I've enjoyed posting & debating here over the past couple of months. It has been profitable to myself, if to no one else. I've made real progress in my understanding of many things. I thank everyone who has either defended me or opposed me, on whatever occasion & regarding whatever issue.

I have a focus now and I intend to pursue it. My time is limited and I have a lot to do, so I will post here only rarely, if at all, in the foreseeable future. Thanks again to those who engaged with me in discussion of these interesting & important issues. Best wishes to all.

Artful Dodger: when I read what you found about "anybody can post" and "anonymous" any credibility in Greg and his "links"went out the window with the smoke from his smelly pipe

Bernice:WEll, I'm going back to just moderating the board for a while.  I'm not going to go to all the trouble of checking out a story, discovering the source is an anonymous one, and that anyone can post at the originating site, only to be told the story with no evidence is accurate.  Way past reasonable. 

The Usurper:You mean you stand by the questionable accuracy of a report based on your preconceived notions.  And, in spite of the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE, you accept the story as true.   There's goes your credibility with me. 

The Usurper: are you sure that is what you are seeking.....or is it just something more to ram down our throats??

It appears that you arent impressed with AD's "unknown contributor" hahahaha.....AKA as "anonymous"

Im glad someone has the time to try and correct you in your assumptions, most of which are gobbledy gook and written by who? people of no importance at all......Gimme AD's facts anytime.

and fancy ignoring Czuch....bit rude arent you?

Czuch:

ever feel like you are being ignored??


hahah, only when I have a valid point

The Usurper:The point is, you were totally wrong about attributing that quote to Bush.  Take your medicine and stop the dance around. 

(V): "The Conservative party over here has promised (or so their leader has.... that if the Conservatives get into power they will open up and publish all the UK secret UFO info."

If only these parties would actually deliver on their promises. lol Alas, the con game continues.... though hopefully a greater percentage of people are waking up....

GoodTimeCharlie: "I just don't want others trying to cram it down my throat"

Actually, I was responding in good faith to questions you asked, as it turns out, in bad faith. You are welcome to ignore everything I post. I'm not holding you down & forcing your mouth open.

Artful Dodger: "Of course, I'll just stick to the right wing nut's websites. Think I'll find anything there?"

Try Jack Blood, Alex Jones (PrisonPlanet & InfoWars), G. Edward Griffin (FreedomForce), etc. These people are Libertarians. Or try reading some Ron Paul stuff. :o)

But you're right, the Neo-Con websites will have a different view. But while they will improperly defend a Fascist like Bush, they will also properly accuse, say, Rhodesian socialists like Clinton or Obama, which accusations the liberals will reject.

We go 'round in circles...and only the few will escape the Matrix. Most take the blue pill and go back to sleep, annoyed at being stirred from their slumber in the first place.

GoodTimeCharlie:"cram it down my throat"

exactly.  I do have a brain and can think for myself.  I'm not easily fooled and when someone tells me what to think, that is a red flag in my book!

The Usurper:Ok, let's assume he didn't say it, for the sake of argument.

We have to assume he didn't say it, there's no evidence he did. 

The question then is, does Bush in fact despise the Constitution?

Well, you'd have to make a conclusion based upon some evidence and you'd have to make a subjective judgment.

Did his actions while in office provide overwhelming evidence of that?

No.  You will say yes but overwhelming?  Prove it to me. 

Did he undermine the Constitution, oversee the gutting of its Bill of Rights, and otherwise act as if he were not bound by it, in true dictatorial style?

Again, you are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove.  Question begging. 

So whether he said these words in actuality is not very relevant.

You are absolutely 100% wrong here.  It fully matters.  The very issue under question right now is the quote! 

I think he probably did, but then I wasn't there.

Who cares what you think?  That's certainly not proof of anything!  I think he probably didn't!  There.  Now I've balanced out your opinion so we're back to zero. 

What he DID, however, is very relevant.

What he DID is an entirely different question.  I'm ONLY responding to the quote you claim is his.  You have NO PROOF.  No proof but yet you still believe an anonymous source.  You just went down a few notches on my respect meter.    Now I know that you'll believe something is true even if there is no evidence for it.

I expect now you'll want a list of things he did to undermine the Constitution, with links to supporting evidence, etc.

Of course.  And since you're the one making the claim, it's on you.

But really, so much information is out there, the evidence is so complete, that if you don't recognize it already, nothing I could post could change your mind.

Well, all I have to do is go to some left wing loon's website and I can find all the "evidence" I need.  Of course, I'll just stick to the right wing nut's websites.  Think I'll find anything there?

and I never said I was "enlightened", I just don't want others trying to cram it down my throat

The Usurper: Now,now, let's not be petty

Artful Dodger: You guys are having a field day with this one. lol

Ok, let's assume he didn't say it, for the sake of argument. But you said this:

"My criticism must be true or based on truth."

True. The question then is, does Bush in fact despise the Constitution? Did his actions while in office provide overwhelming evidence of that? Did he undermine the Constitution, oversee the gutting of its Bill of Rights, and otherwise act as if he were not bound by it, in true dictatorial style?

