Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
I wish some of these conspriacies were true. It would show that someone really knew what was going on. The problem is that everyone is winging it. No one really knows what they are doing.

Weren't the conspiracy theories being advanced by people outside the whitehouse? And the conspiracies themselves were from well before. Whitewater and all of clinton's troubles were from his days in Arkansas, when there was time for hillary and bill to get in all sorts of trouble, as well as much time for the locals to fix them up with shady deals. Not to mention, get fixed up by state troopers with local cotton and hog queens.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
And let me add, the commodities trading thing smells, no matter how you slice it.

Yes I used to think that to. But one of me employees is a former option commodities trader and she told me that with the way commodities fluctuate and when people bet on margin there can be huge profits and losses. If you have ten dollars, borrow ninety, and bet 100, and you double your bet, you really have made $190 on a ten dollar bet. Of course it can happend the other way. What my employee thinks is that Hillary got lucky on a position, realized how crazy the whole thing is, and pulled out. Of course this all assumes she took positions on margin. Which I have never been able to verify.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes I used to think that to. But one of me employees is a former option commodities trader and she told me that with the way commodities fluctuate and when people bet on margin there can be huge profits and losses. If you have ten dollars, borrow ninety, and bet 100, and you double your bet, you really have made $190 on a ten dollar bet. Of course it can happend the other way. What my employee thinks is that Hillary got lucky on a position, realized how crazy the whole thing is, and pulled out. Of course this all assumes she took positions on margin. Which I have never been able to verify.

I don't think anyone doubts that the profits weren't of the type one could earn in that area, esp. with margin (but even without). What people doubt is that Hillary really happened to "get lucky" on the position, and that's why it smells.

If she did in fact "get lucky" with that position, there were probably 10 other positions that she didn't get lucky with, but all of those were in someone else's name, and not transferred to her account, whereas the one gainer was transferred.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
HA! Took him 13 years to do it! Seriously, most economists believe that Roosevelt's actions deepened and prolonged the depression. And does he really get credit for winning the war? I thought that was Truman.

Roosevelt gave Eastern Europe to Stalin, that's like the Elian thing x more than 90 million (not counting the baltic states or Yugoslavia). A staggering betrayal of humanity.

I would have to post the following picture 4 times a minute for the next 48 years to graphically make my point regarding the human rights that FDR kicked to the curb for the sake of his own vanity. And this guy is the greatest democrat of the last 100 years. Sad.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
And let me add, the commodities trading thing smells, no matter how you slice it.

Yeah, but so does Harken. It's a wash.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't think anyone doubts that the profits weren't of the type one could earn in that area, esp. with margin (but even without). What people doubt is that Hillary really happened to "get lucky" on the position, and that's why it smells.

If she did in fact "get lucky" with that position, there were probably 10 other positions that she didn't get lucky with, but all of those were in someone else's name, and not transferred to her account, whereas the one gainer was transferred.

2.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

How long does she stay in jail?

I'm guessing she's out by Friday.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How long does she stay in jail?

I'm guessing she's out by Friday.

Depends on what is considered a "suitable jail in the metro area".

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Weren't the conspiracy theories being advanced by people outside the whitehouse? And the conspiracies themselves were from well before. Whitewater and all of clinton's troubles were from his days in Arkansas, when there was time for hillary and bill to get in all sorts of trouble, as well as much time for the locals to fix them up with shady deals. Not to mention, get fixed up by state troopers with local cotton and hog queens.

I will concede that is the case on the Arkansas conspiracies. But there were also tons of White House conspiracy theories. I was sent a book that documents Clinton's cocaine dealing while in the White House.

Which reminds me. When I was working on the campaign, in the primary, there was a fundraiser for then Governor Bush in Los Angeles. The same fundraising company was also doing a fundraiser that same evening for Ceders Sinai hospital in Los Angeles. I hung out back stage for the second fundraiser because Bill Maher was MCing and I wanted to meet him and see the show. Many of the donors came and paid for both events.

This former beauty queen from Texas, who I was working with, in her unbelievably thick accent and stupid smile said that she had just talked to that nice man "Mr. Maher" and asked him that he not make any jokes about the "Governor" because there were many people at the fundraiser who were also at the Bush fundraiser. When I told her that she just insured that he would do the opposite, she to me, with much condensension, that she had thoroughly charmed him, and he was putty in her hands, and he would do no such thing.

Of course the entire monologue focused on the Governor. My favorite joke was that HW Bush invaded Panama to insure that Cocaine supply line to his son was not interrupted.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't think anyone doubts that the profits weren't of the type one could earn in that area, esp. with margin (but even without). What people doubt is that Hillary really happened to "get lucky" on the position, and that's why it smells.

If she did in fact "get lucky" with that position, there were probably 10 other positions that she didn't get lucky with, but all of those were in someone else's name, and not transferred to her account, whereas the one gainer was transferred.

If there were anything to this, then the SEC or the CFTC would have investigated. A big, one-time trade by a lawyer that suggests insider trading will be reviewed, even if the dollars involved are much smaller.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If there were anything to this, then the SEC or the CFTC would have investigated. A big, one-time trade by a lawyer that suggests insider trading will be reviewed, even if the dollars involved are much smaller.

They intended to, but the entire SEC investigative arm was snuffed by the Clintons, and they blackmailed everyone at the CFTC.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes to end a recession, you cut taxes and increase spending. Roosevelt kept trying to keep the balance in budget. He increased spending, but in order to pay for it he increased taxes on the rich. Therefore he never pulled us out of the depression. WWII forced the government to increase spending dramatically and it pulled us out of the depression. Bush learned this lesson, and applied it when he got to office in 2000.

You see no difference between a recession and a depression. There is such a difference.

Hoover tried your approach. FDR's approach was to build buying capacity and employment from the bottom, and to find means to pay for it so that the national fisc was not destroyed in the process.

Bush learned the lesson that tax cuts are desired by his base at any time, and for whatever excuse. Surplus? Cut taxes (don't pay off the debt). Recession? Cut taxes. War? Cut taxes. Polls slipping? Cut taxes. Suggesting that tax cuts were Bush's response to recession is ludicrous -- they were his response to the sunrise.

And I've yet to see any decent argument for why the Bush tax cuts -- rather than the massive infusion of government spending (ah, those bedrock conservative principles) and the lowest interest rates in history for the first five years of his term -- were responsible for what recovery we've had.*



*Once upon a time, Republicans argued that, in fact, federal economic policies had nothing to do with recession or growth -- it was all just the business cycle. Of course, that was when Clinton had been president for five years and the economy was doing better than ever. Go figure.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
They intended to, but the entire SEC investigative arm was snuffed by the Clintons, and they blackmailed everyone at the CFTC.

Shit -- you're a Penske sock too?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If there were anything to this, then the SEC or the CFTC would have investigated. A big, one-time trade by a lawyer that suggests insider trading will be reviewed, even if the dollars involved are much smaller.

It's not insider trading. The mechanism is simple--take positions on a regular basis during periods of fluctuations. Some positions will go up; others will go down. Net they'll probably wash, or go down slightly (transaction fees). Change the name on one account, with post-dating. If you do it right, it's the one that goes up. Nothing illegal about it from a trading perspective. The claim of smell related to someone doing her a favor--i.e., it was a campaign donation in disguise. And by "campaign donation" I mean a thank you to her husband for some favorable legislation. And by "thank you" I mean payoff. So it might violate RICO or some state contributions law, but it's not a securities violation.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You see no difference between a recession and a depression. There is such a difference.

Hoover tried your approach.

The hell he did. He really did do nothing. H just thought the market would eventually correct itself.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch FDR's approach was to build buying capacity and employment from the bottom, and to find means to pay for it so that the national fisc was not destroyed in the process.

Bush learned the lesson that tax cuts are desired by his base at any time, and for whatever excuse. Surplus? Cut taxes (don't pay off the debt). Recession? Cut taxes. War? Cut taxes. Polls slipping? Cut taxes. Suggesting that tax cuts were Bush's response to recession is ludicrous -- they were his response to the sunrise.

And I've yet to see any decent argument for why the Bush tax cuts -- rather than the massive infusion of government spending (ah, those bedrock conservative principles) and the lowest interest rates in history for the first five years of his term -- were responsible for what recovery we've had.*



*Once upon a time, Republicans argued that, in fact, federal economic policies had nothing to do with recession or growth -- it was all just the business cycle. Of course, that was when Clinton had been president for five years and the economy was doing better than ever. Go figure.

It was definitely a Keynsian approach to the problem which shocked me. Republicans had been saying for years that the Keynsian approach - going into deficit - was hooey (including Milton Friedman). But Bush did it and it seemed to work. Although not nearly as well as WWII killed the Depression.