wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:16:04 -0500, BAR wrote:

Bill and Hillary Clinton didn't have any problems accepting money from
the Chinese. And, they didn't have any problems repaying the Chinese for
their support.

I think that the most ironic thing about the Clinton China connection
is the assault weapons ban that specifically exempted the guns the
Chinese army was dumping here. (most notably Thumbhole "AK"s and
knockoffs of the AR-15). We imported over 2 million in 5 years.


Shhhh... the NRA will get you. It's un-American to criticize guns or their
manufacture.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:58:21 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:01:59 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

While I can see the attraction of a utopian society where all are
treated the same, like most idealistic notions of how things work it
ignores hat humans are needy and greedy at the core. Thus in reality
falls flat on it's ass like socialism, keynesian, marxism... all a bunch
of BS.

That is true. In every society where "everyone" is treated the same,
they are treated as slaves, with an over class that lives like kings.

yeah who needs all that bull**** about 'all men are created equal,
endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights'...

is there anything less american than that...the right wing wants to
know!!

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 24/01/2010 3:07 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
Government should have it's spending capped as a percentage of gross
income to preven statism creap. If the greedy government wants more
revenue, better make for a good economy with decent jobs or suck for
it.

You idiot... the gov't is the people. The gov't doesn't "make for a good
economy." The people make up the economy.

Ah. A closet conservative.

Eisboch
At least plum de tart sees at least this much.

How few understand he fact that government is a consumer of wealth and not
a creator of wealth? Certainly not enough or they would think of Obama
debt as the devils work to destroy the US.


It's not a "consumer of wealth." We create governments to (presumably) help
people in situations they can't help themselves. Provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, etc.

Get off your Obama is terrible rant. He didn't start this and he's making
progress to end the corruption. Thank the Supreme Court for not only not
helping, but making things much worse. Thanks GWB for stacking the Court
with right wing freaks.

Notice you did not say "provide the general welfare".

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:03:41 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:19:11 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Capitalism and the free market are all about exploiting those who have
to work for a licing, nothing more.

What is the alternative, communism?

how about a social democracy like the eurpeans have? as jim manzi, a
right winger was forced to admit recently, the european social
democracies have growth rates equal to the US.

On Jan 24, 1:07*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



On 23/01/2010 1:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John *wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:34:10 -0600,
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote:

When a multinational based in China, the communist one, decides to
take
an interest in our elections, tell me again how strange Liberal
thinking is.

So? *Are you now imposing who can bribe who? *You mean only democrats
can accept bribes?

I guess that must be it. *I'm an American, and I have this funny idea,
America should be run by Americans. *We don't need any help from
Chinese
communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter.

Soros couldn't take money from the Chinese? Could Chinese individuals
not make contributions? You obviously don't like the ruling, so you're
making up ridiculous reasons to be against it.

Talk about a strawman.

Talk about not thinking! Soros (or Gates or whomever) would never have
the
financial resources compared to a multi-billion dollar company. I believe
you have to be a US citizen to make campaign contributions, so Chinese
individuals could not make contributions.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

Want to make a bet on that? *Bet I could legally contribute to Obama or
Palin, hell, why not both! *So if either wins, I win!

Recipes:

Open up a US corporation, any LLC will do. *From there direct a donation.
Foreign owned, but a US corporation. *That simple. *A US corporation is a
US entity.

And if that isn't good enough, I am sure there are plenty of Americans
that would do it for a fee.

In fact, bet I could write a $1000 cheque from an American address and
bank account and get both the Dem or GOP to cash it. *I really doubt all
the cheques are checked. *I can even provide a valid SSN if needed.

And there is always cash in a brief case. *There is a reason why
government does not make everything plastic, they too want cash under the
table.

Just another unenforcable law. *But not that I recommend trying it.

So, you're an idiot and a potential criminal. Great combo.
--
Nom=de=Plume

And D'Plume? You are a 60's cult movie star

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XghPOP2b9mw

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:19:11 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Capitalism and the free market are all about exploiting those who have
to work for a licing, nothing more.

What is the alternative, communism? Every time it has actually been
tried you still ended up with a two tier society with rich aparachicks
and slave workers. The only communist society that still survives from
the early 20th century experiments is Cuba. Even Cuba is nibbling
around the edges of the free market.


What we have now doesn't work, either.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:23:09 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


you mean the president the GOP impeached? yeah. looks like he had ALOT
of control over congress, right?


Bill Clinton was the cheerleader on the commodities deregulation bill
that allowed CDOs.

you mean the gramm bill? named after phil gramm, the REPUBLICAN who
authored it, on behalf of his enron VP wife?

that the bill you referring to?


No that was Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999. Clinton was in favor of that
too, along with 43% of the democrats voting for it.
BTW that was what allowed banks to be brokerage houses.
I am talking about The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
that repealed the bucket shop laws and allowed CDOs
The house voted 292-60 (9 democrats said no) and the senate gave it
unanimous consent
The democrats are neck deep in that **** hole. You can go look at the
vote if you want http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll603.xml

Perhaps it's time to revoke it and get back to some normal banking behavior.


I am sure you can find his signing statement on
youtube. It was in the 60 Minutes piece on this. He is smiling and
telling us how this is a great step forward. Trying to rewrite history
and saying he was opposed to deregulation is dishonest.

i never said he was opposed. i said he was powerless to oppose it. the
GOP impeached him. his power was, to say the least, marginal.




BTW if you are still hurt from the correction a couple years ago you
were not properly diversified. I only have one major holding that is
still a loser (EXP). My IBM stock is doing better than it was in 2006.
FLR is still a "double". CLNE is more like 4- 5x from 2006.

ROFLMAO!! me and 100M other americans. you right wingers really love
to hate the middle class, don't you?

So there are 100m Americans who made bad choices with their money

this reminds me of the east german communist party statement during
anti-communist rioting....'the party had lost faith in the people'

the right SCREWS the middle class like $2 whores THEN tells 100M hard
working americans it's their fault, otherwise it would be free market
capitalism that's at fault.

and god knows we CANT have that, right?


It sure sounds like that was a bi-partisan screwing if those 2
deregulation bills were the cause. The democrats and Bill Clinton were
leading the charge to pump up the market and increase corporate power
over us.

Stop blaming Clinton and the democrats for something that's obviously been
supported far longer and with more fervor by the right wing.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:24:30 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

What was GM's largest financial liability?

it wasn't labor. labor accounts for less than 10% of a car's cost

try again...you already proved how much right wingers hate the middle
class when you blamed us for the financial meltdown, instead of your
god, wall street.

You try again, The biggest cost of a GM car was the pension and
benefit obligation

... and we ARE the middle class


Which were negotiated liabilities. You act like the unions were in charge.
Management made the deals too.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:11:10 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..


You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?


Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy
don't have the option to choose a $100K income.

or they could be black, jewish, women, latino, etc.


Uneducated black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. I worked in the Silicon
Valley as an engineer. Lots of Jewish, Black and Latino coworkers making
in
excess of $100k. All had university educations. Lots of black, Jewish,
women, Latino, etc.

i did my grad work at lehigh. they didn't admit women until '71.
neither did princeton. there's still alot of bias in the system

So you went to racist, sexist school. Bad for you. Every school I went to
had blacks, Latinos, and every religion possible and all 3 sexes. I did go
to school in San Francisco. Hell, I was a minority at San Francisco City
College. And we even allowed a future murderer to matriculate there when I
was going to school. OJ Simpson. My best friend growing up was Chinese and
my mom's best friend and her LVN was black. Too bad you grew up in a racist
area. Must have rubbed off on you.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:29:22 -0500, John H
wrote:


Them's blasphemous words around here, my friend. If there's the
slightest chance a post can be called 'racist', the libs here will do
so, unless a lib made the post, of course.

the right thinks that racism never existed in this country...unless
it's blacks against poor, innocent, concerned whites...

the history of lynching not withstanding


Blacks in the south were racist also.