RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (8/31/2011 12:37:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, are we supposed to forget the fact that he fraudulently filed required financial disclosures apparently in an attempt to conceal sources of income?


No, he didnt.

What do you call checking the box that says his wife had no income? For 10 years? In which she made in excess of $500,000?


The same thing some call Geithner's "fraudulent tax returns"

So felonius behavior then. Glad we cleared that up.


Why don't you show us some of your posts condemning Geithner. And it didnt clear up anything, since neither did anything felonious.

I've never supported Geithner. They're BOTH fraudulent.


Too bad nobody who actually has any standing agrees with you or KenDoll about either of them.



DomKen -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (8/31/2011 12:41:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, are we supposed to forget the fact that he fraudulently filed required financial disclosures apparently in an attempt to conceal sources of income?


No, he didnt.

What do you call checking the box that says his wife had no income? For 10 years? In which she made in excess of $500,000?


The same thing some call Geithner's "fraudulent tax returns"

So felonius behavior then. Glad we cleared that up.


Why don't you show us some of your posts condemning Geithner. And it didnt clear up anything, since neither did anything felonious.

Why would I post here condemning Geithner? Has anyone here ever defended him? Are you claiming he simply didn't know that he was supposed to pay FICA on his income? Despite being told he did need to by his employer?



Lucylastic -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (8/31/2011 12:44:52 PM)

At the mention of Geithener, bubbye went the rational and the topic.
AGAIN
what is it with the obfuscation today?



Edwynn -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (8/31/2011 12:51:56 PM)


That's "obfuscation du jure," dear Lucy.

Or are you  one of those closet ultra-conserative anti-French Canadians?

Dang, woman, you keep getting more hot! everyday. Talk about distractions ...  









farglebargle -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (8/31/2011 12:55:17 PM)

G-ddamn Quebecois....



FirmhandKY -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (8/31/2011 6:10:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Survey says ZERO!!!!!
Those are states rights issues, see the 10th. Chicago wants to limit usage and has no state constitutional beef with Illinois, go get em tiger.

They are not anywhere saying you cannot own them, that would be sorta unconstitutional, if you get my drift.

DC. Not a state, but same with Fed.

Strawman and red herring. Not your average pickled fish, I guess.

Ron,

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

The current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it gives individual US citizens the right to bear personal arms, and that any law - be it federal, state or local - which abridges that right is unconstitutional.

The Chicago lawsuits, and the DC lawsuits are examples of the implementation of that "old-new" interpretation.

The 10th involves states' rights.

Firm



Edwynn -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (8/31/2011 7:54:52 PM)




~FR~

Well, I'm just glad to see in all this discussion that the federal government  has finally been thrown out of the states, and the corporations put back in their rightful place of suppression of such states.

Ameriquest's and S&P's  suppression of NJ and GA laws concerning predatory lending prove the efficacy of the private sector there.

Oh, but wait!

Do we descry a memo from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency there (OCC), that the states are to cease and desist from any predatory lending laws, or in any wise acting as though they give a crap about their own people?

This during a Republican administration?

(holds cheeks in shock ...... )






willbeurdaddy -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (8/31/2011 8:13:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn




Do we descry a memo from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency there (OCC), that the states are to cease and desist from any predatory lending laws, or in any wise acting as though they give a crap about their own people?





A lie thats already been proven to be BS.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (8/31/2011 8:19:51 PM)


Well, here's how Democrats seem to believe they should handle businesses ...

3M Claims Lanny Davis Tried to Extort It
Friday, August 26, 2011

 WASHINGTON (CN) - 3M claims an investment company conspired with high-powered lobbyist Lanny Davis in a smear campaign to "coerce" it into paying "tens of millions of dollars ...

..

Davis, who worked as a special counsel for President Clinton from 1996 to 1998

...

"Defendants' illicit campaign has included overt threats of reprisals by holders of large blocks of 3M stock; public demonstrations by paid individuals posing as victims of an altogether fabricated public health 'issue' allegedly created by 3M's decision to discontinue selling a product no one wanted; multiple press conferences aimed at disseminating false and defamatory information; and a constant stream of media advisories that flooded the airwaves with defamatory statements about 3M and its CEO ...

Damn. 

Extortion ...

"... public demonstrations by paid individuals posing as victims ... fabricated public health 'issue' .. multiple press conferences aimed at disseminating false and defamatory information ... constant stream of media advisories that flooded the airwaves with defamatory statements ..."

Sounds just like a Democratic Campaign!  [:D]

Firm




Edwynn -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (8/31/2011 8:22:07 PM)





quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn




Do we descry a memo from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency there (OCC), that the states are to cease and desist from any predatory lending laws, or in any wise acting as though they give a crap about their own people?





A lie thats already been proven to be BS.



http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/03/19/states_tried_to_stop_subprime/

It wasn't just the OCC.

But fine, you are welcome to point out the lie, by way of your own lie regarding anything else in the world.


Are you actually proud of being this freaking stupid?






willbeurdaddy -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (8/31/2011 8:32:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn





quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn




Do we descry a memo from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency there (OCC), that the states are to cease and desist from any predatory lending laws, or in any wise acting as though they give a crap about their own people?





A lie thats already been proven to be BS.



http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/03/19/states_tried_to_stop_subprime/

It wasn't just the OCC.

But fine, you are welcome to point out the lie, by way of your own lie regarding anything else in the world.


Are you actually proud of being this freaking stupid?






Are you proud of being so clueless you dont know what Federal preemption means?



DomKen -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (8/31/2011 8:51:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Are you proud of being so clueless you dont know what Federal preemption means?

So how precisely is the feds declaring state laws null and void not exactly what Edwynn said?

Funny how the states have no right to regulate things in their state when its a republican administration in D.C.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (8/31/2011 8:58:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Are you proud of being so clueless you dont know what Federal preemption means?

So how precisely is the feds declaring state laws null and void not exactly what Edwynn said?

Funny how the states have no right to regulate things in their state when its a republican administration in D.C.


Its called the Constitution, no "declaration" is needed, and clearly one of the few areas the Commerce Clause DOES have authority over is interstate banking. It doesnt have fuck all to do with what party is in power.



FatDomDaddy -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (8/31/2011 9:09:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
an error in box checking?


Hi ya Luce



Edwynn -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (9/1/2011 4:52:27 AM)




quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Its called the Constitution, no "declaration" is needed, and clearly one of the few areas the Commerce Clause DOES have authority over is interstate banking. It doesnt have fuck all to do with what party is in power.




It doesn't?

You mean an administration doesn't appoint the heads of federal departments?

No argument from me, the Democrats don't have such a great record in this regard either, but let's review the issue here:

Aspartame:

http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm

The FDA's own scientists ruled against it, but then GD Searle's recently-hired pit bull, Donald Rumsfeldt, "called in his markers" and the Reagan FDA appointee Arthur Hayes Hull added another member to the panel voting on the question to cause a deadlock then overruled  the original decision.


After Paul Volker did all the dirty work in cleaning up the inflation mess in the early 80's, Reagan replaced him with the deregulation-minded 'free marketer' Alan Greenspan.

Clinton instigated the now permanent placement of banking interests in the Treasury Department with the assignment of Goldman Sachs/Citigroup quarterback Robert Rubin. Geitner has never worked for them directly, but you'd best believe he would never have been head of the NY Federal Reserve Bank (thereby head of the Federal Open Market Commitee) unless he was "their boy." Then of course Geitner's predecessor, the Bush appointee Goldman CEO Hank Paulson, absconded with several super tankers full of tax payer money for his firm and 'spread the joy' to the other large banks also.

Now to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency:

http://www.alternet.org/economy/145782/how_did_a_bank_lobbyist_score_the_top_bank_regulator_job/?page=5

"Over the course of nearly a quarter-century, Dugan has proved himself a staunch ally of the American financial elite as a Senate staffer (1985-89), a Treasury official (1989-93) and a lobbyist (1993-2005), building a career that culminated in 2005 when George W. Bush appointed him comptroller of the currency."


So yeah, Federal agencies have fuck-all to do with any administration.

Let me refresh your Kool-aid there, Willbe.





DomKen -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (9/1/2011 4:58:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Are you proud of being so clueless you dont know what Federal preemption means?

So how precisely is the feds declaring state laws null and void not exactly what Edwynn said?

Funny how the states have no right to regulate things in their state when its a republican administration in D.C.


Its called the Constitution, no "declaration" is needed, and clearly one of the few areas the Commerce Clause DOES have authority over is interstate banking. It doesnt have fuck all to do with what party is in power.

Your confusion is showing. I never said anything about it not being legal. But the fact is the OCC did force states to stop enforcing banking regulations the states had chosen to enact.



Edwynn -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (9/1/2011 5:20:50 AM)



Actually, it doesn't trouble me too much the actions of the OCC. I don't always like the actions taken, but one of those "you get what you vote for" things, so can't disagree on principle too much.


But when private corporations such as Ameriquest and Standard & Poors strong arm state governments as they did with GA and NJ, the latter stating that they would refuse to rate any residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) originated in those states if they did not rescind their anti-predatory lending laws ...


THAT is troublesome.


