Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 138
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    we don't really want to get into Iraq in this thread --

    but ...

    When we used our planes to assist the people of Bosnia and Afghanistan to resist and defeat the tyrants who they fought bravely long before we arrived -- that was helping the weak.

    when we used the no fly zone to stop Saddam's attack on the Kurd's (which daddy invited) that was protecting the weak.

    When we invaded a foriegn country with our foriegn troops --troops who did not speak their language, who did not understand their culture --- when we did not appreciate the chaos and anarchy that we would inevitably create, when we did not anticipate the bloody calamimity that we would inflict -- that was criminal folly.



    when sacrifice is demanded, why is it the poor who are asked to "share" the burden ??

    Why is it fair that junior's daughters are preoccupied with a Houston bar crawl ...??

    while poor and middle class reservists and ready reserve and Nat. Gaurds are split open, their intestines splilt onto Bagdad asphault --- why is it they have not gotten the armour that the regular armmy got --

    why was it that rather than divert money from USELESS programs like junior's junior star wars fantasy, junior could not find enough money to buy armour and weopons required to keep our people safe ??
    Nice little side trip we took huh.

    The intent was that you turned the statement of why penalize the rich to why not help. There is a big difference in the two and you sidestepped the question.

    As far as your other statements. I know if you ask the Iraqi people not the media, not political activist, but the people on the street if we have helped them and provide protection from a brutal dictator they will tell you without hesitation YES.

    The poor are not asked to carry the burdern, remember we have an all volunteer armed service in this volunteer service even the college graduates volunteer, they are not forced to serve. Individuals make a choice that they feel is best for them. The pay scale for our military makes a large percentage fall into the category you label as poor to include many who qualify foor food stamps.

    The presidents daughters could volunteer to serve if they so choose, but since we are a volunteer force do not try to make them serve so you will feel better.

    As far as equipment and supplies I agree 1000% that we need to provide adequate protection to all who volunteer to serve our great country. It is not as simple as going out and purchasing the equipment. The process to request, justify, get funds approved to spend, test, put request to purchase out to bid to contractors, review the contracts, select best contract, justify why you used that certain contract versus one of the others, go through the inevitable legal challenges to why this contractor was selected over others, then wait for contractor to produce said item, reinspect to verify they met the agreed upon standards and then finally send to field to distribute is lengthy and full of red tape. I personally have started and completed the process for items that took 5-7 years to receive after I obtained approval to purchase items.
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim


    There is a big difference in admonishing the rich to care for the poor versus taking from the rich to give to the poor.

    As to the corruption that occurs in seats of government, that is a different story (also covered in the old book). That leaders will abdicate their responsibility and pursue their own gain rather than justice is a function of the leaders' greed, not an inherent characteristic of wealth in general.

    When leaders take their responsibilities seriously, the rich and poor get equal justice.

    Unfortunately, our justice system is no longer about justice but about process. So, when a perpetrator is found not guilty, defense attorneys claim that "justice has been served" (presumably because the process was followed). But justice is really served when the appropriate punishment is meted out per the law. The ability to get a perpetrator "off-the-hook" is a travesty of justice. It is under these conditions that wealth becomes a determinig factor in how "justice" will be carried out.

    not on point regarding this thread --

    but...

    in court people get the justice that they can afford.

    Why is it that perhaps 1/3 of the people on DEATH row are found innocent when DNA tests, and/or the trial record is examined??

    (25 people were put on death row in Illinois since 1987, 12 were executed, 13 were falsely accused and eventually freed -- including Anthony Porter -- a retarded man who came within a few days of execution for a murder he didn't commit.)
    source

    Why is that Richard Scrushy was found innocent in a $2.7 billion accounting fraud case -- while 15 of his underlings pleaded or were found guilty ??
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/23/2005 at 04:19 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    not on point regarding this thread --

    but...

    in court people get the justice that they can afford.

    Why is it that perhaps 1/3 of the people on DEATH row are found innocent when DNA tests, and/or the trial record is examined??

    Why is that Richard Scrushy was found innocent in a $2.7 billion accounting fraud case -- while 15 of his underlings pleaded or were founfd guilty ??
    Why was OJ found innocent?
    I'm back!
  4.    #84  
    Why did Martha serve time?

    These generalizations don't serve thinking men and women.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Why was OJ found innocent?


    He was able to afford the same level of justice that Richard Scrushy received ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Why did Martha serve time?

    These generalizations don't serve thinking men and women.

    a women percieved as a b tch -- haughty, arrogant -- a better than thou attitude. And what was her crime ?? (Does anyone know that answer ??)

    A perfect diversion from little questions inconvienient questions about juniors best friend and the missing enron BILLIONS !!
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    He was able to afford the same level of justice that Richard Scrushy received ...
    Obviously OJ could afford more, his transgression was far worse than any accounting fraud.
    I'm back!
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    a women percieved as a ***** -- haughty, arrogant -- a better than thou attitude. And what was her crime ?? (Does anyone know that answer ??)

    A perfect diversion from little questions inconvienient questions about juniors best friend and the missing enron BILLIONS !!
    Being a ***** in public.

    Or insider trading, I really don't remember.
    I'm back!
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Obviously OJ could afford more, his transgression was far worse than any accounting fraud.
    what transgression -- he is an innocent man
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    what transgression -- he is an innocent man
    Since the topic is about the level of justice you can afford, I know we both hardly believe that.

    However, there have been plenty of these CEOs and CFOs going down lately, so some justice is being served. Too bad it's not more for all those shareholders and pensioners who were screwed by those evil, greedy SOBs.
    I'm back!
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Being a ***** in public.

    Or insider trading, I really don't remember.

    NO !!

    NOT insider trading !!

    She was not an insider. She had no fidiciury responsibility or culpibility.

    They prosecuted her for lying to an investigator.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    NO !!

    NOT insider trading !!

    She was not an insider. She had no fidiciury responsibility or culpibility.

    They prosecuted her for lying to an investigator.
    Not true. You do not necessarily have to have a fiduciary responsibility to be guilty of insider trading. She was given internal information about an FDA ruling that had not been publically disseminated and acted upon that. That falls under the scope of insider trading.

    Can any of our Wall Street friends confirm this?
    I'm back!
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Not true. You do not necessarily have to have a fiduciary responsibility to be guilty of insider trading. She was given internal information about an FDA ruling that had not been publically disseminated and acted upon that. That falls under the scope of insider trading.

    Can any of our Wall Street friends confirm this?

    But yes, it was related to insider trader.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Again, who cares? So what if someone has 11 times as much as me? Unless that person is paying my salary, I could give a rats a$$ about someone elses money.

    The only thing even remotely noteworthy about your links and comments above was that it would appear that during the Clinton years, the rich got richer, and the gap widened.

    But again, stop being so damn jealous. People should spend more time worrying about themselves, and not on how to take someone elses money.

    again my major focus is on how it distorts the political process --- how when one side has disproportionate resources to buy the justice or outcome they desire, the country becomes less egalitarian, less democratic.

    When one side is able to buy press, buy politicians, and buy tax code changes -- that itself gives them the resources to buy more influence to make more money, to then lobby on behalf of social issues (like banning the choice of an abortion) by buying the best talking point SCREAMING HEADS that money can buy ...

    it matters -- its insidiously corrosive -- and incredibly revealing that most of you don't perceive it ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion

    But yes, it was related to insider trader.

    RELATED ??!! RELATED !!???

    she was not even CHARGED with insider trading -- no more FAUX news for you two !!
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion

    But yes, it was related to insider trader.
    I would love to take this Google class you teach.
    I'm back!
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    RELATED ??!! RELATED !!???

    she was not even CHARGED with insider trading -- no more FAUX news for you two !!
    Who said she was charged? I said it was related. yes, RELATED!!! If you can't figure out how this works, what brought about these charges, theres no use continuing.

    I guess you seem to be of the belief that the Government just made up these charges with no basis...let me get your thinking on this,

    Gov't Prosecutor #1: "I have an idea, lets charge Martha Stewert with a crime"
    Gov't Prosecuctor #2: "Fantastic. What should we charge her with?"
    Gov't Procecutor #1: "How about obstuction of justice, making false statements..."
    Gov't prosecutor #2: "Okay, sounds good, but on what grounds?"
    Gov't Prosecutor #1: "We don't need any, we'll just use these, without any background..."

    So, is this how it worked?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Not true. You do not necessarily have to have a fiduciary responsibility to be guilty of insider trading. She was given internal information about an FDA ruling that had not been publically disseminated and acted upon that. That falls under the scope of insider trading.

    Can any of our Wall Street friends confirm this?

    she was not a board member.

    She was not an executive.

    She was not a family member of the above.

    She was not a broker.

    She owned a trivial number of shares (for her) in the company of her friend.

    The friend -- embarrassed at the FDA questions and anticipating its effect on his stock -- warns his daughter and Martha, who own the stock.

    She could and SHOULD have said: "Ya, heard it was going to tank -- so I sold it -- next question ? ."
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    RELATED ??!! RELATED !!???

    she was not even CHARGED with insider trading -- no more FAUX news for you two !!
    Because they couldn't make it stick. What do you think the charge of "using false documents" to Bacanovic was for? That was the fraudulent sell sheet that that he doctored up to say Stewart really had a sell order with him if the stock hit a certain price. The prosecution knew they'd have a hard time making the insider trading charge stick because they knew that the false documents claim was shaky as well...and Bacanovic was acquitted on that charge.

    Besides, how do you think this whole thing got started??? Because she made some money in the stock market? No, because of how she made the money, and then lied about it. The SEC didn't start this whole thing on a whim, they knew she was tight with whats-his-name and she was bragging about it.
    I'm back!
  20. #100  
    Hey Cardio, where'd your post go? I was gonna quote it!
    I'm back!
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions