wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:53:55 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

It is probably why Obama is in a snit with Goldman, not enough bribes.
--

Obama went after Goldman to push his financial reform package. The
government is very likely to lose this case simply because what
Goldman did, while sleazy, was not illegal.
They want to make it illegal.
I suspect the result will be companies like Goldman will be split into
two companies (like they had to be before the Clinton administration).
There will be a brokerage company and a trading company, not one
company doing both..


I think what they did is illegal, but time will tell. Seemsl like splitting
it up wouldn't be such a terrible thing.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:10:38 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 25/04/2010 1:00 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:57:11 -0400,
wrote:

can you imagine what would have happened if mccain was president...he
got senile (as he already is) and palin was pres?

we'd all be radioactive ash.

Depends, do you follow the rant on Nostradamus. Don't believe in the
**** myself but 2012 is supposed to be the big end of it all.

uh, WTF?? what does this have to do with anything?

Given it
is also the year in which Obama faces certain decimation at the polls,
why not start a war? Say 666 days after his initial inauguration. He
could be an anti-christ.

ROFLMAO!! start a war??HAHAHAHA!!!

BUSH ALREADY DID!!!

christ you guys are stupid. compared to you, depleted uranium is
aerogel.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:04:04 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 25/04/2010 12:51 PM, Jack wrote:
On Apr 25, 2:09 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:06:05 -0400, wrote:

I think BP is ****ed that the political donations have a tendency to
move the winners early. Especially when coming from large institutions.

gee. imagine my disappointment that corruption and bribes can win an
election.

It's really good to hear one of you liberal admit that's how BO got
in, though. Refreshing.

BO does know how to lie well doesn't he. I will give him that.

golly. think how much you'd love him

if only he were white.

On 25/04/2010 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:53:55 -0600,
wrote:

It is probably why Obama is in a snit with Goldman, not enough bribes.
--

Obama went after Goldman to push his financial reform package. The
government is very likely to lose this case simply because what
Goldman did, while sleazy, was not illegal.
They want to make it illegal.
I suspect the result will be companies like Goldman will be split into
two companies (like they had to be before the Clinton administration).
There will be a brokerage company and a trading company, not one
company doing both..

That might not be a bad idea to split them. But make no mistake, Obama
is trying to scape goat them. Wants to look tough going into Novemeber
for the PR of it.

Going into this I investigate where I broker on both sides of the border
to be sure I wasn't part of a screwed up bank or investement leverages
underneath. Got my money out of Merrill Lynch 8 months before they
vaporized into Bank of America which I think too is in trouble last I
checked.

--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.

On 25/04/2010 1:20 PM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:13:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:53:55 -0600,
wrote:

It is probably why Obama is in a snit with Goldman, not enough bribes.
--

Obama went after Goldman to push his financial reform package. The
government is very likely to lose this case simply because what
Goldman did, while sleazy, was not illegal.
They want to make it illegal.
I suspect the result will be companies like Goldman will be split into
two companies (like they had to be before the Clinton administration).
There will be a brokerage company and a trading company, not one
company doing both..

I suspect that whatever happens to Goldman will be in accordance with the
desires of the powers that be at Goldman. Obama isn't going to shoot a gift
horse.

Obama isn't showing many signs of being economically astute. While I am
sure he would loose, does not mean he couldn't make a mess trying.

--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.

On 25/04/2010 1:29 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:20:37 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:13:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:53:55 -0600,
wrote:

It is probably why Obama is in a snit with Goldman, not enough bribes.
--

Obama went after Goldman to push his financial reform package. The
government is very likely to lose this case simply because what
Goldman did, while sleazy, was not illegal.
They want to make it illegal.
I suspect the result will be companies like Goldman will be split into
two companies (like they had to be before the Clinton administration).
There will be a brokerage company and a trading company, not one
company doing both..

I suspect that whatever happens to Goldman will be in accordance with the
desires of the powers that be at Goldman. Obama isn't going to shoot a gift
horse.

guess he doesn't read much

right now wall street's money is flowing to the GOP

Yep, they have tasted Obamanation and decided it was not a good idea.
Some do learn.

--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.

On 25/04/2010 1:41 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:16:29 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Apr 25, 10:56 am, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:24:19 -0400, John
wrote:



they used to. not anymore. the NY times reported yesterday that, since
the begiining of the year, 2/3 of all bribes from the financial sector
now go to the GOP. and last week, the chamber of commerce engineered a
fund raiser/closed door meeting between 25 hedge fund managers and 2
GOP senators.

'Used to' my ass. This year Goldman Sachs has given two times as much
to bribe Democrats as Republicans. Learn to read. Maybe that's why you
lost all your money

really? is that what rush is telling you to say? i realize that, as a
conservative, you never think for yourself, because you're not too
bright, but i guess he hasn't forced you to read this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...83-503544.html

Sixty-two percent of the money from that industry has gone to
Democrats, and 37 percent to Republicans. (That has changed somewhat
recently, the Journal notes: In the first two months of the year,
Citigroup, Goldman , J.P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley gave twice as much
to Republicans than Democrats.)


and this this:

http://wallstreetpit.com/23015-repub...al-reform-bill

where 25 top wall street execs met with the GOP to bribe them behind
closed doors

and then there's:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...216461790.html

Republicans are stepping up their campaign to win donations from Wall
Street, trying to capitalize on an increasing sense of regret among
executives at big financial institutions for backing Democrats in
2008.

In discussions with Wall Street executives, Republicans are striving
to make the case that they are banks' best hope of preventing
President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats from cracking down
on Wall Street.

A complete picture of Wall Street's 2009 campaign donations won't be
available for a few weeks. Through the third quarter, campaign-finance
reports show that some major Wall Street players began sending an
increasing share of their donations to Republicans. Many of those
donations came toward the end of this period, because many banks had
essentially shut down their political giving at the height of the
financial crisis.

Through the first nine months of 2009, about 54% of donations from
Bank of America Corp.'s political action committee and employees went
to Republicans, according to campaign-finance data compiled by the
nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That was a switch from the
2008 campaign, when 56% of the company's donations went to Democrats.
Shirley Norton, a BofA spokeswoman, said it doesn't base PAC donations
on party affiliation

So is what you are saying is Obama is misusing the powers of his office
to pick on companies that contribute to GOP?

--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:04:05 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 25/04/2010 1:29 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:20:37 -0400, John
wrote:


right now wall street's money is flowing to the GOP

Yep, they have tasted Obamanation and decided it was not a good idea.
Some do learn.

yeah imagine. the rich heading for the GOP because the dems have had
enough of wall street thievery

i know that's not what you meant. to you, wall street is god

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:02:56 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 25/04/2010 1:20 PM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:13:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:53:55 -0600,
wrote:

It is probably why Obama is in a snit with Goldman, not enough bribes.
--

Obama went after Goldman to push his financial reform package. The
government is very likely to lose this case simply because what
Goldman did, while sleazy, was not illegal.
They want to make it illegal.
I suspect the result will be companies like Goldman will be split into
two companies (like they had to be before the Clinton administration).
There will be a brokerage company and a trading company, not one
company doing both..

I suspect that whatever happens to Goldman will be in accordance with the
desires of the powers that be at Goldman. Obama isn't going to shoot a gift
horse.

Obama isn't showing many signs of being economically astute. While I am
sure he would loose, does not mean he couldn't make a mess trying.

you mean other than the fact the economy is growing and unemployment
is dropping?

gee. what you mean is he isnt helping the rich to rape the middle
class

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:01:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 25/04/2010 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:53:55 -0600,
wrote:

It is probably why Obama is in a snit with Goldman, not enough bribes.
--

Obama went after Goldman to push his financial reform package. The
government is very likely to lose this case simply because what
Goldman did, while sleazy, was not illegal.
They want to make it illegal.
I suspect the result will be companies like Goldman will be split into
two companies (like they had to be before the Clinton administration).
There will be a brokerage company and a trading company, not one
company doing both..

That might not be a bad idea to split them. But make no mistake, Obama
is trying to scape goat them.

somebody needs to. bush didn't have the balls.