l0ckd0wn
Distinguished
- Nov 3, 2011
- 305
- 0
- 18,810
Wow man, I don't know how to be more specific with what I'm telling you, but here goes the numbers game... again.
1.) I don't know why you are going back to IBM. My problem is that Rockefeller still sold oil for the first three years of the war to Germany, not just before hand.
2.) You are right that business laws are dictated by the legislator, but moral decisions are based on the individual. When greed trumps morality, everyone loses.
3.) There are mountains of "circumstantial" evidence because that's all that's left. There was no heavy investigative journalism at this time and as you stated newspapers were mouth pieces for the views and values of their owners.
4.) Because this is an annecdote; first hand experience in dealing with very corrupt labor, and I live in LA which is home to the ILWU and was born in Detroit where I worked first hand with the UAW. It's an example, that's why I used Jacksonville, FL. The problem extends from Florida all the way up, including ports of Savannah, GA; Norfolk, VA; Wilmington, DE; Baltimore, MD; New York, NY.
Why is the location important, and why am I being challenged on this when I agreed with your last post?
5.) No, this website cannot be considered "insider information" because it does not deal with private information that would determine whether or not a person should invest in a specific company; all the data here is public.
5 again.) Your google comparison is a straw man and doesn't apply; I never worked for the company, but I knew full well when they had the intention of going public (that they came out and said they were going to release an IPO) that I should buy, but I did not and that's why I'm not a millionaire today. However, knowing that your company is going public and releasing that information to 3rd parties before a public announcement is insider trading, although the ramifications are probably a lot less than knowing about a specific technology in development that will boost company sales and telling all your congressional and personal cronies, that's a much better example.
Insider information can definitely be a guarantee of profit; there has been many, many pieces of media on this issue from news articles to books to movies based on the very subject. Please don't come at me with such naive statements like that, you know full well privileged information can be extremely profitable. Hell, MARTHA STEWART was thrown the book at for her insider trading.
Solyndra was crony-capitalism for the left as Blackwater, Lockheed-Martin, Northrup-Gurman, The Carlyle Group, (insert random military contractor), is for the right. Call it what you will. Forbes.
More of 5.) You are telling me that war is not profitable? Please show me an example, because I can show you all kinds of information on the military contractors I listed. Hell, Eric Prince (Blackwater) is a millionare now after all his contracts and charges the government HUGE fees for his mercenaries. The Carlyle Group (who has both Bush' on their payroll) had a mutli-million dollar missile program that was proven to be ineffective, yet while W was in office he was able to get the faulty program pushed through. His father was a spokesman for the Carlyle Group during this times. Conflict of interest? This doesn't even take into account Wall Street's (I am referring to all major banks, not just American banks) profiteering as they have backed every major war in history in one indirect way or another. What a joke.
Lastly, I don't think American Companies are the "sole source of human greed," and you are taking what I say hugely out of context. The charity remark is a red herring, do some research on the very topic, I've done plenty.
So I'm a Jobs' disciple now? Do you know that I'm a Windows administrator by day?
You make a lot of long winded assumptions about what I've said and who I am without knowing anything. I'm done addressing your numbers because you are not retorting to what I'm saying, you're retorting to what you want to see. I did this, KNOWINGLY, to Knarl in the climategate thread; you seem to not have a clue you are doing it to me.
I've been very specific with what I've said here. I never said what I was saying in this thread was FACT, I came flat out and said I was speculating. However, there is many, many cases of businesses influence over politicians to get what they want. 2 shining (historical) examples of that was, speaking of Hearst, 1937 - "Marijuana tax Act" (also pushed through with the pressure of the textile industry, i.e. paper) or 1913 - "Federal Reserve Act;" a handful of people creating a "corporation" to manage the money of the US. I bet you when this happened Andrew Jackson was rolling in his grave, and I'm not putting down fractional reserve banking to clarify.
Again, the writing is on the wall, you just have to step back and read it, which seems a difficult task considering how you've butchered what I've said numerous times now.
I understand that and I agree with you, however the channels that are setup between legislators and business people needs to be changed. This is why I'm for the new amendment that Ted Deutch introduced to the House. I think once we take the money out of elections, this whole preferential treatment to huge donors will go away, whether those donors are corporate interests or labor interests.
