My God, you are an idiot.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you should just stop your spinning. it's as tired as my 6-toed jokes. Plus, it is sad because we all know you believe what you write

I'm just passing on what 60 minutes found to be true. they thought it would merit air time. i didn't make the call.

You have confused me with someone who is defending Pelosi. I was pointing out that you were attacking her on the wrong ground.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

sorry. I had the timing off, "One of them was Rep. Pelosi, who participated in a 2008 IPO from Visa, just as legislation that would have hurt the credit card companies began moving through the House. Pelosi bought 5,000 shares of Visa at $44 and the stock price rose to $64 just two days later. The credit card legislation never made it to the House floor."

$100,000 in 2 days; I'm not sure hillary could have made her that much.

I do not understand why they do not hav ethical rules that allow any trades that aren't blind.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

What's up in NYC this morning? It seems like there is a TRO and the NYPD and Bloomberg are simply ignoring it. Is this common? Litigators? Atticus?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What's up in NYC this morning? It seems like there is a TRO and the NYPD and Bloomberg are simply ignoring it. Is this common? Litigators? Atticus?

Apparently Bloomberg has not seen Star Wars, or watched what happened in Oakland.

But he's probably doing them a favor.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Apparently Bloomberg has not seen Star Wars, or watched what happened in Oakland.

But he's probably doing them a favor.

Shit, it seems like you can violate a TRO with impunity as long as you win the next round. Maybe you litigators knew this, but I've actually taken those damn things seriously on the couple of occassions we've gotten them.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us...ml?_r=1&ref=us

Wow! I have to admit, his administrations actions are transparent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I do not understand why they do not hav ethical rules that allow any trades that aren't blind.

Because then they wouldn't be able to as effectively trade on inside information?

You're misapprehending the animal. Congress represents Congress.

"I now cede my time to Bill Smith, Congressman from Bill Smith..."

[sgtclub]

Watch Bowles and Simpson last night on CSPAN. Very, very sobering.

Bowles, in particular, puts a lot of blame on Obama. He indicated that before they did anything, he and Simpson met with Obama and the White House to determine their goals and their bottom lines. He did the same thing with Clinton when he negotiated the budget deal in 1997 with Lott and Newt.

He then negotiated a deal that a majority of the GOP backed, and that met Obama's criteria. He said that Obama then balked.

He also said that he was shocked that Obama did not run with the deficit reduction and entitlement reform issue after the 2010 elections. He thought it would be in the State of the Union and it wasn't.

Both he and Simpson looked exasperated and very scared about the situation.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Watch Bowles and Simpson last night on CSPAN. Very, very sobering.

Bowles, in particular, puts a lot of blame on Obama. He indicated that before they did anything, he and Simpson met with Obama and the White House to determine their goals and their bottom lines. He did the same thing with Clinton when he negotiated the budget deal in 1997 with Lott and Newt.

He then negotiated a deal that a majority of the GOP backed, and that met Obama's criteria. He said that Obama then balked.

He also said that he was shocked that Obama did not run with the deficit reduction and entitlement reform issue after the 2010 elections. He thought it would be in the State of the Union and it wasn't.

Both he and Simpson looked exasperated and very scared about the situation.

Perhaps because their plan was crap?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

He then negotiated a deal that a majority of the GOP backed, and that met Obama's criteria. He said that Obama then balked.

As far as I know, not a single Republican on the Hill backed the Simpson-Bowles plan. If what you are saying is correct, then Republicans should be beating up Obama with this -- they were ready to deal to cut the deficit and Obama wouldn't do it. But they're not. Has Bowles said this in print anywhere?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

As far as I know, not a single Republican on the Hill backed the Simpson-Bowles plan. If what you are saying is correct, then Republicans should be beating up Obama with this -- they were ready to deal to cut the deficit and Obama wouldn't do it. But they're not. Has Bowles said this in print anywhere?

While I am not a legal expert in this type of law, I'll probably put more stock into the analysis of the legal expert they quoted than yours. But your paragraph above is surely impressive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

While I am not a legal expert in this type of law, I'll probably put more stock into the analysis of the legal expert they quoted than yours. But your paragraph above is surely impressive.

What type of law? WTF are you talking about?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

While I am not a legal expert in this type of law, I'll probably put more stock into the analysis of the legal expert they quoted than yours. But your paragraph above is surely impressive.

And that legal expert would be???

Once again, your reading comprehension is surely impressive.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What type of law? WTF are you talking about?

I don't think I'm missing your point. I think you're missing mine and everyone else's. We are not talking about his legal duty. We are talking about his duty as a human being in society and the duty he had as the most powerful person.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

And that legal expert would be???

Once again, your reading comprehension is surely impressive.

Always my favorite excuse, whether it relates to shit like this, sexism, homophobia, racism or whatever. It's bullshit, of course--even more so in this case. It's a lazy man's crutch and and the simple man's mantra. It diminishes the acts of those of that era who actually lived their lives with an understanding of the difference between right and wrong. And it excuses the most ridiculous shit because "everyone else was doing it" or "that's just how it was." I lose respect for any asshole who jumps to this excuse first, including you.