.7 I would gleefully wake in the morning to find my words of this evening alarmist, overwrought, and at variance with the facts. Until then, these connections so perfectly match descriptions of what would amount to nothing less than rank thuggery on the part of Mr. Rattner, that I cannot think of a better term- once removed from its unduly prejudicial context in Modern European history- to describe what appear to be the goals, aims and methods of this administration. I am at a loss. Truly."

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 17 (view)

Taxing soft drinks and alcohol Posted: 5/18/2009 8:46:52 AM
substituting diet soft drinks for high fructose corn syrup infused soft drinks may also end up being problematic. while i have yet to make up my mind on the matter, there is some controversy surrounding diet soft drinks and aspartame, or nutrasweet. apparently, aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde at 85 degrees fahrenheit. but the real controversy surrounding aspartame has to do with the claims that it actually prevents the creation of seratonin. it has also been asserted that aspartame is dangerous for the developing brain, and has been recommended that young children and pregnant women limit their consumption of products containing aspartame. who knows, maybe aspartame will turnout to be even worse then the sugar and high fructose corn syrup. it may just be trading one set of problems for another. i am not convinced one way or the other yet, but there is debate on the topic. to me, the question really comes down to how much you want the state in your life. at what point is a person responsible for his or her own condition in life? if a person doesn't take care of his or herself whose fault is that? do we really need the state to impose everything upon us? and what if someone wants to sit around and eat bad food and drink sodas all day? isn't that his or her choice? lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 4 (view)

VP Joe Biden.... Oops I did it Again... He opened his mouth! Posted: 5/18/2009 8:26:41 AM
biden... wow... you really have to wonder why obama chose him in the first place... what a moron...he' s about as bad as dan quaile... lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 293 (view)

How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 5/18/2009 8:21:03 AM
fireknight~ fyi.. go watch the cspan hearings on fannie mae and freddie mac. wall street had some big help in "causing" this mess. senators such as chris dodd, barney franks, gram... as far as the pig farming goes... listen pal, my family owns farm land, ok, going back 3 generations. trust me, i am well aware of how the "issue" is thrown about. the PUBLIC outcry on the matter has to do with the smell. period. and as far as the BS about the importance of the "research, amonia, so-called poison, etc., " listen, the package was supposed to STIMULATE THE ECONOMY! HOW IS PUTTING $$$ IN THE POCKETS OF PHDS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA STIMULATE THE ECONOMY? HELLO! do you not understand that taking money out of the private sector - where JOBS ARE CREATED - and putting it into the public sector means that much less $$$ for new business ventures or investments? all obama is doing is creating FAKE jobs that increase the LIABILITIES of the US taxpayer over time. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 292 (view)

How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 5/18/2009 8:09:49 AM
here's why the tax the rich tactic never seems to work... gotta love the wall street journal.. it's truly one of the best papers out there...it is a shame more people on these forums do not read it...it's even sadder that our president in training doesn't read the wsj either... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html By ARTHUR LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich With states facing nearly $100 billion in combined budget deficits this year, we're seeing more governors than ever proposing the Barack Obama solution to balancing the budget: Soak the rich. Lawmakers in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Oregon want to raise income tax rates on the top 1% or 2% or 5% of their citizens. New Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn wants a 50% increase in the income tax rate on the wealthy because this is the "fair" way to close his state's gaping deficit. Mr. Quinn and other tax-raising governors have been emboldened by recent studies by left-wing groups like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that suggest that "tax increases, particularly tax increases on higher-income families, may be the best available option." A recent letter to New York Gov. David Paterson signed by 100 economists advises the Empire State to "raise tax rates for high income families right away." Here's the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states. And the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, "Rich States, Poor States," published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities. Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts. Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses. Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" This should be required reading for today's state legislators. It concludes: "Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust. . . . A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees." More recently, Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found "a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth." In other words, soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit. Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the "soak the rich" tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich. This result was all the more remarkable given that these were years when the stock market boomed and Wall Street gains were in the trillions of dollars. Examining data from a 2008 Princeton study on the New Jersey tax hike on the wealthy, we found that there were 4,000 missing half-millionaires in New Jersey after that tax took effect. New Jersey now has one of the largest budget deficits in the nation. We believe there are three unintended consequences from states raising tax rates on the rich. First, some rich residents sell their homes and leave the state; second, those who stay in the state report less taxable income on their tax returns; and third, some rich people choose not to locate in a high-tax state. Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates. Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services. They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores. Or consider the fiasco of New Jersey. In the early 1960s, the state had no state income tax and no state sales tax. It was a rapidly growing state attracting people from everywhere and running budget surpluses. Today its income and sales taxes are among the highest in the nation yet it suffers from perpetual deficits and its schools rank among the worst in the nation -- much worse than those in New Hampshire. Most of the massive infusion of tax dollars over the past 40 years has simply enriched the public-employee unions in the Garden State. People are fleeing the state in droves. One last point: States aren't simply competing with each other. As Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently told us, "Our state is competing with Germany, France, Japan and China for business. We'd better have a pro-growth tax system or those American jobs will be out-sourced." Gov. Perry and Texas have the jobs and prosperity model exactly right. Texas created more new jobs in 2008 than all other 49 states combined. And Texas is the only state other than Georgia and North Dakota that is cutting taxes this year. The Texas economic model makes a whole lot more sense than the New Jersey model, and we hope the politicians in California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota and New York realize this before it's too late.

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 86 (view)

Joe The Plumber ... the great Republican hope? Posted: 5/17/2009 5:00:54 PM
charles~ lived in manhattan (midtown), san francisco (pacific heights), berzerkeley/rockridge, los angeles (beachwood canyon)... should i go on? every upper middle class/rich elitist snob that i ever met while living in the above locals would be rude to waitresses/waiters, talk down to people in unskilled labour jobs, talk disparagingly about people who were poorly educated, yet devoutly voted democrat. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 85 (view)

Joe The Plumber ... the great Republican hope? Posted: 5/17/2009 4:48:32 PM
cotter you might not want to be calling the poor man a redneck. i am just saying. there are plenty of un-licensed workers out there doing everything from automotive repairs, to electrical work. not having a license doesn't mean you aren't able to do the job, it just means you haven't made it through all the BS licensing garbage that the lefties just love so much. they are soooo caught up with degrees, licenses, titles, certification, etc. also, you dont have to be a licensed plumber to OWN a plumbing business, which was what he was talking about doing - buying an already existent plumbing biz. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 68 (view)

Obama supporters and Bush.. Posted: 5/17/2009 4:39:50 PM
nobushlover~ this is a very very old thread. the joke was to bring back a very very old thread. lol! lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 217 (view)

Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book. Posted: 5/17/2009 4:37:09 PM
oh, another stat that i found from a twenty five longitudinal study done by wallerstein et al; children of divorce are less likely to achieve the same socioeconomic status as thier parents, and based on wallerstein's findings, only 30% of the children from divorced families recieved financial help in paying for college in comparison to children of intact families - even after controlling for all other variables. of course, this is a stat that no one has yet mentioned. i don't think ann discussed it. i found it interesting because it seemed to mirror my own experience and that of my friends who also came from divorced families. ann coulter is 100% right on this issue. you may not like HOW she says it, but she is 100% correct about the effects of single motherhood/divorce. there is an overwhelming preponderance of research to back her up. the fact that 40% of births last year were to single mothers is ominous for the future of this society. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 4 (view)

Obama Matures and Moves towards Bush Posted: 5/17/2009 11:16:06 AM
uh... i am very pleased that obama has decided not to push for the release of the photos, the only problem is, i think it is a bunch of crap. i think the photos will come out, and i think that is what he wants. the only way to prevent these photos from being released is by making them classified - which i am sure he won't do. he's quite the machiavellian. he gets it both ways, so to speak. he can pretend that he supports the radical virulent cries for "revenge" in his party, and he can pretend that he was trying to support the CIA and NOT release the photos. it's just a big ruse. this whole thing has been a big joke from beginning to end. personally, i don't need a president to say," i am sorry, i was wrong." i actually prefer he not put himself in the position in the first place. while saying sorry sounds all well and fine here in the USA it does not translate very well in other parts of the world. some cultures view such apologies as admissions of guilt, shame and humiliation, and signs of weakness. i'd rather obama go back to the being-a-democrat-means-never-having-to-say-your-sorry routine. it is more dignified and plays better across the globe. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 79 (view)

Joe The Plumber ... the great Republican hope? Posted: 5/17/2009 11:08:26 AM
cotter he wasn't a member of the union and was working towards his plumbing license. i hardly consider that "illegal." the great republican hope is the millions of republicans across the country. it's the people that are the hope of the party - just as it always has been. remember the election was 48 to 52. that means there were millions of people who did not support this president in training. the democratic party used to be the party of the common man, but the dem party has largely departed from thier roots. the dems are now the party of the elite ivy league snobs, the trust fund baby, the anracho-socialist-communist-revolutionaries, professional protesters, academia, the union hustlers, and the poorly educated. it is the republican party that is the party of the entrepreneur, the guy who comes from nothing but makes good. it is the repub party that is now the party of the common man. that is why so many people such as myself have switched parties over the years. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 67 (view)

Torture in Guantanamo bay Posted: 5/14/2009 4:37:01 AM
right charles...lol! lack of "context?" i clarified that the articles were on former gitmo detainees returning to the battle, which they were, and i believe that the title of this forum is "torture in gitmo." if someone can not figure out that those links are about gitmo detainees that ended up back on the battle field by the above mentioned data then i'd say there isn't anything short of a neon sign that would make the "context" clear enough. the endless reports on the 61 that returned is overwhelming. but the "criticism" i like the best is from "media matters." you can find that article if you google it. basically it claims that politico.com was wrong in reporting that 61 detainees returned to the battle field. of course, they leave out that the pentagon, AP, reuters, and myriad other news agencies reported the same story. the actual number may be disputed. but let's just go with 16 for the sake or argument. let's say only 16 returned to terror since the quantity of terrorists is more important to you then quality. if you recall, it only took 19 terrorists to perpetrate 9/11 (unless you are a truther). there are, right now, close to 16 uighars ( i think it might be around 11 or 12) that were trained in al qaeda terror camps that the obama administration is considering releasing into the US. just how many potential terrorists would be an acceptable number to be released? because if you will notice from the report, some released detainees carried out attacks that resulted in the deaths of innocent people. just how many innocent lives are you willing to risk in order to release these individuals? because if they are released and DO return to carry out attacks that result in the loss of innocent life, the obama administration will be held accountable for that. also, that last articles, about the guy who was "innocent," placed in gitmo, then BECAME a terrorist, as asserted BECAUSE of gitmo. I don't buy it. he was a criminal before hand. did you read what he was doing before he "joined" up? he had a kidnapping ring, and was involved in extortion. he was a criminal. did you also read how he was arrested? he rode up on a group of US soldiers who had just captured some of his "men." he was in a pick up truck (how very taliban-like i might add) and heavily armed. he ended up being picked up by US forces. let's see...he hung out with the taliban ( he admitted this), some of his men were taliban, and he rode up on US soldiers wanting his "men" back while heavily armed and guns blazing. he was a criminal, and hardly any surprise that he joined up with a criminal "organization" after being released from gitmo. birds of a feather. why do think the nazis recruited so heavily from the criminal ranks? but since you think he was so innocent, maybe we should have released a kidnapper and extortionist into the US, or some other country. sure. yeah. right. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 66 (view)

Torture in Guantanamo bay Posted: 5/14/2009 4:20:21 AM
nobushlover~ i certainly am concerned about them. that is why i shed no tear for the deposition of saddam hussein. even if you disagreed with the war in the first place one can not deny that the deposition of saddam hussien was a bad thing. he tortured and assassinated political opponents and civilians alike. andy btw, what is your source for us supposedly providing saddam hussien with gas used on the kurds? gas attacks have been outlawed even during war time since world war I. in a war, any war, innocent civilians get killed. it is awful, but there has never been a war where it has not happened. the difference is between targeting civilians and not targeting civilians. when you have an enemy that purposely blends in with a civilian population, and even uses human shields the civilian casualties are going to be increased. saddam did do this. he used human shields, and al qaeda purposely blends in with civilian populations. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 66 (view)

Joe The Plumber ... the great Republican hope? Posted: 5/13/2009 8:10:24 AM
readyfor something~ you are in ohio? wow! you must have gotten the full coverage of that woman who got fired for trying to dig up dirt on joe! the mainstream media did NOT cover it! i couldn't believe it! but in truth, that is very chicago-style politics. dirty. dirty. dirty. let's not forget that mr nice guy obama actually SUED his opponent when he was running for the state senate here in illinois, challenging her signatures! he won because he SUED her out of the election! it was such a dirty trick. why should any of us be surprised that they went after Joe, and actually tried to carry out an astrotuf lie campaign against sara palin (the axelrod affliliated PR firm that tried to carry out the lie campaign was busted by the blogs - very funny stuff!). this is classic axelrod. disgusting. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 65 (view)

Joe The Plumber ... the great Republican hope? Posted: 5/13/2009 8:05:01 AM
dance~ having lived in some of the wealthiest regioins in the country i can assure you that ALL the wealthy people i met or knew were democrats. every single one. it's a complete lie that democrats are the party of "the people." democrats are snobs, who judge people based on what college they went to, how many degrees they have, what kind of car they drive, where they live, etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard devout democrats make fun of waitresses, janitors, or bascially anyone who happens to be working class and speak with bad grammar. i found the hypocrisy disgusting. after all, how can you be for the people when you hate the people. the only reason the unions support the dem party is because the dems basically pay them off. the union guys just dont get that people like john kerry or obama and his cronies look down on them as uneducated hicks who don't even know what arugula is. trust me, these people are snobs, and coincidentally one of the reasons for my conversion from the democratic party to the republican party. republicans are the party of the self made guy. it's the party of the individual that comes from nothing and makes good. it's the party of the entrepreneur, the small business owner, and the grown ups. and conservatives are much nicer and more generous then democrats. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 63 (view)

Joe The Plumber ... the great Republican hope? Posted: 5/13/2009 7:52:13 AM
charles the media went after a private citizen who happened to stand up to a presidential candidate that had been anointed by the media as being the savior of the world. there were gross violations of public records that took place, and the media made a concerted effort to attack and smear a private citizen because he was a political threat to thier chosen candidate. there was even an investigation into illegal accessing of his private information conducted by an state employee in ohio. this woman did a check on him to see if he owed any child support, etc., and she got busted. in the end she was fired for abusing private information on a private citizen. the employee that was fired was found to be an obama supporter and contributor. michelle malkin extensively covered this on her blog, and provided links to the local news coverage that the incident received in ohio - the story, of course, was ignored by the main stream media. i think attacking private citizens who are NOT running for office in an effort to discredit them is an abuse of power that we have not seen since the nixon era. i think joe is a dolt, but i do not in any way condone the attacks on him by the media, the obama campaign, or gov employees. i don't know about anyone else but the world i live in is chicago - and things like this are part of the chicago "way." i am deeply saddened to see this crap go national. obama is a chicago-style thug. period. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 63 (view)

Torture in Guantanamo bay Posted: 5/13/2009 7:40:46 AM
cotter~ those "bug shots" simply went to google and pulled up thousands of hits on former gitmo inmates returning to terrorism. they are privy to info of which you are also privy. here are some links: reuters - 61 ex-gitmo prisoners return to terrorism http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE50C5JX20090113?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true freed gitmo prisoners taunt US as closure plan falls apart http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5594272.ece seven at gitmo return to terrorism http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20041018/ai_n11488019/ and based on a rassmussen poll, apparently 75% of americans do not want former gitmo prisoners released in the US. http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/75_oppose_release_of_guantanamo_inmates_in_the_united/ of the 241 prisoners remaining at gitmo, 97 are yemenis...the only problem is yemen is stalling on taking them back... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/world/middleeast/24yemen.html ex-gitmo inmates return to militancy in yemen http://www.opednews.com/populum/link.php?id=81187 some former detainees return to fight http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2009/01/13/some-freed-terrorism-detainees-return-to-the-fight.html pentagon report sees potential threat in gitmo inmates - based on 07 west point report, which states that 95% of the inmates were seen as potential threats. oh yeah, it mentions something about information that the general public is not privy to. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26gitmo.html?_r=1&scp=16&sq=guantanamo%20detainees&st=cse former kuwati gitmo inmate carried out suicide attack in mosul, iraq http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/220-abdallah-saleh-ali-al-ajmi?scp=3&sq=guantanamo%20detainees%20suicide%20bombings&st=cse eleven saudis that were released from gitmo and attended a terrorist "rehabilitation" program are suspected of having joined terror groups http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/world/middleeast/04saudi.html said ali al-shrihri - freed gitmo saudi, becomes al qaeda chief in yemen, suspected involvement in us embassy bombing that kills 16 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html afghani who ran a kidnapping and extortion ring in afghanistan becomes al qaeda leader after release from gitmo http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38779.html these are just a few links. there are plenty more. do i think there are innocent people that have been held at gitmo? probably. should every effort be made to sort out the innocent from the guilty? yes. the only problem is that when you have an enemy that blends in with civilian populations it may be difficult to determine who is a potential threat and who is not. surely you would agree that anyone who has had training in a terrorist camp should not be released into the US at the very least. surely you can agree on that! lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 61 (view)

Torture in Guantanamo bay Posted: 5/13/2009 6:44:35 AM
nobushlover~ had an iraqi classmate 4 years ago. he hadn't seen his family in years. he fled from iraq because he was pressed into saddam's army. also, his brother was "arrested" one night, taken away for some unknown reason, and never seen again (he was one of saddam's missing). after the saddam fell, he was able to go back to iraq and see his family. he made a video. his mother kissed his feet, and said, "god bless george bush. he's brought my son back to me." i guess my former classmate and his family didn't get the "conservatives hate the iraqi people" memo. your assertion is on par with the "bush hates black people" narrative, which of course flies in the face of the fact that bush has done more to fight the african aids crisis then any other president or leader. a friend of 25 years works for a major news network. he went to iraq and saw first hand several of saddam's mass graves. while he was not a bush supporter, he completely supported the removal of saddam on the basis of being a gross human rights violator alone. i think his exact comparison was something like, "pol pot of the sahara." ...it is well documented that saddam hussein was not only a facist (the baath party was modeled after the nazi party), but a monster who tortured and murdered the citizens of iraq. do a google search on the following: saddam, mass gaves. then click images. some of those photos may have been taken by a friend of mine. fyi - bush is no longer the president, and unless there is a constitutional ammendment extending how long an individual can serve as president there is no possibility that he will be president again. therefore, you might want to update your moniker. just saying. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 30 (view)

The Next Republican Attempt at Fearmongering Posted: 5/12/2009 5:51:42 AM
i don't know cotter... i actually know a guy who was a guard at gitmo. does that make me a big shot too? or is ridicule a new debate tactic and no longer considered a logical fallacy? if so, it's certainly news to me. anyway, i certainly haven't asked the guy i know about gitmo, nor has he told me ANYTHING since that would be illegal. but he did subtly hint to the fact that the guys in gitmo were not very nice people.. to put it mildly. already many former inmates at gitmo have returned to the battle field. some have even carried out suicide bombings. this has been reported ad nauseum in the press. i guess you haven't been following the news. we do have the right to imprison any enemy that we are at war with, and hold them per the laws of warfare. again, the point that you do not GET is that the out cry over gitmo is between two camps of legal theory - one that thinks acts like 9/11 were crimes and should be prosecuted through the criminal justice system, and the other which believes acts like 9/11 were/are acts of war. oh yeah, lol, and remember i stated previously that by pursuing prosecution of so-called bush officials for waterboarding, and sleep deprivation? remember that i said no one would end up getting prosecuted but a few law professors? well, it turns out that i was right. one law professor is a guy from UC Berkeley. lol! rofl! so funny. oh yeah, and lets not forget the two psychologists from the seattlle area. i think it was ABC that outed them. yeah...lol! bush offcials...lol! rofl! anyway, there has been a hybrid approach recommended by one legal scholar which was very interesting and might be a good mid ground. because, after all, when at war, it would not be practical to expect our troops to be reading miranda rights to the enemy on the battle field. i'll try to find it again and post it for inquiring minds when i actually have time. or would THAT be fear mongering too? lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 35 (view)

Thousands flee Pakistan valley as truce crumbles Posted: 5/12/2009 5:35:42 AM
whiskey papa~ i'd have to ask your source on the above. i've been following some pakistani blogs, and have studied the afghan conflict going back years now... the pashtuns are a tribal people that populate parts of pakistan and afghanistan. the taliban are mainly pashtun. if there are tajiks and uzbecks in pakistan in any significant numbers that is news to me. are you sure you are not mixing up afganistan with pakistan here on this point? because traditionally there are tajiks, uzbeks, hazaras, and pashtuns in afghanistan. the troubles in swat have been brewing for years now. the CIA did not fund the taliban, nor did it fund osama bin laden. i know this is a popular myth - right up there with the myth that osama was suffering from a kidney ailment. the taliban were funded by the ISI - pakistani intelligence. while we started giving money to pakistan during the carter administration in response to the soviet invasion of afghanistan we did not give money directly to the taliban. the ISI funded them - with our money! you might want to read that book that came out on the taliban about 7 years ago. it's conveniently called, "the taliban." another great book with back ground data is "the looming tower," by lawrence wright i believe. there was also a good book that came out about 5 years ago with translations of all of bin laden's speeches. there were several translators that worked on the project - so forgive me, thier names escape me now. the problems in swat and the whole NWFP have to do with an ideology that has been festering since the iranian revolution. in fact, the reason the russians invaded afghanistan in the first place was because they started having problems with islamic fundamentalists crossing over into russia from afghanistan and causing havoc in russian territory. this little known point has been conveniently absent from the debate about russia's invasion of that lawless land. recently declassified russian documents tell the story. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 654 (view)