1.) I don't know why you are going back to IBM. My problem is that Rockefeller still sold oil for the first three years of the war to Germany, not just before hand.
2.) You are right that business laws are dictated by the legislator, but moral decisions are based on the individual. When greed trumps morality, everyone loses.
3.) There are mountains of "circumstantial" evidence because that's all that's left. There was no heavy investigative journalism at this time and as you stated newspapers were mouth pieces for the views and values of their owners.
4.) Because this is an annecdote; first hand experience in dealing with very corrupt labor, and I live in LA which is home to the ILWU and was born in Detroit where I worked first hand with the UAW. It's an example, that's why I used Jacksonville, FL. The problem extends from Florida all the way up, including ports of Savannah, GA; Norfolk, VA; Wilmington, DE; Baltimore, MD; New York, NY.
Why is the location important, and why am I being challenged on this when I agreed with your last post?
5.) No, this website cannot be considered "insider information" because it does not deal with private information that would determine whether or not a person should invest in a specific company; all the data here is public.
5 again.) Your google comparison is a straw man and doesn't apply; I never worked for the company, but I knew full well when they had the intention of going public (that they came out and said they were going to release an IPO) that I should buy, but I did not and that's why I'm not a millionaire today. However, knowing that your company is going public and releasing that information to 3rd parties before a public announcement is insider trading, although the ramifications are probably a lot less than knowing about a specific technology in development that will boost company sales and telling all your congressional and personal cronies, that's a much better example.
Insider information can definitely be a guarantee of profit; there has been many, many pieces of media on this issue from news articles to books to movies based on the very subject. Please don't come at me with such naive statements like that, you know full well privileged information can be extremely profitable. Hell, MARTHA STEWART was thrown the book at for her insider trading.
Solyndra was crony-capitalism for the left as Blackwater, Lockheed-Martin, Northrup-Gurman, The Carlyle Group, (insert random military contractor), is for the right. Call it what you will. Forbes.
More of 5.) You are telling me that war is not profitable? Please show me an example, because I can show you all kinds of information on the military contractors I listed. Hell, Eric Prince (Blackwater) is a millionare now after all his contracts and charges the government HUGE fees for his mercenaries. The Carlyle Group (who has both Bush' on their payroll) had a mutli-million dollar missile program that was proven to be ineffective, yet while W was in office he was able to get the faulty program pushed through. His father was a spokesman for the Carlyle Group during this times. Conflict of interest? This doesn't even take into account Wall Street's (I am referring to all major banks, not just American banks) profiteering as they have backed every major war in history in one indirect way or another. What a joke.
Lastly, I don't think American Companies are the "sole source of human greed," and you are taking what I say hugely out of context. The charity remark is a red herring, do some research on the very topic, I've done plenty.
So I'm a Jobs' disciple now? Do you know that I'm a Windows administrator by day?
You make a lot of long winded assumptions about what I've said and who I am without knowing anything. I'm done addressing your numbers because you are not retorting to what I'm saying, you're retorting to what you want to see. I did this, KNOWINGLY, to Knarl in the climategate thread; you seem to not have a clue you are doing it to me.
I've been very specific with what I've said here. I never said what I was saying in this thread was FACT, I came flat out and said I was speculating. However, there is many, many cases of businesses influence over politicians to get what they want. 2 shining (historical) examples of that was, speaking of Hearst, 1937 - "Marijuana tax Act" (also pushed through with the pressure of the textile industry, i.e. paper) or 1913 - "Federal Reserve Act;" a handful of people creating a "corporation" to manage the money of the US. I bet you when this happened Andrew Jackson was rolling in his grave, and I'm not putting down fractional reserve banking to clarify.
Again, the writing is on the wall, you just have to step back and read it, which seems a difficult task considering how you've butchered what I've said numerous times now.
I understand that and I agree with you, however the channels that are setup between legislators and business people needs to be changed. This is why I'm for the new amendment that Ted Deutch introduced to the House. I think once we take the money out of elections, this whole preferential treatment to huge donors will go away, whether those donors are corporate interests or labor interests.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram