posted on December 3, 2002 01:37:41 AM new
>He manipulated the whole damn Depression."
Actually, it was the fact that Chase-Manhattan decided to suddenly call in all of its loans to other banks that caused the banking system to go bust, the stock market to crash, and the Great Depression.
posted on December 3, 2002 01:42:18 AM new
Well, well! Yellowstone bothered to go get an education! Now he can post interesting questions -- the type that demands a good answer. Unfortunately, I am curently reassembling my system after a fatal NT Kernal failure, so I' don't have the time now to answer you properly. Maybe Helen can help you, as she likes to tackle serious questions as well.
posted on December 3, 2002 02:29:17 AM newYes the Kennedy's learned a lession from a shining example.
Oh, I see. Because the father did some shady things, the good his children did doesn't count? Just how many generations do you feel should be held accountable?
BTW, Joe Kennedy did not "manipulate the Depression." He was appointed the first head of the SEC by FDR and, according to thehistorian John Steele Gordon: "Kennedy knew where the bodies were buried. But he regarded his job to be not only to restore the confidence of the country in Wall Street, but, equally important, to restore the confidence of Wall Street in the American economy and government. Kennedy's first priority was to end the 'strike of capital,' in which the great Wall Street banks, and innumerable small ones, shell-shocked alike, were refusing to underwrite new issues of securities and to lend money, no matter how good the collateral or how solid the project." Kennedy quickly established himself as a fair-minded, yet tough, leader. He set up the procedures for investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by investment bankers and brokers and for all this, his place in financial history is secure. http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/history/2000/joseph_kennedy2.html
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
[ edited by bunnicula on Dec 3, 2002 02:33 AM ]
posted on December 3, 2002 06:34:58 AM new
Bozorillar
I don't require or expect answers from you or any of your tag team message board wrestling buddies.
posted on December 3, 2002 07:20:38 AM new
Not only did Joe Kennedy help to elect one of the best leaders of the world, F.D.R., but as chairman of the SEC, Joe Kennedy was influential in the restoration of confidence in the American economy.
Thanks for that interesting link, bunnicula.
Helen
Yellowstone, one thing that I really admire about Auctionwatch is that there are no tag teams. We are all individuals here. If you want to find a team, go elsewhere.
posted on December 3, 2002 07:55:35 AM newThe Kennedy's that got us involved in Vietman.
BTW, that's wrong, too. Eisenhower got us involved in the 50s. Considering the rabid fear of communism in those days, our involvement was practically inevitable. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 3, 2002 08:13:09 AM new
Well this may just fit in.
Liberal Democrat Elected to County District Council Seat # 5.
Conservative Republican Elected to County District Seat # 3.
Both Convicted Felons. Same County, same State.
Elected Democrat. White male, Married & has Children. Convicted of Theft While operating a Security business. Stealing from one of the businesses he was to protect. Sentence to serve 1 to 10 years. During the time of conviction, before & now,worked for the Democrat party, in an appointed position. Sentence was Suspended. Has run for elected office before.First time elected.
Elected Republican. Black male, Married & has Children. Convicted of Arm Robbery, Sentence 2 to 10 years, served 8 years & paroled. Retired from his place of employment. Has worked with & started and organized a program to help trouble children ,many years ago. Had never run for an elected office before.
In this State & County a convicted felon can only run for a political office if he or she has received a pardon. Both of these Crimes happen many years ago.
The elected Democrat, says he was not convicted. Court records say he was. The elected Republican, who started the mess, called the Republican party, telling them he was a convicted felon & just found out he could not hold the office, much less run for it. Both Parties Say, they did not know they were convicted felons.
The F.B.I. Has been investigating this county, for voter fraud ,for the past two years. Both parties have been ordered to remove all the dead, who return to the living, on each election day, from the voting list.
Over 20,000 votes were cast in these two districts.
I do not live in ether district but, I do live in this county.
The Governor, of the State could solve the problem with a pardon, of the two elected people. but, a story floating around says he a Democrat, would not pardon the Republican, when requested to do so. Then the Democrat pop up.
Both defeated people, are now filing a law suite saying they should be appointed to the seats. Sound familiar?.
Solution by State law.
1. Hold another election. (paid for by the county tax payer.}
2. Wait until January, let the County counsel select the district seats until the next election. ( the counsel is controlled by the democratic party.).
3. Pardon the two felons.
My Solution.
1. Hold a new election.Paid for by the Democrat & Republican Parties. The County Prosecutor ( a Republican. Pardoned many years ago, who was a convicted felon & one hell of a Prosecutor). file charges of voter Disenfranchise, violation of the Constitution & Bill of Rights against both party leaders, County, State & National.
My reason for this solution is that all Parties positions are appointed by each party leadership. Leadership in all parties Should be made responsible for the candidates they select for office. In this case both parties allowed a convicted felon run for a political office. The leadership of both parties should be made to pay the piper in a court of law & time served & all expense paid to rectified the problem.
posted on December 3, 2002 12:37:36 PM new
Unless the felons are fugitives, I would do nothing. They have been elected and are no longer under the jurisdiction of the election board who could have removed them from the ballot before they were elected.
Why spend more money to elect another crook?
It is certainly a strange case. Most politicians wait until they get into office to become crooks.
posted on December 3, 2002 02:21:52 PM new
>Bozorillar
>SIGH!<
And here I was, ready to FINALLY have an intelligent conversation with you, Yellowstone! Instead, you go about making insults!
Remember last summer? Remember when you made such a big noise on here, Yellowstone? Remember how you went away, crying into your pillow about how "mean" and "cruel" and "insulting" that I was and that it was all MY fault that you were leaving? Oh, and your supporters crying out, "Oh, please Yellowstone - don't GO! Noooooo! Please come B-a-a-a-c-k!" And that was all BULLSH1T! You were nasty to me then, you were nasty to a lot of other posters on here then and you haven't changed a bit since.
posted on December 3, 2002 03:25:16 PM new
Borillar
You know dam well that you baited me into this thread with your previous post with insults. Here's your post and I have bolded YOUR insults;
THat's a very good link, Helen! I doubt that such people as Yellowstone or Bear would lower themselves to go get an education by setting aside the fifiteen minutes it takes to read the entire treatise. They won't do it because it would shatter their dearly-held pre-conceived notions about just Who and What everything is. They would rather revel in ignorance than rejoice in education.Note that this is true, because neither one of them will post any response to the material in that link.
I say that you are a troll.
Remember last summer? Remember when you made such a big noise on here, Yellowstone? Remember how you went away, crying into your pillow about how "mean" and "cruel" and "insulting" that I was and that it was all MY fault that you were leaving?
Bor
Here's a link to the thread you are talking about. I suggest that you read it again so that you can post a correction to your previous post. As you will see I never did say any of the things that you are suggesting that I said. In otherwords Bor, you are full of it.
As far as getting nasty goes, I give what I receive. My insults are direct and to the point and you realise right off that you have been insulted. Your insults are subtle but no less insultive.
How many times in the recent past have you told someone that they must have a reading comprehension problem, or isulted their intelligence in some subtle way. And how many times in the recent past have you quoted the CG's when you have felt insulted. The only crybaby that I see here is YOU.
posted on December 3, 2002 03:43:19 PM new
Helen, Yes convicted felons, after they have served their time or have their time Suspended can vote. But can not hold or run for a elected office unless, they have received a pardon.
posted on December 3, 2002 04:19:22 PM new
Still Baloney! You haven't changed a bit.
I recall last spring very well. You challanged me to a discussion. When you discovered that you couldn't defend your position, you got nasty. Check your own link there and you'll see that you point to the reason that you're leaving is because of me. I recall a lot of nasty ans snide remarks from your end. And now that you've decided to stop lurking for a while and rejoined our discussions, I mentioned your name. Not because I wanted to continue to get insulted and lied to by you, but to have you read the article and have a frank discussion. Your first reaction was an over reaction. You dropped back into your old mold of being nasty when you can't hold a conversation. You give out what you get? So do I.
As far as troling goes, you read that article, so you proved me wrong - in public. That was my intent and it was obvious. Fine. End of story. If I had asked you, you wouldn't have read it. I only applied a bit of OBVIOUS reverse psychology and challanged you. My reason for doing so was also obvious - that now we could have an intelligent discussion for once; you know, where we both have some issues to discuss. What an original idea for a message forum!
But you decided that it wasn't good enough for you - you go on and on and on with your insults. And now you want to imply that you're some sort of saint? Pah-LEE-ZE!
If you do not wish to conversations with me, simply say so and don't comment on anything I write and vicea-versa. But, please - don't paint yourself something that you're not.
I was just joking.. I suppose the first step will be to determine in court the correct action to take. Maybe since these crimes occured several years ago, both candidates could possibly be pardoned and allowed to serve their term. But can you imagine the public furor that option may create?
Or, As you suggested, the vacancy may be decided by another election.
Another possibility is that the previous council members may be available to continue their terms until Janurary...(your second option).
I'll bet there is a thorough background check by the election committee next time!!!
posted on December 3, 2002 05:09:03 PM newI mentioned your name
Yes you did but you mentioned my name in an insulting manner. Did you think that I would like being refered to as being ignorant. The same goes for Bear1949, you insulted him with that post as well and it was totally unneccesary.
You could have invited me into the conversation in a noninsultive way. Anytime that you insult me I WILL throw it back in your face.
Maybe it does seem that I left because of you because I mentioned something about you winning all the marbles but nowhere did I use any of the words; "mean" "cruel" or "insulting". You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
Intelligent conversation with you, I don't think so as long as you insist on your subtle insults.
No I am no angel, I can get as nasty as you or anyone else here but I don't refer to it as reverse psychology.
posted on December 3, 2002 06:55:27 PM new
Hooray!
Yellowstone *HATES* to be known as being ignorant!
Being Ignorant isn't a crime or a shame, Yellowstone. Staying that way is.
I wasn't trying to insult you, as I honestly do not consider the label Ignorant an insult, merely notification that I need to learn something. The important thing is, is that you STOP being ignorant! Of course, you can take it in any way that you like and obviously, you do.
Did you get an education when reading about Liberalism in that treatise? Now we'll never know.
As far as being insulting to Bear - he deserves it. He came into the RT a short while back and decided that his method of contributing to the existing conversation was to CENSOR it. He crashed into threads, posted irrelevant content pages long, then posted it twice for good riddance. I think that the label "Jackass" fits that sort of behavior quite well. Then, after that didn't seem to work well - we kept going on, even through his blatant attempts at CENSORSHIP, he changed tactics. Instead of bombing a thread to pieces with garbage, he introduced non-related material in such a way as to try to totally derail the thread. In the Old Days of Moderators, he would have gotten his account suspended for CENSORING so blatantly. Still, I, and I image others, gave him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Bear just "didn't know how" to channel his own opinion and words into the threads. Maybe, it was just "bad manners" on his part. But - NO! He made sure to let everyone know that it wasn't "just bad manners" on his part; it was blatant CENSORSHIP with a total disregard for anyone else on here trying to have a conversation. I called him a CHILD. And that's insufferable coming from me? BALONEY! I'm not the only one he's crapped on and frankly; I'm tired of it and I suspect that others are on here as well. It's hard enough to get good threads going, no matter whether you like them or not. And the asinine thing that someone can do is to purposely and childishly go derail or destroy that thread. That's inexcusable behavior and if you enjoy that and defending him, then you're inexcusable as well!
>words; "mean" "cruel" or "insulting". You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
Gosh! Golly! I didn't know that you were just being nice to me, Yellowstone! Y'know, conceding that way. Especially after how nasty you'd been to others and me for months with your slights being passed around thickly as well. Who would have possibly have guessed that you were turning over a New Leaf and NO ONE appreciated it? Gee wiz, I apologize!
posted on December 3, 2002 08:31:49 PM new
Here I have been talking about conversation in this thread and the insults you have delt to me from the start and all the while you keep quoting happenings on other threads as an arguement.
The fact remains that you did intend to insult me with your first mention of my name in this thread and that is exactly the way I took it.
You just really don't get it do you. Am I missing something here, did I read into your intentions in the wrong way. What is it with you, can you explain it to me.
No, on second thought don't answer that, instead lets ask the other posters of this board if my interpretations of your first post mentioning my name are correct that it was intended as an insult. But lets keep in mind that we are talking about just this thread.
Borillar allready acknowledged that he was trolling for conversation and that he baited me into conversation so I guess I read and interpreted those intentions correctly.
As far as troling goes, you read that article, so you proved me wrong - in public. That was my intent and it was obvious. Fine. End of story.
Borillar
I am willing to put this issue up for disscusion and/or scrutinization to all the posters of this board, are you. I am willing to acknowledge that I am guilty of dealing insults to Borillar, but ONLY after he insulted me first with his troll post.
posted on December 3, 2002 10:38:30 PM new"Mr. Nixon in the last seven days has called me an economic ignoramus, a Pied Piper, and all the rest. I've just confined myself to calling him a Republican, but he says that is getting low."
posted on December 3, 2002 11:11:20 PM new
Yellowstone, if that trips your trigger - go ahead. I stand by my words. I admitted that I baited you, but my intent was not to insult you, but to educate you for a discussion. You disagree. So what will you accomplish with your proposed thread? That the word ignorant is a demeaning slur? Or, that people who discover themselves to be ignorant by others are demeaned? Or, that those who point out your ignorance to you is a demeaning act in itself? This is what you intend to prove?
Go ahead. If this is the only meaningful discussion that you are capable of, let's have it! Otherwise, I'd suggest that you get over the fact that your not omniscient and get a bit thicker skin.
posted on December 3, 2002 11:52:31 PM new
>Well this may just fit in.
>Liberal Democrat Elected to County District Council Seat # 5.
>Conservative Republican Elected to County District Seat # 3.
>Both Convicted Felons. Same County, same State.
What a sad tale, fred! I have always felt the same way to voter fraud no matter which party was doing it. I have always wished that it was both a treasonable offence and a capital offence, or at least a Life sentance upon conviction.
Until the American People can be sure that the rampant voting fraud is eliminated, or nearly so, we can never be sure of a fair election. I hope that the new measures enacted will fix the problem, but stiffer sentances are needed for voters or party oficials who enguage in voter fraud.
posted on December 4, 2002 08:30:13 AM new
Borillar
The problem with you is that you can't just talk to someone. You have to talk down to them as if they are beneith you or of a lower intelligence level than you. Using this sort of demeaning language does not usually occur in real life so why does it have to happen here. As long as you insist on conversing in this manner we will not really talk. No, my feelings are not hurt and my skin is fairly thick.
I guarantee that if you saw me in person, eye to eye contact that you would not call me ignorant to my face and I doubt that you use this sort of language in real life on others.
posted on December 4, 2002 09:06:24 AM new
> you would not call me ignorant to my face
Actually, I would. Might you not just consider that being told that you are ignorant about something is not an insult? Your point, in so many words, is that in "real life", people do not point out when the other person is not educated on the subject? This is the proper use of the word ignorant, like it or not.
I suppose that you'll next post, in so many words, that someone "around here" would punch you in the face for saying that; or that someone who says it in "real life" has bad manners. If I came up to you in real life and looked you in the eye and told you that you were ignorant on a subject, what would you do -- assault me? Go to prison for me? Sell your home to pay for damages to me and for your lawyer? Do you think that a jury would sympathize with you? Do you think that a judge would?
Personally, I think that you are trying to make an issue where there is none. I re-read what I wrote and there is no insult. A bit of teasing, sure, to get you to read that article, but that's it. No, go ahead and post that thread that you "threatened" me with! I think that will make for a lively discussion and personally, I think that it will further reveal what ignorance about the English language that you have.
posted on December 4, 2002 03:29:05 PM new
>But still you didn't respond about the MONEYED Kennedy's or anyother liberals. How did they get their funds.
"These and other actions taken by the U.S. government in wartime were, tragically, too little and too late. President Bush's family had already played a central role in financing and arming Adolf Hitler for his takeover of Germany; in financing and managing the buildup of Nazi war industries for the conquest of Europe and war against the U.S.A.; and in the development of Nazi genocide theories and racial propaganda, with their well-known results."
Nothing like Joe at all, who merely ran booze during Prohibition.
posted on December 4, 2002 04:39:36 PM new
Borillar
What it all boils down to is that it really doesn't matter that YOU felt that your intentions were not insultive.
What does matter is that you wanted to have a conversation with me, but by calling me ignorant you were setting the tone of the conversation. In otherwords You want to converse with me but only if I am willing to accept that you are the all knowing teacher and I am the ignorant student.
You can't have a conversation with me where we are both equal, can you.
I have had alot of friendly conversations with other posters on these boards. they stay friendly because I don't try to talk down to them in any sort of a condescending manner, nor do they to me.
If you do not wish to conversations with me, simply say so and don't comment on anything I write and vicea-versa.
This sounds acceptable to me and I will hold you to it.
