On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:01:02 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:


Good part about Goldman is this is a PR pony show for your appeasement.
Obama can't take Goldman down for some big reasons. First is Goldman
did what the governemnt wanted in this corruption and has the real
inside on Obamanomics corruption. If Obama squeezes too hard, Goldman
goes public. Second reason is Goldman, like Carlyle and Cerberus are
lined with rich that would turn on Obama.

ever get the idea 'canuck' has never taken a business law course? that
he doesn't know 'piercing the corporate veil' is almost impossible?
that laws written before obama was BORN protect the rich?

he's an economic cripple

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:01:02 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:


Good part about Goldman is this is a PR pony show for your appeasement.
Obama can't take Goldman down for some big reasons. First is Goldman
did what the governemnt wanted in this corruption and has the real
inside on Obamanomics corruption. If Obama squeezes too hard, Goldman
goes public. Second reason is Goldman, like Carlyle and Cerberus are
lined with rich that would turn on Obama.

ever get the idea 'canuck' has never taken a business law course? that
he doesn't know 'piercing the corporate veil' is almost impossible?
that laws written before obama was BORN protect the rich?

he's an economic cripple



I doubt he's ever taken anything resembling a college course, no less a
business or law course.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:51:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:01:02 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:


Good part about Goldman is this is a PR pony show for your appeasement.
Obama can't take Goldman down for some big reasons. First is Goldman
did what the governemnt wanted in this corruption and has the real
inside on Obamanomics corruption. If Obama squeezes too hard, Goldman
goes public. Second reason is Goldman, like Carlyle and Cerberus are
lined with rich that would turn on Obama.

ever get the idea 'canuck' has never taken a business law course? that
he doesn't know 'piercing the corporate veil' is almost impossible?
that laws written before obama was BORN protect the rich?

he's an economic cripple



I doubt he's ever taken anything resembling a college course, no less a
business or law course.

everything he writes is right wing cliches. i haven't seen a single,
coherent argument from his at all.

it would be useless to even review this stuff with him if he didn't
represent millions of backwards, uneducated thugs who call themselves
'teabaggers'.

pathetic. truly pathetic.

On Apr 24, 1:00*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:51:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"



wrote:
"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:01:02 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Good part about Goldman is this is a PR pony show for your appeasement..
*Obama can't take Goldman down for some big reasons. *First is Goldman
did what the governemnt wanted in this corruption and has the real
inside on Obamanomics corruption. *If Obama squeezes too hard, Goldman
goes public. *Second reason is Goldman, like Carlyle and Cerberus are
lined with rich that would turn on Obama.

ever get the idea 'canuck' has never taken a business law course? that
he doesn't know 'piercing the corporate veil' is almost impossible?
that laws written before obama was BORN protect the rich?

he's an economic cripple

I doubt he's ever taken anything resembling a college course, no less a
business or law course.

everything he writes is right wing cliches. i haven't seen a single,
coherent argument from his at all.

it would be useless to even review this stuff with him if he didn't
represent millions of backwards, uneducated thugs who call themselves
'teabaggers'.

pathetic. truly pathetic.

Herr Krause writes nothing but left wing cliche's. I haven't seen a
single, coherent argument from his at all. But it's obvious you
approve of those.

pathetic. truly pathetic.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:11:50 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:

On Apr 24, 1:00*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:51:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"



I doubt he's ever taken anything resembling a college course, no less a
business or law course.

everything he writes is right wing cliches. i haven't seen a single,
coherent argument from his at all.

it would be useless to even review this stuff with him if he didn't
represent millions of backwards, uneducated thugs who call themselves
'teabaggers'.

pathetic. truly pathetic.

Herr Krause writes nothing but left wing cliche's. I haven't seen a
single, coherent argument from his at all. But it's obvious you
approve of those.

pathetic. truly pathetic.

you be sure and let me know how canuck's right wing view of the
solution to our economic problems worked out in '29,

m'kay?

On Apr 24, 6:19*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:11:50 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog



wrote:
On Apr 24, 1:00*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:51:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

I doubt he's ever taken anything resembling a college course, no less a
business or law course.

everything he writes is right wing cliches. i haven't seen a single,
coherent argument from his at all.

it would be useless to even review this stuff with him if he didn't
represent millions of backwards, uneducated thugs who call themselves
'teabaggers'.

pathetic. truly pathetic.

Herr Krause writes nothing but left wing cliche's. I haven't seen a
single, coherent argument from his at all. But it's obvious you
approve of those.

pathetic. truly pathetic.

you be sure and let me know how canuck's right wing view of the
solution to our economic problems worked out in '29,

m'kay?

I take it you don't plan on being around in another 19 years. Are you
that old, that feeble, or are you contemplative of taking yourself out
early?

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:18:39 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:19*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:11:50 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog



pathetic. truly pathetic.

you be sure and let me know how canuck's right wing view of the
solution to our economic problems worked out in '29,

m'kay?

I take it you don't plan on being around in another 19 years. Are you
that old, that feeble, or are you contemplative of taking yourself out
early?

i'm 55. in 19 years who knows.

if i get old and senile i'll join the GOP.