Capital Punishment~ for or against? Posted: 5/12/2009 5:21:38 AM
but eye witness accounts have been demonstrated again and again to be about the worst evidence, DNA evidence can be compromised (and unless you have the money to bring in experts to challenge the evidence you are screwed), and i don't know about you but i've seen plenty of grainy-blurry video surveillance clips that are no help in identifying anything let alone the perpetrator of a crime. our system is set up such that we would rather let 100 guilty men go free rather then see one innocent man punished for a crime he didn't do. humans are prone to witch hunts, and can not be trusted with the power of life and death. i am for life in prison for all crimes. i do not take the rehabilitation view of incarceration as some do. i see a prison as a means of keeping a criminal apart from the law abiding population and nothing more. when we start executing people we have crossed a line. at that point it becomes an act of revenge. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 48 (view)

Obamas first 100 days Posted: 5/12/2009 5:13:27 AM
and in other news... according to an AP report the US is going to borrow 46 cents per every dollar spent. i guess that cig tax isn't going to cut it. maybe snobama should start taxing nicotene patches. if the first 100 days are any indication it is going to be a long and expensive four years. "...For the current year, the government would borrow 46 cents for every dollar it takes to run the government under the administration's plan." read the whole thing here... http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090512/D984FCB80.html

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 47 (view)

Obamas first 100 days Posted: 5/12/2009 4:37:49 AM
according to the congressional budget office the deficit is greater then originally reported. i'd say that snobama's first 100 days have gone very well if you consider spending the USA into bankruptcy change you can believe in. http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=216 "Our updated budget projections indicate that: * Largely as a result of the enactment of recent legislation and the continuing turmoil in financial markets, CBO’s baseline projections of the deficit have risen by more than $400 billion in both 2009 and 2010 and by smaller amounts thereafter. Those projections assume that current laws and policies remain in place. Under that assumption, CBO now estimates that the deficit will total almost $1.7 trillion (12 percent of GDP) this year and $1.1 trillion (8 percent of GDP) next year—the largest deficits as a share of GDP since 1945. Deficits would shrink to about 2 percent of GDP by 2012 and remain in that vicinity through 2019. * Under current laws and policies, outlays are projected to decline from 27.4 percent of GDP in 2009 to about 22 percent in 2012 and subsequent years, as spending related to the current recession phases out, problems in the financial markets fade, and discretionary spending–under the assumptions of the baseline–declines as a share of GDP. * At the same time, under current laws and policies, revenues are estimated to rise from 15.5 percent of GDP in 2009 to about 20 percent in 2012 and subsequent years. Much of that projected increase in revenues results from the growing impact of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and, even more significant, the scheduled expiration in December 2010 of provisions enacted in the recent economic stimulus legislation and tax legislation in 2001 and 2003. Our analysis of the President’s budget proposals indicates that: * As estimated by CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation, the President’s proposals would add $4.8 trillion to the baseline deficits over the 2010–2019 period. CBO projects that if those proposals were enacted, the deficit would total $1.8 trillion (13 percent of GDP) in 2009 and $1.4 trillion (10 percent of GDP) in 2010. It would decline to about 4 percent of GDP by 2012 and remain between 4 percent and 6 percent of GDP through 2019. * The cumulative deficit from 2010 to 2019 under the President’s proposals would total $9.3 trillion, compared with a cumulative deficit of $4.4 trillion projected under the current-law assumptions embodied in CBO’s baseline. Debt held by the public would rise, from 41 percent of GDP in 2008 to 57 percent in 2009 and then to 82 percent of GDP by 2019 (compared with 56 percent of GDP in that year under baseline assumptions). * Proposed changes in tax policy would reduce revenues by an estimated $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. Proposed changes in spending programs would add $1.7 trillion (excluding debt service) to outlays over the next 10 years. Interest costs associated with greater borrowing would add another $1.0 trillion to deficits over the 2010–2019 period. * Our estimates of deficits under the President’s budget exceed those anticipated by the Administration by $2.3 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. The differences arise largely because of differing projections of baseline revenues and outlays. CBO’s projection of baseline deficits exceeds the Administration’s estimate (prepared on a comparable basis) by $1.6 trillion."

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 44 (view)

Obamas first 100 days Posted: 5/11/2009 12:40:37 PM
OP i just read your profile...it says you live in canada... come on, you aren't even american. why don't you worry about what's going on in your own country instead of worrying about something that you have no control over. i mean, you can be dissapointed all you want in the president of the USA, but the fact is you can't vote for him. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 42 (view)

Obamas first 100 days Posted: 5/11/2009 11:23:01 AM
you do realize that at some point obama and the dems are going to have to own the mess that they have created here. the guy is quite a piece of work. here ya go...lastest on so-called "job creation," it appears the press is questioning his creative methods of calculating so-called "job creation." but these are just a few of the iffy claims... "FACT CHECK: Obama's job, deficit claims are iffy By CALVIN WOODWARD Associated Press Writer April 30, 2009 FACT CHECK: Obama's job, deficit claims are iffy WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama turned the page on 100 days in office with an iffy boast about job creation and claims of fiscal prudence that are hard to square with his spending. Obama spoke with abundant confidence about his chances for achieving the big-ticket items on his agenda despite economic calamity: -His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller for many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits the government is negotiating. -He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings. -He pitched a remedy for Social Security's long-term crisis that analysts say won't fix half the problem. Obama held a prime-time news conference Wednesday and addressed citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school, using both events to review progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead. A look at some of his claims: OBAMA: "We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs." - from news conference. THE FACTS: This assertion is dubious on several levels. For starters, the U.S. has lost more than 1.2 million jobs since Obama took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even if Obama's stimulus bill saved or created as many jobs as he says, that number is dwarfed by the number of recent job losses. But Obama's number is murky, at best. The White House has not yet announced how it intends to count jobs created by the stimulus bill. Obama's number is based on a job-counting formula that his economists have developed but have not made public. Until that formula is announced - probably in the coming week or so - there's no way to assess its accuracy. Whatever the formula, economists who study job creation say it will require some creative math. That's because Obama has lumped "jobs saved" in with "jobs created." Even economists for organizations that stand to benefit from the stimulus concede it probably is impossible to estimate saved jobs because that would require calculating a hypothetical: how many people would have lost their jobs without the stimulus. --- OBAMA: "We must lay a new foundation for growth, a foundation that will strengthen our economy and help us compete in the 21st century. And that's exactly what this budget begins to do. It contains new investments in education that will equip our workers with the right skills and training; new investments in renewable energy that will create millions of jobs and new industries; new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses, and new savings that will bring down our deficit." - news conference. "I've personally asked the leadership in Congress to pass into law rules that follow the simple principle: You pay for what you spend, so that government acts the same way any responsible family does." - in Missouri. THE FACTS: While the budget does set a roadmap for achieving the president's goals, it says nothing about how to pay for his health plan, expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. And while the deficit, under the plan, would drop to $523 billion in 2014, it achieves it with unrealistic assumptions, such as projections that spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will amount to only $50 billion a year. --- OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. ... That wasn't me." - in Missouri. THE FACTS: Congress, under Democratic control in 2007 and 2008, held the purse strings that led to the deficit Obama inherited. A Republican president, George W. Bush, had a role too: He signed the legislation. Obama supported the emergency financial bailout package in Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger. To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion. --- OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." - in Missouri. THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diet and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not." And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame." --- OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax." - in Missouri. THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination of these measures to deal with the program's long-term imbalance. Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate - for a total of 12.4 percent - on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected. Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely. --- OBAMA: "My hope is that working in a bipartisan fashion we are going to be able to get a health care reform bill on my desk before the end of the year that we'll start seeing in the kinds of investments that will make everybody healthier." - in Missouri. THE FACTS: Obama has indeed expressed hope for a health care plan that has support from Democrats and Republicans. But his Democratic allies in Congress have just made that harder. The Democratic budget plan that Congress passed Wednesday gives Democrats the option of denying Republicans the normal right to block health care with a Senate filibuster. The filibuster tactic requires 60 votes to overcome, making it the GOP's main weapon to ensure a bipartisan outcome. The rules set by the budget mean that majority Democrats could potentially pass health care legislation without any Republican votes, sacrificing bipartisanship to achieve their goals"

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 19 (view)

Thousands flee Pakistan valley as truce crumbles Posted: 5/8/2009 2:54:43 AM
nobushlover~ the taliban ARE Pashtuns, which is a tribal-ethnic group comprised of about 60 different tribes that is found in BOTH afghanistan and pakistan's NWFP region. afghanistan has other ethnic groups; tajiks, hazaras, and of course, pashtuns. the pashtuns are native to regions in both countries. they were not displaced by the afghan/ussr war. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 18 (view)

Thousands flee Pakistan valley as truce crumbles Posted: 5/8/2009 2:45:10 AM
cotter if you read the myriad statements of al qaeda, the taliban, or even the speeches of osama bin laden, or ayman zawahiri you will find that there is a strong ideological divide between the values of liberal democracy and those of the salafist extreme version of islam to which these groups subscribe. anyone that does not subscribe to the "puritanical" version of islam that these groups espouse is basically an enemy of islam. no one is saying that islam is anti-american. what i would assert is that the ideology of al qaeda, the taliban, and individuals such as osama bin laden and his sympathizers is rooted in classic occidentalism -i.e., hatred of the west based on stereotypical depictions that span hundreds of years and based upon a puritanical interpretation of islam. this is not a representational view of islam as it has been practiced for hundreds of years. and if i have said it once i'll say it again just to be sure it's clear - muslims who do not subscribe to this brand of islam are also targets - they are considered takfiri - or not "real" muslims. they can be killed. blown up, and are being be-headed by the taliban right now in pakistan as we speak...so... they are worse off then we are since they are on the front lines... one of the ideological mentors of bin laden and zawahiri is a man named said qtub. he studied in the US in the 1940's at the university of colorado, and was later put to death for his involvement in the assassination attempt on egyptian president nasser. he was hung in 1966. he wrote a very influential book called "signposts," or, "milestones." this book was very influential in the islamic world, and it was full of the most bizarre reflections on US culture and on the west in general. his whole philosophy was based on the idea that the islamic world had reverted back to the jahillyah, or an age of spiritual ignorance prior to the arrival of the prophet Mohamed and islam. he felt that the governments of all the islamic world were illegitimate because they were not based upon sharia, and that ANY governmental system that was not based on sharia is illegitimate. he advocated the over throw of all governments in the islamic world and the immediate implementation of islamic law. he also advocated for islamic world domination. this radical, and inhumane interpretation of islam have become a mass movement and has spread across the islamic world. bin laden has said repeatedly in speeches that one of the reasons We, the US are under attack is because we live by "man's law," and not the "law of god." this is seen as a form of idolatry - which is a huge deal in islam. democracy, in and of itself, is incompatible with this interpretation of islam. so... THIS is why we are a target, among other grievances and incompatible beliefs which i could elaborate upon at length. and there are other targets too, namely israel, and western europe. i am not thrilled about the idea of sitting around waiting to figure out who is going to be target one if the taliban gain control of pakistan's nuclear capabilities. i hope this helped answer some of your questions on the matter... lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 84 (view)