PS

In reality, industry has had rule of the roost in the most important federal agencies for years, so forget the first thing I said. Aside from the earlier mentioned, there was Wendy Gramm at the CFTC enabling the Enron fiasco and then being put on the board for that company, Monsanto's Michael Taylor as Bush I's FDA administrator and last I looked, Obama's "food safety" guy, the Federal Trade Commission and the DOJ's anti-trust division and the energy dept., etc., always having an industry lobbyist in place for the last 30 years, etc.

Quite a long list.

Quite disgusting.






mnottertail -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (9/1/2011 12:26:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Survey says ZERO!!!!!
Those are states rights issues, see the 10th. Chicago wants to limit usage and has no state constitutional beef with Illinois, go get em tiger.

They are not anywhere saying you cannot own them, that would be sorta unconstitutional, if you get my drift.

DC. Not a state, but same with Fed.

Strawman and red herring. Not your average pickled fish, I guess.

Ron,

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

The current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it gives individual US citizens the right to bear personal arms, and that any law - be it federal, state or local - which abridges that right is unconstitutional.

The Chicago lawsuits, and the DC lawsuits are examples of the implementation of that "old-new" interpretation.

The 10th involves states' rights.

Firm




The old interpretation was 10th amendment states rights are to do what they want, but that the federal government wouldnt abridge the rights for the nation (in other words they would let the states (10th amendment) avoid federal overreach via the (2nd amendment) because the states-rights guys didnt want the federal government wholesale taking away right to keep and bear arms. and life went on that way for like that for 210 years.

the new interpretation in 2008 and 2010 relies (as nearly every SCOTUS decision does) chiefly on the 14th amendment and the 2nd amendments sort of gluing into the 14th and saying that the fed had intended to overreach in this way, and it has that power to force the states to abide the second amendment.

So, realistically this is the new way.

But hey, look at me, I like it like that.

so, in terms of this fight, the 2nd amendment is at odds with the 10th.

if you take the 10th back, wouldnt that necessarily (pretty much like the equal opportunity laws) say that the 2nd is only for the purpose of condemning federal abridgement, but leaves the states (and if their constitutions are not amenable to the 2nd) the county the township the cities able to abridge the 2nd as a states-rights (10th) issue?

Yeah, I know what I said at first and I know what amendment is what.

And we are talking the same thing, but obviously from different views.

I see the 10th as leading to several conundrums regards the other 'states rights' amdendments.

(yeah, I read it and know its clumsy language Firm, but I am not going to tinker with it after all, you get the drift of what I am sayin).



Real0ne -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (9/1/2011 2:06:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Survey says ZERO!!!!!
Those are states rights issues, see the 10th. Chicago wants to limit usage and has no state constitutional beef with Illinois, go get em tiger.

They are not anywhere saying you cannot own them, that would be sorta unconstitutional, if you get my drift.

DC. Not a state, but same with Fed.

Strawman and red herring. Not your average pickled fish, I guess.

Ron,

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

The current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it gives individual US citizens the right to bear personal arms, and that any law - be it federal, state or local - which abridges that right is unconstitutional.

The Chicago lawsuits, and the DC lawsuits are examples of the implementation of that "old-new" interpretation.

The 10th involves states' rights.

Firm



That is a compete misunderstanding of the instrument.

The constitution give the people nothing.

It is the "reservation of rights" of the people.

In other words if I make a contract with you and reserve the rights to kick anyones ass who farts in my house, and then I do kick someones ass for farting in my house and they try to sue me I walk away with damages, both in trespass of my right reserved and for stinking up my house and for court costs.

That constitution is recognition of rights reserved, NOT permission granted.

Nowhere does it say I have to be a citizen to retain and exercise my rights.  If it does please cite it.



Real0ne -> RE: Clarence Thomas America's Frodo Baggins (9/1/2011 2:13:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Are you proud of being so clueless you dont know what Federal preemption means?

So how precisely is the feds declaring state laws null and void not exactly what Edwynn said?

Funny how the states have no right to regulate things in their state when its a republican administration in D.C.


the us is on gigantic organization of people operating under that name.

They create 3 departments and call them branches and pretend they are somehow "separate".  Well the legislators park their asses on the attorneys desks and ask them how much shit they can throw at the wall and get to stick in the courts.

then they produce shit like the patriot act.

For your "protection" after all.

Well they can claim any damn thing they want is for your protction because the states are infamous for NOT defining a word BEFORE legislation is passed and waiting to see how they can massage it to fit their agenda and the courts are infamous for interpreting the meaning to suit that agenda.  That are of course separate part of the same company.  Small world at the top.

~Fool for the city







Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125