|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 29, 2008 0:10:51 GMT -5
Here's a bit more background on ole Penny. Superior, co-owned by Pritzker family trusts, began focusing on subprime loans in 1993, according to the FDIC Inspector General's report. At the time, Pritzker was the board's chair. She left the board in 1994 and continued as a director of the bank's holding company. In 2002, the Pritzkers agreed to pay, through trusts, $460 million in a settlement with the government relieving them of liability. Payout TO RELIEVE THEM OF LIABILITY................hence no charges. Sounds like legit business to me. So this is a moral qualm you have with this businesswoman, not a legal one, right? Touche'!! |
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Aug 29, 2008 12:13:26 GMT -5
Sounds like legit business to me. So this is a moral qualm you have with this businesswoman, not a legal one, right? Touche'!! WOW! Touche' to a MINI ENRON? LOL @ YOU and your parties "morals".................... |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 29, 2008 12:29:52 GMT -5
WOW! Touche' to a MINI ENRON? LOL @ YOU and your parties "morals".................... You have to remember that the left is the side of relativism. Nothing is right or wrong in and of itself (well, except that Bush is always rong (sic) and gunz-r-bad), but must be seen within the context of what people feel is right or wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 29, 2008 12:41:36 GMT -5
What stings is the threat that Obama just might win  No, what stings is that you would rail against Enron, but not Superior. You are duplicitous. And, regardless of the implications, you will vote for the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by crossride on Aug 29, 2008 15:42:13 GMT -5
What stings is the threat that Obama just might win No what stings is that there are enough people who will actually still vote for him mostly based on his awesome speechifying and empty promise of change. Mink, when I read the information presented by Bolverk and Mrroqout (and others), whether its right or wrong, opinion or fact, at least it is information that I can use to make a decision. Then I hear what the opposition responds... touche? Ouch that stings? Short useless answers that don't address the actual matter at hand... well, I guess I know who to believe. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 29, 2008 16:06:16 GMT -5
I still can't understand why his promise of change is "empty." He has given clear cut examples of what "changes" he will make and how he will pay for them. Where do you see emptiness?
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 29, 2008 16:49:23 GMT -5
I still can't understand why his promise of change is "empty." He has given clear cut examples of what "changes" he will make and how he will pay for them. Where do you see emptiness? Then why do you never enumerate the changes he proposes, along with his funding sources? NObama '08 |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 29, 2008 16:51:21 GMT -5
Where do I see the emptyness? In the supposedly clear cut changes and how to pay for them. Smoke and mirrors. His whole plan is to tax, tax, tax and redistribute the wealth. Kind of like cutting off one end of a rope to tie onto the other end to make the rope longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 29, 2008 17:06:16 GMT -5
Where do I see the emptyness? In the supposedly clear cut changes and how to pay for them. Smoke and mirrors. His whole plan is to tax, tax, tax and redistribute the wealth. Kind of like cutting off one end of a rope to tie onto the other end to make the rope longer. That is a fair statement. So you see his means to an end but you don't like his means and you don't like his end. So, instead of saying he is empty why don't you say you disagree with his plan? |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Aug 29, 2008 18:32:01 GMT -5
It is the same plan Utopian Socialists have been selling for a century.
"I'll give you your neighbor's wealth!"
He said it last night in Denver, he'll say it until he loses.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 29, 2008 18:47:50 GMT -5
Because that isn't any plan to solve problems. It is window dressing to appease the masses. So, as far as actually doing anything useful, his so-called plan is empty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 29, 2008 19:58:02 GMT -5
What stings is the threat that Obama just might win No what stings is that there are enough people who will actually still vote for him mostly based on his awesome speechifying and empty promise of change. Mink, when I read the information presented by Bolverk and Mrroqout (and others), whether its right or wrong, opinion or fact, at least it is information that I can use to make a decision. Then I hear what the opposition responds... touche? Ouch that stings? Short useless answers that don't address the actual matter at hand... well, I guess I know who to believe. Crossride, with all due respect.....just by your choice of words, in particular, "speechifying" tells me you have your mind made up already how your vote will go. Sorry, but only bush would say "speechifying"......just an observation here. You don't need me or anyone else to guide your vote and in actuality, it is the responsibility of every voter to study, if they choose to, find out the position of the people/party running for office. Or, if studying takes too much time, just ask yourself....."have you been doing better in the last 8 years, as compared to the earlier 8 years?" As for the short answers by the "opposition", the word "touche'", was in response to saunterelle's post and supporting his response. The "ouch that stings" short answer, I can't own that one. I'm wondering what you might also think of sarcasm, degrading and condescending remarks made here.....if you are questioning short answers??? I wish you luck with your decision in November |
|