Yes, he did. So whether he said these words in actuality is not very relevant. I think he probably did, but then I wasn't there. And they are only words, after all. What he DID, however, is very relevant.

I expect now you'll want a list of things he did to undermine the Constitution, with links to supporting evidence, etc.

But really, so much information is out there, the evidence is so complete, that if you don't recognize it already, nothing I could post could change your mind.

Like Charlie the good time guy, or whatever he calls himself now, he already is enlightened. Why trouble him further? :o)

Czuch:  Exactly.  It's like saying, "The only facts I have are in this fake document." 

The Usurper: The only facts I have is the report itself.


like the 9/11 report?????

The Usurper:   The original article with the quote you cite appeared in the DC Indymedia.   It was submitted by "anonymous."   That's a great source now isn't it?  BTW, anyone can post an article on the site.  Since that is the case, there is no way to check the source.  Where did this anonymous get this info?  The author claims that he talked to three sources that overheard the comment.  Sure.  Who were they?  We can never know.  Doug Thompson just reported it, he's not a witness to what, if anything, was said.

And what about Doug Thompson?  It's his site that carried this questionable quote.  Here are some titles to a few of his other articles:  # Bush's betrayal   # Burn in hell, Mr. President   Americans no longer buy Bush's lies

--many more of the same kind can be found there

Many other sites carried the piece you posted and but this comment sums up the original source nicely: 

12/17/2005 - 14:11:37PM  
BY: Ray
Capitol Hill Blue seems to have a recurring problem with anonymous sources.

I mean, conned for 20 years by the same guy? Doug Thompson should have retired in shame. Obviously he is a gullible mark, and if he doesn't name his "sources" I won't believe a word he says.

Thompson originally retracted the article but then decided to repost it.  He retracted it because it lacked a verifiable source.  One has to wonder why he then decided to repost it and claim that he now "stands by the story."  Maybe his obvious hate for Bush had something to do with that decision.

On one website, this message preceeded the article: 

"Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate."

  no kidding.  Mr Anonomous is a hard man to track down.  Getting a statement from him seems impossible.

In the end Greg, you'll have to find a more credible story because this one fails the test of truth.  And if you insist that it's true, that will reflect heavily upon you in my view.  Are you going to be one of those that embraces a story simply because you want it to be true (because it fits into your worldview scenario)? 

If this story is untrue (and it most likely is a fabrication) then you have fallen for the very thing for which you warn others.  Time to rethink this one. 

(V): can you know see the difference between real socialism and a fake socialism,

So what you have in the UK, that is the fake socialism?

The local community would be in more charge as they being the local people would be able to better work out their needs

That doesnt sound like any UK socialism, or really socialism anywhere in the world right now.

The Usurper:And can you show me a report where Bush is interviewed where he was asked about the incident where he didn't deny it.?? ;)

The Usurper:  I agree with GoodTimeCharlie on the name change.  Just because you can google it and get a thousand hits doesn't make it true.  And just because it appears on the nightly news doesn't make it false. 

Put stones in people's shoes and let them decide for themselves.  You are convinced that your worldview is true.  And it may be.  But it's also possible that you have been fooled.  I view most things with at least a slice of skepticism.  I want to remain open to the possibility that my view is wrong.  None of us are infallible. 

The Usurper:"The only facts I have is the report itself."

Then the question becomes, how reliable is this report?  Who wrote it?  What is this person's history?  Does he/she have an axe to grind against Bush or the Republicans?  Who are the sources? 

You write about his incident as if it were true.  And when asked for proof, assume to be true the very thing you are trying to prove!  That is question begging pure and simple.

No.  It's not enough evidence for such a serious charge.  And to build a case with such questionable evidence puts everything else you say in a questionable light.

I am very disappointed in Bush.  I think he failed in many ways as President.  But if he is to be criticized, it can't be because I may dislike him or distrust him.  My criticism must be true or based on truth.  Not a "gut" feeling which could be attributed to bad pepperoni.  Honest, hard, verifiable facts.  Nothing less than that will do.  Hearsay is not evidence.  It's more often closer to a lie than it is the truth.

GoodTimeCharlie: "I was being facetious, thanks anyways, I wasn't even close to being serious about those questions
I certainly don't need people trying to pump ideas or "enlighten me" , even though you may think so.
A.D., maybe renaming this The propaganda or special agenda board would be a better fit"

That's a good point. Maybe you better stick to the nightly news, where you are more likely to receive fair & balanced coverage. It's the enlightened thing to do. Or maybe you have an even better source? God forbid you be propagandized. But it's good to know there is not much risk of that happening with you.....you are so above that. lol

GoodTimeCharlie: "Maybe I am one of "their" agents and have been assigned here to counter you and the usurper"

You're doing remarkably well. You deserve a promotion. :o)

Artful Dodger: "I've seen nothing to indicate that this is true. Got any hard facts?"

The only facts I have is the report itself. I have no reason to doubt its verity, just as I have no reason to doubt the verity of the report issued by the ACLU about 21 homicides via torture in our American gulags. As you say (on the quote about the Constitution) Bush hasn't denied it. Of course he may just be 'above' such things. lol Could I swear on my life it is true? No. I couldn't swear on my life that there is a continent named Africa, either...as I haven't actually set foot on it. And who knows...even if I DID set foot on it, maybe somebody tricked me, and the world map is falsely drawn. Let's look carefully at the source, and see if it is pro-Republican or pro-Democrat.

I googled "bush it's a goddamned piece of paper" and here are the results:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+it%27s+a+goddamned+piece+of+paper&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=


By the way, when I say Bush is indefensible, I don't mean he doesn't have a right to a defense, contrary to your insinuation. I just mean that, in my opinion, his defense won't stand up. Please remember I'm the one who thinks people deserve fair trials...whereas you're the one who thinks prisoners should be murdered upon capture to avoid the annoyance & expense of having to house & feed them, etc.

Mousetrap: well they did treble their aid to them over the next 5 years, so as usual they think it gives them the "right" to interfear.

America interfearing with Parkisan. When will they ever learn

Artful Dodger: I accept your apology,it takes a big man to admit he's wrong

Czuch: No. It isn't.

And Czuch... a real working model of socialism as worked out in the USSR by those who could... but rejected by the 'bosses' would lead to less government and less power for the government. The local community would be in more charge as they being the local people would be able to better work out their needs.

... But, alas. The consequences for the soviet bosses is that most would not be needed, so the idea was thrown away.

No, can you know see the difference between real socialism and a fake socialism, and basing your views on a false socialist model then is like feeding false data to a computer and asking it to work out an accurate answer based on that false data.. It don't work.

GoodTimeCharlie:  There does seem to be a lot of propaganda being thrown around lol

(V): You perhaps I suggest strongly, have got what Big Brother means confused.


Any control a government has on you is a form of big brother.... if it is giving you health care or welfare or any other, is all a form of big brother.....

also, I dont interpret "for the people" to mean that it is a government that does everything for the people, but simply it is there at the pleasure of the people to mean it is not there for its own benefit, and to me, that also means it should be as small in unobtrusive as possible, and that is the exact opposite of the socialist model that you support.

GoodTimeCharlie: Yep. Problem with good intentions.. one factor... man and his perception, or lack of it.

(V): as they bought and sold slaves and plotted to take Indian land,Mexican land and Spanish colonies

Czuch: You perhaps I suggest strongly, have got what Big Brother means confused. Your Homeland security is Big Brother, some of our new laws on terror are 'Big brother', not socialism.. as pure socialism (not the fake USSR crap) ... is to benefit the people. Not just the few at the top like in the old Russia. Stalin basically saw to that.

And IMHO.... wasn't your revolution against the British Empire and your constitution socialist?? ...... "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. "

And Lincoln goes onto say... " that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

GoodTimeCharlie: oooOOooo A secret agent!! I better implement the dead man protocol on all the 'evidence' I have hidden on the web.

(V): And are you saying you'd be happy with a Big Brother society?

Apparently you are...

What do you think socialism is anyway? You are so proud of your government health care and your government schools and your government everything, but you claim disdain for a big brother society????

(V): Maybe I am one of "their" agents and have been assigned here to counter you and the usurper

The Usurper: The Conservative party over here has promised (or so their leader has.... that if the Conservatives get into power they will open up and publish all the UK secret UFO info.

GoodTimeCharlie: I can't enlighten you Charles.. it don't work that way.

And yes.. I think we do need a board for propaganda... I think you'll be amazed at how much we are pumped at with every day.

And are you saying you'd be happy with a Big Brother society?

this sheds a little light on aig and the fleecing the American people are getting by corporate government

March 25, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Dear A.I.G., I Quit!

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis


Sort of skipped by the press and Barney Frank.....

(V): I was being facetious, thanks anyways, I wasn't even close to being serious about those questions
I certainly don't need people trying to pump ideas or "enlighten me" , even though you may think so.
A.D., maybe renaming this The propaganda or special agenda board would be a better fit

(V): This is something you really ought to see. It is 2 hours at the National Press Club Conference in Washington. It is about UFOs and ETs. I downloaded & watched. No frills, just heavy duty testimony.

http://www.netro.ca/disclosure/npccmenu.htm

The Usurper: Scary.... but it explains your lobbying system.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml


-----------------------------
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the [U.S.A. Patriot Act] could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a godd**n," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a godd**ned piece of paper!"
-----------------------------------

No need to defend Bush here. He is indefensible, just as are many Democratic presidents who likewise manifested disdain for the Constitution they took an oath to uphold & defend.

"There are two kinds of capitalism: Competitive capitalism and monopoly capitalism. The first is good for everyone. The second is good for only the monopolists. Incidentally, monopoly capitalism is the foundation of collectivism. All monopoly capitalists forge partnerships with government as the way in which they maintain their monopolies. They love socialism, communism, neo-conservatism, and all other variants of collectivism, as you no doubt have observed from present-day elitists, all of whom are collectivists."
--G. Edward Griffin

This is posted as a defense of competitive capitalism as well as an argument against monopoly capitalism.