Torture-memo-prosecutions … to prosecute or NOT to prosecute … what would be best? Posted: 5/7/2009 9:27:25 PM
whether or not the individual in question is considered a legal combatant or not is relevent. during war war 2 pow's were held in various countries, and transported across national boundaries. also, it does appear that nancy pelosi and other dems DID know about the interrogation practices - waterboarding. the CIA released memos confirming this. i am not at all surprised. here's a news article on this... http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/cia_says_pelosi_was_briefed_on.html "CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations' By Paul Kane Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used. In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him. The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for many years precisely the techniques CIA agents were using in interrogations, and only protesting the tactics when they became public and liberal antiwar activists protested. In a carefully worded statement, Pelosi's office said today that she had never been briefed about the use of waterboarding, only that it had been approved by Bush administration lawyers as a legal technique to use in interrogations. "As this document shows, the Speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used," said Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman. Pelosi's statement did not address whether she was informed that other harsh techniques were already in use during the Zubaydah interrogations. In December 2007 the Washington Post reported that leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees had been briefed in the fall of 2002 about waterboarding -- which simulates drowning -- and other techniques, and that no congressional leaders protested its use. At the time Pelosi said she was not told that waterboarding was being used, a position she stood by repeatedly last month when the Bush-era Justice Department legal documents justifying the interrogation tactics were released by Attorney General Eric Holder. The new memo shows that intelligence officials were willing to share the information about waterboarding with only a sharply closed group of people. Three years after the initial Pelosi-Goss briefing, Bush officials still limited interrogation technique briefings to just the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the so-called Gang of Four in the intelligence world. In October 2005, CIA officials began briefing other congressional leaders with oversight of the intelligence community, including top appropriators who provided the agency its annual funding. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam and an opponent of torture techniques, was also read into the program at that time even though he did not hold a special committee position overseeing the intelligence community. A bipartisan collection of lawmakers have criticized the practice of limiting information to just the "Gang of Four", who were expressly forbidden from talking about the information from other colleagues, including fellow members of the intelligence committees. Pelosi and others are considering reforms that would assure a more open process for all committee members" lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 29 (view)

Obamas first 100 days Posted: 5/6/2009 12:45:01 PM
eralz~ the obama administration has violated bankruptcy law. it has strong armed hedge funds, which control money invested for people's pensions too. obama has given them 30 cents on the dollar, and the UAW 50 cents on the dollar. there have been instances where the fed has bailed out companies before...arilines, auto companies, etc. never has it fired ceo's, or strong armed creditors etc. a ceo is answerable to the shareholders not the president, or the fed. the ceo's job is to make as much money as possible for the shareholders. and just because someone lends you money doesn't give them the right to harrass you, or strong arm you. that's called being a loan shark, or a thug. this is something straight out of chavez's venezuela. And people wonder why obama is being called a marxist. fyi - part of the GM bankruptcy deal was that the tax payers would NOT get any money back! I guess some animals are more "equal" then others. (cough cough) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/White-House-puts-UAW-ahead-of-property-rights-44415057.html "...bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria said on a WJR talk show that morning. “One of my clients,” Lauria told host Frank Beckmann, “was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.” Lauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts. This of course is a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law, which is that secured creditors — those who lended money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they’d get specific property back — get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything. Perella Weinberg withdrew its objection to the settlement, but other bondholders did not, which triggered the bankruptcy filing. After that came a denunciation of the objecting bondholders as “speculators” by Barack Obama in his news conference last Thursday. And then death threats to bondholders from parties unknown. The White House denied that it strong-armed Perella Weinberg. The firm issued a statement saying it decided to accept the settlement, but it pointedly did not deny that it had been threatened by the White House. Which is to say, the threat worked. The same goes for big banks that have received billions in government Troubled Asset Relief Program money. Many of them want to give back the money, but the government won’t let them. They also voted to accept the Chrysler settlement. Nice little bank ya got there, wouldn’t want anything to happen to it. Left-wing bloggers have been saying that the White House’s denial of making threats should be taken at face value and that Lauria’s statement is not evidence to the contrary. But that’s ridiculous. Lauria is a reputable lawyer and a contributor to Democratic candidates. He has no motive to lie. The White House does. Think carefully about what’s happening here. The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored. In the process, it is setting aside basic property rights in favor of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the Democratic Party. The only possible limit on the White House’s power is the bankruptcy judge, who might not go along. Michigan politicians of both parties joined Obama in denouncing the holdout bondholders. They point to the sad plight of UAW retirees not getting full payment of the health care benefits the union negotiated with Chrysler. But the plight of the beneficiaries of the pension funds represented by the bondholders is sad too. Ordinarily you would expect these claims to be weighed and determined by the rule of law. But not apparently in this administration. Obama’s attitude toward the rule of law is apparent in the words he used to describe what he is looking for in a nominee to replace Justice David Souter. He wants “someone who understands justice is not just about some abstract legal theory,” he said, but someone who has “empathy.” In other words, judges should decide cases so that the right people win, not according to the rule of law. The Chrysler negotiations will not be the last occasion for this administration to engage in bailout favoritism and crony capitalism. There’s a May 31 deadline to come up with a settlement for General Motors. And there will be others. In the meantime, who is going to buy bonds from unionized companies if the government is going to take their money away and give it to the union? We have just seen an episode of Gangster Government. It is likely to be part of a continuing series." lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 27 (view)

Obamas first 100 days Posted: 5/5/2009 11:35:06 PM
yep. i hear ya. left cali a few years ago, but i think the whole country is now heading the way california is - that's what happens when repubs act like democrats and democrats act like, well, democrats... spend spend spend spend....and if you complain about the increased taxes you are accused of being selfish. chrysler is a wake up call. the idea that an american president would interfer with publicly traded companies is pretty unbelievable. from "asking" the GM ceo to step down, to threatening the chrysler credit holders...this president has over stepped his jurisdiction. these companies are answerable to noone but the shareholders, and the creditors have thier rights during a bankruptcy. this is simply unbelievable... lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 281 (view)

How do you really feel about this large stimulus package? Posted: 5/5/2009 11:28:18 PM
trail views~ the so-called "shovel ready" back to work programs are tax liabilities. they are artificial. they COST tax payer money, and do not generate tax revenues. see what i am getting at? what is happening is that the gov is pulling money out of the private sector, which means there is less money for investment. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 6 (view)

Thousands flee Pakistan valley as truce crumbles Posted: 5/5/2009 11:21:38 PM
pakistan may very well fall to the taliban. they are within 70 miles of islamabad. news sources are reporting that they expect 500k refugess fleeing the taliban as they advance. from the pakistani blogs i have been reading, it seems that many of the people do not expect that the taliban will a) be that bad, or b) that they will take the country. i did find some blogs however, that are reporting schools being closed, women being told that they can not leave thier homes (it's against sharia for a women to leave the house). there have also been many beheadings in the occupied areas. i don't see how some pakistanis can be in such denial. pakistan's gov is very weak, and there are taliban sympathizers within the military. i think pakistan will fall. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 57 (view)

Pakistan Will Fall to the Taliban Posted: 5/5/2009 11:12:34 PM
sorot~ exactly, you don't know what i am talking about. i am and was sitting in my own house... mies van der rhoe was a designer, not a place. duh. and no, i don't have children. whatever. 30% chance of what?i don't know what you are talking about. whatever, i am in a relationship... and yes, you were rude, and still are. and yeah, i read before i go to bed..always...period. anyway, if you want to stick to the topic, great, otherwise, this is way off topic, personal, and very boring. if it continues, i'll report it. period. so get back on topic or go find some other post. lar

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 25 (view)

Obamas first 100 days Posted: 5/5/2009 10:45:25 PM
boredbroad~ well, at least you aren't a chrysler creditor... and truly california is only a microcosm of what is going on in the whole nation. this administration is out of control... the business insider reports: "Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as "a farce," saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats. Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said. Although the focus has so been on allegations that the White House threatened Perella Weinberg, sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions. The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election. One participant in negotiations said that the administration's tactic was to present what one described as a "madman theory of the presidency" in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm. The White House has denied the allegation that it threatened Perella Weinberg. Last week Obama singled out the firms that continue to oppose his plan for Chrysler, saying he would not stand with them. Perella Weinberg says it was convinced to support the plan by this stark drawing of a line between firms that have the president's backing and those that did not. They didn't want to be on the wrong side of Obama. Privately, administration officials have expressed confidence that other firms will switch sides for this reason. These allegations add to the picture of an administration willing to use intimidation to win over support for its Chrysler plans--and then categorically deny it." http://www.businessinsider.com/new-allegations-of-white-house-threats-over-chysler-2009-5

larissan04

Joined: 4/28/2004

Msg: 58 (view)

Torture-memo-prosecutions … to prosecute or NOT to prosecute … what would be best? Posted: 5/4/2009 11:51:20 PM
cotter~ invading a sovereign nation would constitute a war, yes. kind of like when we invaded europe and north africa during ww2. et al. and yes, per the geneva convention you can hold pow's until cessation of hostilities. that is standard practice during wartime. if it's been "established" that the so-called majority of these "people" - who were coincidentally captured on the battle fields of afghanistan fighting with the taliban and al qaeda - are "innocent" then why is it the obama administration is having second thoughts about military tribunals? could it be because he has discovered that tribunals might be a really good idea when prosecuting a case of national security? here is what der speigel is reporting on the matter...and they are none to happy about obama's new position. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,622682,00.html lar

Show ALL Forums