|
|
Post by barneyfife on Dec 11, 2008 14:31:20 GMT -5
Just like Barack was palling around with terrorists, right? Come on. Well as I am sure you are well aware executives or those on Mahogany row, normally like to hang out together. Him and the "repentant terrorist" were executives on the same board...were they not? So I can assure you they did some Pal'ing around, lunch, dinner, cocktail parties (on tape). Were they "Pals" maybe not..but executives in the same area always pal around. To think not shows extreme naivety about corporate culture. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Dec 11, 2008 15:29:16 GMT -5
Just like Barack was palling around with terrorists, right? Come on. Well as I am sure you are well aware executives or those on Mahogany row, normally like to hang out together. Him and the "repentant terrorist" were executives on the same board...were they not? So I can assure you they did some Pal'ing around, lunch, dinner, cocktail parties (on tape). Were they "Pals" maybe not..but executives in the same area always pal around. To think not shows extreme naivety about corporate culture. If serving on the same board is your definition of "palling around" then I guess all the Republicans on the board were pals with the terrorist too. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 11, 2008 16:01:50 GMT -5
yep but i don't recall those republicans running for or being "selected" as president.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Dec 11, 2008 16:46:07 GMT -5
In this case, Fitzgerald pulled the plug on the investigation and went public before Blago could call in any of the markers that he (Da Guv) had out. If Fitzgerald had kept the investigation secret for one more month, who knows who he might have snagged?
Maybe that's what Fitzgerald was worried about...... Good recap of the Fitzgerald legacy in so far as L'Affaire Plame is concerned. FWIW and this is my opinion only based on a lot of reading and research, Fitzgerald has a very well deserved reputation for being a hardass on political corruption in and around Chicago. My understanding is that they collared Blago when they did in part to keep him from actually making the appointment to the Senate. What message would it send to let Blago make a tainted appointment, which would not be easily rescinded if at all, and then pinch him and have to say "yeah we knew what he was up to but we let him do it anyway in hopes of snaring another fish"? |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Dec 11, 2008 17:15:01 GMT -5
What message would it send to let Blago make a tainted appointment, which would not be easily rescinded if at all, and then pinch him and have to say "yeah we knew what he was up to but we let him do it anyway in hopes of snaring another fish"? Good point. Like the Plamiacs, though, I can hardly wait for the Rezko and Blago grand jury testimony to come out. I'm just glad that our president-in-waiting was so thoroughly vetted during the campaign that no one will be surprised when the depth of Chicago corruption that he came up in is plumbed. |
|
|
|
Post by barneyfife on Dec 11, 2008 17:44:27 GMT -5
If serving on the same board is your definition of "palling around" then I guess all the Republicans on the board were pals with the terrorist too. Yea I am sure they did pal around as well, like I said to think otherwise is to be naive of corporate culture. Wonder if any Republicans are on that tape sitting at the LA Times, praising and making toasts to well reputed douche bags? |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Dec 15, 2008 14:53:51 GMT -5
Well, I'm not sure about that, but he is saying "No" to corruption to a Democrat!!  Having spent the last week recovering from an injury, I got to watch a high volume of news. One thing that stands out, Rahm is not saying a word. |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Dec 15, 2008 15:03:33 GMT -5
The Dems have to fix what the Republicans broke and that is the bank on down (the usual inherited deficit), before they come back for the money. Back on topic, today, this governor has been asked to resign, as he should. Actually, it was not broken by Republicans, or even in this century. It was broken some 75 years ago by a political genius who was an uneducated floop in economics. His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Dec 15, 2008 15:45:38 GMT -5
Having spent the last week recovering from an injury, I got to watch a high volume of news. One thing that stands out, Rahm is not saying a word. Rahm "F**k the Republicans" Emanuel has gone almost completely silent since this whole Blago thing broke. He has been effectively muzzled and finds himself in the same corner of the doghouse, it would seem, with VP elect Joe Biden. Although some of Rahm's associates are out spinning that there was indeed contact but that there is "no evidence" of any wrong doing. Well... none yet until the wiretap tapes start getting heard by the grand jury. That will be the tell and until it happens, "no evidence" would cut both ways from the lips of a spinner or Obama surrogate. |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Dec 15, 2008 15:52:40 GMT -5
Maybe one of the Obama supporters here can explain to me how The Obama was able to claim the mantle of "reformer" after coming up in the scandal-ridden Democrat-controlled Illinois without one single feather in his cap. You would think that, in such a target-rich environment, he woulda come up with something, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Dec 15, 2008 16:29:10 GMT -5
[quote author=moondog board=uspolitics thread=649 post=9409 time=1229371413
Actually, it was not broken by Republicans, or even in this century. It was broken some 75 years ago by a political genius who was an uneducated floop in economics. His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.[/quote]
Actually, FDR might have finished the job. But it WAS a Repulican who started it - good old "Honest Abe" with his insistance that the Federal government should have all the power and that the states should be subserviant to it. I guess, I should include A. Johnson in there, since he carried out what Lincoln started. And the Republican congress that was sitting at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Dec 15, 2008 16:54:22 GMT -5
Yes, but real economic decline in this nation began under Hubert Humphery Herbert Hoover, it was extended well beyond its life span by FDR, because he did not understand economics at all, as his grades and teachers on the subject attest.
The real issue began at the end of WWI, we had a national debt of $24 billion, which increased from $1.3 billion in three short years. Nearly half, a bit more then $10 billion, was from war time loans to allies.
Repayment of these loans was begun in the 1920's, which helped to stabilize our economy a bit. But over a three year period, 1929 to 1932 all our allies defaulted on the loans, with the exception of Finland. This hurt us, even though Andrew Mellon was paying down the debt.
Lastly, the foolish passing of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act pushed us into a full blown Depression. This act caused a backlash in trade that left American Business with no one to sell goods to overseas. This single bill pushed us into a Depression and helped to get FDR elected.
All FDR had to do to end the Depression was to rescind the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Instead, he believed our problem was under-consumption. He then went on to create the NRA, AAA, WPA, the Air Mail Act, FERA Camps and the TVA. As well as institute confiscatory tax rates, manipulate gold and silver markets, tariffs, stocks and banks.
FDR did more to damage this nation then Lincoln ever did. The funny thing is, historians are the people who rate his performance as a President. Their lack of economic understanding explains why he is rated so high. Had he been rated by Economists, he would probably be down around the forty rating.
|
|
