El Guapo 8 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 The notion of Goldman Sachs executives working for only 500K is laughable. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 The notion of Goldman Sachs executives working for only 500K is laughable. I read an article where basically banks are thinking of giving the tarp funds back and taking there chances. Edit: Yeah, I read that here in this thread now that I think about it. I feel like a zombie today. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Another promise broken, another previously awarded point taken away:http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/11/obama...graceful-a.htmlFrom the article:The Wall Street Journal may have said it best today: "On State Secrets and Rendition, Holder Holds the Bush Line." Or, NPR -- "Deja Bush." Yesterday, the Obama administration invoked the "state secrets" privilege when opposing the reinstatement of a lawsuit alleging that a Boeing unit flew detainees to countries where they were tortured as part of the CIA's extraordinary rendition program.The Washington Post has a quick roundup here, but read Glenn Greenwald's coverage at Salon for the most thorough coverage I've found: "Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability -- resoundingly and disgracefully." Greenwald writes:Two weeks ago, interviewed the ACLU's Ben Wizner, counsel to 5 individuals suing the subsidiary of Boeing (Jeppesen) which had arranged the Bush administration's rendition program, under which those 5 plaintiffs had been abducted, sent to other countries and brutally tortured. Today the Obama administration was required to file with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals its position in this case -- i.e., whether it would continue the Bush administration's abusive reliance on the "state secrets" privilege to prevent courts from ruling on such matters, or whether they would adhere to Obama's previous claims about his beliefs on "state secrets" by withdrawing that position and allowing these victims their day in court.(...)The new President -- who repeatedly condemned the extreme secrecy of the Bush administration and vowed greater transparency -- has now acted to protect, purely on secrecy grounds, the government and company that did this, as Wizner described:"They were essentially the CIA's torture travel agents. They were the one who arranged all the overflight rights for the CIA civilian planes to be able to fly from country to country. They handled the security and the logistics. They filed dummy flight plans to try to trick air traffic controllers into not being able to track where the actual flights were going. And we know they knew what they were doing because we have a witness in our case, someone who's given us a sworn declaration, who was an employee of Jeppesen DataPlan, and who was present when senior officials of the company were openly boasting about their role in the torture flights, and about how much money they made from them because the CIA spared no expense."We were able, with the help of an investigative journalist and other documentary evidence, to link Jeppesen to an number of very specific CIA rendition flights, involving these five torture victims who were flown to countries like Egypt, Morocco, to CIA sites in Afghanistan and eastern Europe. . . ."[Plaintiff Ahmed Agiza] was picked up off the streets of Stockholm and then he was taken to an airport where a CIA rendition team--this is a bunch of men dressed all in black, with their faces covered--sliced off all of his clothes, put a suppository into him, chained him to the floor of an airplane, flew him to Egypt, where he was exposed to absolutely brutal torture, including shock treatment, all kinds of beatings. He was then given a show trial in an Egyptian military court and sentenced to 15 years for involvement in a banned organization."Even democrats know that torture is necessary and works sometimes. Link to post Share on other sites
LincolnK 1 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 jesus fucking christ.http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_not_Bu...delay_0217.html Obama, not Bush, now seeking delay of Rove depositionFormer Bush Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove has a new president urging Congress not to force him to testify next week.President Barack Obama. In a court brief quietly filed Monday, Michael Hertz, Obama's acting assistant attorney general, said it was necessary to delay an effort to force Rove to be deposed in a congressional investigation into the firing of nine US Attorneys and the alleged political prosecution of a former Alabama governor.Hertz said an effort was underway to find a "compromise" for Rove, and requested two weeks to broker a deal before proceeding in court."The inauguration of a new president has altered the dynamics of this case and created new opportunities for compromise rather than litigation," Hertz wrote in the brief released late Monday by McClatchy's Washington, D.C. bureau. "At the same time, there is now an additional interested party — the former president — whose views should be considered."more at link. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 The notion of Goldman Sachs executives working for only 500K is laughable.Luckily, Goldman Sachs executives dont need TARP money because they were not greedy, reckless assholes like most of the other big name financials.I am perfectly fine with this cap on exec pay. If you dont like the conditions, dont take the money. Simple. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 Normally I'll cut-and-paste the article in, but just click this one:http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/02/o...ays-barack.htmlChange you can believe in. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Normally I'll cut-and-paste the article in, but just click this one:http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/02/o...ays-barack.htmlChange you can believe in.I like this partArticle I, Section 6 of the Constitution addresses compensation and says the following:No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.In other words, if a Senator or Representative was serving in Congress at a time when the salary of a civil office was increased, they cannot be appointed to that civil office during the time for which they were elected, because it would create a conflict of interests. That Senator or Representative would be benefiting directly, personally, and financially from legislation that passed through their house and became policy.Because the President's Cabinet has had pay increases during Clinton's tenure as Senator, by Bush's executive order and with the authorization of Congress, Hillary Clinton is not presently eligible under the rules clearly defined in the Constitution to be appointed to the office of Secretary of State. By appointing her, President Obama has ignored the Constitution, by accepting his appointment, Hillary Clinton shares in his ignorance (or willful defiance), and the 94 Senators who voted to confirm his nomination also show that they are unfamiliar with the Constitution or just don't care what it has to say. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 And this one Just like his predecessor in the Oval Office, Barack Obama is guilty of enough hypocrisy to make any honest person's stomach turn. Despite his claims that our environment is in crisis, Obama's inauguration alone emitted over 500 million pounds of CO2!He made this statement in May 2008, Roseburg, OR:We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that every country is going to say okay.Then Obama was photographed last month without his suit jacket in the Oval Office, in contrast to his predecessor's strict dress code. When asked about it, a senior Obama advisor explained that Obama had the thermostat cranked up! That changed this from an insignificant fashion controversy to an environmental scandal. How dare he lecture us then crank his thermostat? Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 70 is a reasonable setting. I use my space heater in addition to the central heating when it gets really cold. I can't sleep with my door open. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I can't remember which thread I was talking about it in, but this seems like a befitting place. Obama has been publicly preaching doom and gloom for this country, possible nationalization of banks, no time line for recovery. Practically Armageddon. What did that do to the markets. Caused them to go down another 10% in a week and a half.Bernake comes out today, and says, there is a chance we will recover by the end of the year, or early 2010, but the next 6 months will be tough. Markets go up.Do we see a pattern? When you actually look at this behavior, it is amazing that our newly elected president would behave in this manner instead of trying to instill confidence in the American public, regardless of this political standpoint. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I can't remember which thread I was talking about it in, but this seems like a befitting place. Obama has been publicly preaching doom and gloom for this country, possible nationalization of banks, no time line for recovery. Practically Armageddon. What did that do to the markets. Caused them to go down another 10% in a week and a half.Bernake comes out today, and says, there is a chance we will recover by the end of the year, or early 2010, but the next 6 months will be tough. Markets go up.Do we see a pattern? When you actually look at this behavior, it is amazing that our newly elected president would behave in this manner instead of trying to instill confidence in the American public, regardless of this political standpoint.Amazing, why? He doesn't believe the American people can look after themselves. It is a fundamental position that the people need governemnt!! that is his role. it is what he ran on and it gives him power!!The last thing a liberal wants is for his base to REALLY look at what they do or more importantly DON'T do for their voters...it is all a big smoke screen for power.He is doing exactly what I expected, from spending, to future taxes, to more government invlovment....working his way to the Socialist States of America. The good news is he is going to fail, the bad news is he is going cost several generations a pile of money!!He doesn't know how to do it any different, the man has never had a real job, at least that i am aware of...unless you call "community organizer" a job. He is a life long leach and he doesn't believe any of us can help ourselves. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I can't remember which thread I was talking about it in, but this seems like a befitting place. Obama has been publicly preaching doom and gloom for this country, possible nationalization of banks, no time line for recovery. Practically Armageddon. What did that do to the markets. Caused them to go down another 10% in a week and a half.Bernake comes out today, and says, there is a chance we will recover by the end of the year, or early 2010, but the next 6 months will be tough. Markets go up.Do we see a pattern? When you actually look at this behavior, it is amazing that our newly elected president would behave in this manner instead of trying to instill confidence in the American public, regardless of this political standpoint.listen man I don't know what kind of fancy shmancy world you live in, but 72 is totally reasonable Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I can't remember which thread I was talking about it in, but this seems like a befitting place. Obama has been publicly preaching doom and gloom for this country, possible nationalization of banks, no time line for recovery. Practically Armageddon. What did that do to the markets. Caused them to go down another 10% in a week and a half.Bernake comes out today, and says, there is a chance we will recover by the end of the year, or early 2010, but the next 6 months will be tough. Markets go up.Do we see a pattern? When you actually look at this behavior, it is amazing that our newly elected president would behave in this manner instead of trying to instill confidence in the American public, regardless of this political standpoint.I think he is trying to show that he isn't ignoring the problem, as the perception is that the previous administration had its head in the sand about what was going on. I agree with you that to some extent the financial markets are a self-fulfilling prophesy, but on the other hand there has to be some acknowledgement that there is something seriously wrong. You can't simply insist that everything is OK especially when you were elected on the grounds that something was not working. I think he has been trying to balance optimism with realism. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Although I disagree with some of the fundamentals of what he is doing, tonight's speech was more good than bad. Hopefully is reassures people and we go back to business as usual in the country. Link to post Share on other sites
grocery_mony 8 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Although I disagree with some of the fundamentals of what he is doing, tonight's speech was more good than bad. Hopefully is reassures people and we go back to business as usual in the country.OMG Jindal tilted me. I thought he was a pretty intellegent guy who was an awesome speaker before that address. It felt like he was talking to a group of children in his tone. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 OMG Jindal tilted me. I thought he was a pretty intellegent guy who was an awesome speaker before that address. It felt like he was talking to a group of children in his tone.Yes, but I liked what he had to say. I think he will make a great candidate based on what I know of his policy positions. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 listen man I don't know what kind of fancy shmancy world you live in, but 72 is totally reasonableAll winter my thermostat was set on 69 from 5am to 8am only. 64 the other 21 hours a day, 7 days a week. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 I can't watch Obama because he tilts me too much now, so I just read the summaries via news stories. More of the same, blah blah, I'm the savior, blah blah, save the world, blah blah, more taxes, blah blah, ignore that man behind the curtain.So I thought I'd watch Jindal to balance it out. What do people like about him? I just want to punch him in the face. Yeah, he says more of the right things, but it's mostly all anecdotes and soundbites, all said with this ridiculous half-grin.Yes, he'd be an improvement over our current destroyer-in-chief, but that's not saying much. This goes to my comments in the other thread -- it's all about style. Unfortunately, I really hate his style. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I can't watch Obama because he tilts me too much now, so I just read the summaries via news stories. More of the same, blah blah, I'm the savior, blah blah, save the world, blah blah, more taxes, blah blah, ignore that man behind the curtain.So I thought I'd watch Jindal to balance it out. What do people like about him? I just want to punch him in the face. Yeah, he says more of the right things, but it's mostly all anecdotes and soundbites, all said with this ridiculous half-grin.Yes, he'd be an improvement over our current destroyer-in-chief, but that's not saying much. This goes to my comments in the other thread -- it's all about style. Unfortunately, I really hate his style.Republicans are just as guilty of thinking the average American can't understand things, so they feel they need to dress up the message.So yea, it was a poorly done speech, but at least you didn't have to see behind him Nancy Pelosi jumping up and down so much that it shook her botox injections out of place, and Joe Biden with the "I can't believe I get to sit up here" look on his face. Link to post Share on other sites
Nimue1995 1 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 As I said in the other thread if that's the best the Republicans have got then they're toast. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 Obama's next Chairman of the National Council of Intelligence thinks the Chinese made a mistake at Tiananmen Square -- not by killing 2600 people and then covering it up. No, he thinks their mistake was that they showed too much restraint by not crushing them sooner and more thoroughly. Change we can believe in:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://reason.com/blog/show/131843.htmlFormer U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman has been tapped as the next chairman of the National Council of Intelligence (NIC), according to Foreign Policy. And while there is a fair amount of grumbling about his ties to the Saudi royal family (having been paid $1 million to lobby on their behalf) and his views on Israel, this 2006 Freeman mail to a listserv called CWF, uncovered by the Weekly Standard, is pretty stunning: From: CWFHome@cs.com [mailto:CWFHome@cs.com] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:29 PM I will leave it to others to address the main thrust of your reflection on Eric's remarks. But I want to take issue with what I assume, perhaps incorrectly, to be yoiur citation of the conventional wisdom about the 6/4 [or Tiananmen] incident. I find the dominant view in China about this very plausible, i.e. that the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at "Tian'anmen" stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action. For myself, I side on this -- if not on numerous other issues -- with Gen. Douglas MacArthur. I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' "Bonus Army" or a "student uprising" on behalf of "the goddess of democracy" should expect to be displaced with despatch from the ground they occupy. I cannot conceive of any American government behaving with the ill-conceived restraint that the Zhao Ziyang administration did in China, allowing students to occupy zones that are the equivalent of the Washington National Mall and Times Square, combined. while shutting down much of the Chinese government's normal operations. I thus share the hope of the majority in China that no Chinese government will repeat the mistakes of Zhao Ziyang's dilatory tactics of appeasement in dealing with domestic protesters in China. I await the brickbats of those who insist on a politically correct -- i.e. non Burkean conservative -- view. ChasYou got that? The" truly unforgivable mistake" the Chinese authorities made at Tiananmen was not the brutal massacre of peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators, but rather "the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud." The Chinese communists were not "rash," but rather "overly cautious."According to the Chinese Red Cross, 2,600 hundred people died during the crackdown, but "quickly retracted that figure under intense pressure from the government. The official Chinese government figure is 241 dead, including soldiers, and 7,000 wounded." Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 All winter my thermostat was set on 69 from 5am to 8am only. 64 the other 21 hours a day, 7 days a week.you must have one of those fancy computerized ones. I don't understand why property owners don't go out of their way to install them. you easily make up the difference in cost within a year if you're smart with the settings. Link to post Share on other sites
dapokerbum 0 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Not sure where to post this but i figured here would be okay.This new budget proposal is a joke. Are you effing kidding me. 1.75 TRILLION dollar defecit. Better work to trim that down! Link to post Share on other sites
grocery_mony 8 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 you must have one of those fancy computerized ones. I don't understand why property owners don't go out of their way to install them. you easily make up the difference in cost within a year if you're smart with the settings.you can get a decent programable tstat from Home Depot for $40. Probally make that up in little over a month during winter months. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Obama's next Chairman of the National Council of Intelligence thinks the Chinese made a mistake at Tiananmen Square -- not by killing 2600 people and then covering it up. No, he thinks their mistake was that they showed too much restraint by not crushing them sooner and more thoroughly. Change we can believe in:He's taking the perspective of the Chinese government in that remark, and from that perspective he is entirely correct. The ability to take the Chinese government's perspective will probably make him a very effective ambassador. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now