don't hear much about in the discussions of guns: race. - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: don't hear much about in the discussions of guns: race.

  1. Quote Originally Posted by influencer View Post
    Not sure what why you became a liberal has to do with race and gun violence, unless your suggesting these CEOs have pushed more black and Hispanic people to violence.

    I agree, some of these people do crooked business and make a fortune off of it. But so did the Rockefellers, Carnegie, Vanderbilt. But I don't see anyone itching to remove their money.

    I think they should pay their share of taxes, but government oversight into their paychecks is not the answer, which I assume is what your suggesting.

    If shareholders don't like it, sell the stock and flood the market, the company won't last long.

    My point is, if what they are doing is not illegal, may not be moral, then let it be.

    Congress sets their pay, no ones raising hell about that. And these are guys who do no work, as seen by recent events.

    No one should be able to set their own pay. But the government shouldn't dip into my paycheck, no matter how little or how much I make, to help someone unwilling to help themselves.

    We are a country that rebelled against a 3% tea tax, yet we tax everything now.
    LOL I got there because someone implied that all democrats/liberals are against guns.
    We don't all have to be one size fits all.I spend a lot of time posting self defense uses against anti gun people.

    Most shareholders don't have a clue whats going on.
    Many are in a work pension or investment plan and in many cases a fund manager votes their shares.
    In many cases this fund manager is on the board getting 200,000 per meeting and using a company jet.
    What is he going to vote for? Higher pay

    Personally I see the fraud in welfare but I also see the fraud above. If you sit waving a mitt flag thinking he is the virgin mary and I do the same with obama where are we going? I see they are all crooks.

    The below is by Gerry Spence The best lawyer in the world

    The arrogant embezzlers of Wall Street

    Posted on April 5, 2009 | 49 Comments




    Many corporate executives openly and arrogantly steal from the public companies they work for. Since the company belongs to the stockholders, they steal from the stockholders. They betray the stockholders’ trust. Take a look at this chief executive compensation data, please.

    Paying themselves such wildly unearned bonuses constitutes simple embezzlement. Of course, the board of directors must approve these bonuses, most of which have increased during this spiraling downturn (let us call it what it is, this depression.) But the directors are part of this conspiracy.

    An engaging question: Is such conduct criminal?



    Let me make the argument with a simple analogy: John Manager runs a local grocery story for its owners, the many heirs of Henry Owner, deceased. All of the money earned from the business belongs to the estate, and none, of course, belongs to John or the trustees.

    A fair and reasonable wage for John, according to his skill and experience is $100. But John has a special relationship with the trustees. First, they were selected by John. Next, they have a tacit understanding: John gets $1000 for his work instead of $100. But the trustees John selected get benefits that include tickets to the Superbowl, recommendations to join John’s clubs, his political support when one of the trustees wants to get on the city council, trips with John to Hawaii during the deadly winter, and John buys groceries from the trustees who are his wholesalers. John is also on the board of the wholesalers who happen to overpay themselves. The heirs are so many and so scattered that they take what they get and are happy to get any benefit at all.

    John has, in fact, stolen $900 from the heirs since the reasonable value of his service is $100 while he has paid himself, with the trustees’ consent, $1000. Nifty little scheme. Remember, the monies have been paid by the trustees with the full knowledge of the above facts. The conspiracy is to aid John in stealing $900 from the estate. A dedicated prosecutor could make a criminal case stand up against both John and the trustees.

    But no one will prosecute because John and the trustees and the prosecutor and the prosecutor’s political bosses and all of their mutual friends are members of the same country club, all give to the local symphony and all go to the same church and pray together every Sunday and, of course, buy a gross of Girl Scout Cookies.

    If Billy Joe, half doped up and in need of another fix, comes stumbling into the store and, at gun point, robs it of $20 he will be immediately prosecuted and sent to the pen for twenty years. He is a danger to society, is he not?

    I rest my case.

    If a corporate executive will steal from the corporation it runs will it not also steal from the American public that constitutes its customers and clients? And can we really trust its products or services? Corporate America | Gerry Spence's Blog

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    If these people are braking the law they should be prosecuted. If they aren't what kind of message are we sending. Same with any law on the books. If we aren't going to enforce the law and prosecute the offenders what good are the laws in the first place?
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  4. Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    If these people are braking the law they should be prosecuted. If they aren't what kind of message are we sending. Same with any law on the books. If we aren't going to enforce the law and prosecute the offenders what good are the laws in the first place?
    If you didn't see it Jim Rogers is a true capitalist who returned 4200% to his investors in 10 years. 420% a year!! "Rogers co-founded the Quantum Fund. During the following 10 years, the portfolio gained 4200% while the S&P advanced about 47%"

    I think Jim Rogers said it best. In true capitalism if you fail you go home with no marbles yet when our Wall Street Bankers FAILED we bailed them out (and maybe that's OK)... but then we left them in charge. The people who failed.

    "What we're doing now is we're taking the assets away from the competent people and giving them to incompetent people and telling them 'now you can compete with competent people with their money,'" Rogers said.


    The Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department should have let 10 banks fail, not just Lehman Brothers, for the financial system to clean itself up, legendary investor Jim Rogers told CNBC Monday.

    The piles of cash thrown at the markets have not solved the fundamental problem of debt, which would have been solved only by letting institutions go bankrupt, while regulators should be in jail for allowing "crony capitalism" in America, Rogers said.

    When Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, "I thought thank goodness they're finally letting somebody collapse," he told "Worldwide Exchange," adding that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson should have let "10 (banks) go bankrupt."

    When people fail, new bankers rise and take over. In my lifetime on Wall Street 20-30 banks failed," he added.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie Albert View Post
    If you didn't see it Jim Rogers is a true capitalist who returned 4200% to his investors in 10 years. 420% a year!! "Rogers co-founded the Quantum Fund. During the following 10 years, the portfolio gained 4200% while the S&P advanced about 47%"

    I think Jim Rogers said it best. In true capitalism if you fail you go home with no marbles yet when our Wall Street Bankers FAILED we bailed them out (and maybe that's OK)... but then we left them in charge. The people who failed.

    "What we're doing now is we're taking the assets away from the competent people and giving them to incompetent people and telling them 'now you can compete with competent people with their money,'" Rogers said.


    The Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department should have let 10 banks fail, not just Lehman Brothers, for the financial system to clean itself up, legendary investor Jim Rogers told CNBC Monday.

    The piles of cash thrown at the markets have not solved the fundamental problem of debt, which would have been solved only by letting institutions go bankrupt, while regulators should be in jail for allowing "crony capitalism" in America, Rogers said.

    When Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, "I thought thank goodness they're finally letting somebody collapse," he told "Worldwide Exchange," adding that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson should have let "10 (banks) go bankrupt."

    When people fail, new bankers rise and take over. In my lifetime on Wall Street 20-30 banks failed," he added.
    I saw it, good for him. If he is braking no laws it doesn't matter how much he makes. If you have a problem with him making that kind of money maybe you should contact him for some advice. If he is a true conservative he will help you out. Unlike a liberal that would be pissed that you asked while he's counting all his money.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  6. Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    I saw it, good for him. If he is braking no laws it doesn't matter how much he makes. If you have a problem with him making that kind of money maybe you should contact him for some advice. If he is a true conservative he will help you out. Unlike a liberal that would be pissed that you asked while he's counting all his money.
    I think his quotes went right over your head

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    No they didn't go over my head. They made a lot of money. If it was done legal and they payed the taxes that they owed, so what. I agree the government should not have jumped in and saved any banks. They make bad investments and/or hire incompetent people, let them fail. Maybe I misunderstood your point. I took it you were pissed because people in the private sector made a lot of money they didn't deserve. Happens in government all the time. Do we fire those people. No we re-elect them or promote them.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  8. I agree, banks should not have been bailed out. Banks should not be treated any differently than a small business owner in that regard. If your business fails, it fails. No influx of cash to bandaid the problem.

    And I agree, not all liberals are anti-gun. Just happens most anti-gun are liberals.

    And I don't think Mitt Romney is the virgin mary, I doubt he's a virgin and doesn't look much like a Mary. But when it comes to a country with huge debt problems, essentially hiring someone who has made it their business to make money, vs someone who's best qualification is he can write a book, the answer should have been simple.

    I hate what CEO's do, and I think it is corrupt and horrible. In your scenario that you quoted, it says a dedicated prosecutor could make a case stand up against John and the trustees but wouldn't because they are all friends(basically). So the issue isn't that John is corrupt, but that the entire system is corrupt, including the governmental aspect of the system. So why would I want the government having more control over me and my money?

    I'm not defending the CEO's, and as crappy as it is if there are no clear laws broken, I won't condemn them. They are innocent until proven guilty.

    As far as John Manager stealing $900 from the estate(heirs) with the help of the trustees, if the estate gives control of finances to the trustees and allows them the power to set wages...then no laws were broken. The heirs, ultimately, have control. Same for stock and shareholders. If all of the shareholders sold their stock, it would ruin the company. Just because most of the shareholders don't know what is going on doesn't matter. If they don't know its because they aren't interested in knowing, and at that point, it serves them right. That is the main problem with the country IMO, people don't want to know whats going on and aren't involved, even when it comes to their own finances.

  9. There are plenty of people like Spence who think it is criminal. I was watching in 98 right before the NASDAQ crash of 99 when they pulled every trick you can do. The little guys are still under water today. Every stock was a "strong buy" so Wall Street could sell bond deals.

    Buffett wrote about it in his 98 letter to shareholders: CEOs you would be happy to have as spouses for your children or as trustees under your will — have come to the view that it’s okay to manipulate earnings to satisfy what they believe are Wall Street’s desires...and of course the stock goes higher so they get more when they sell their options...You don't know the numbers are fudged so you stay in the stock while they sell.

    A distressing
    number of both CEOs and auditors have in recent years bitterly fought FASB’s attempts to replace option fiction
    with truth and virtually none have spoken out in support of FASB. Its opponents even enlisted Congress in the
    fight, pushing the case that inflated figures were in the national interest.

    As Spence said:But no one will prosecute because John and the trustees and the prosecutor and the prosecutor’s political bosses and all of their mutual friends are members of the same country club, all give to the local symphony and all go to the same church and pray together every Sunday and, of course, buy a gross of Girl Scout Cookies.

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Louisville Ky.
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    If you are going to bring race in, you will have to break many PC rules. We can't address the black and Hispanic gun violence without filling jails. That would mean we have more black and Hispanic people in jail than whites. The PC crowd will never accept this. To address the family unit issue you have to add values, again PC rules would be violated. Clinton's "It takes a village" would be effected and that cuts out government as the solution. Never fly. You would have to stress personal responsibility, liberals will not be for that at all. It must always be someone else's fault.
    Can't say it much better than this.

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenville SC
    Posts
    1,086
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    The article read that there is overwhelming support for gun control among blacks and Hispanics. Yet, did this statistic inform them that the vast majority of these murders took place with an illegal firearm? Did the statistic inform them that no amount of legislation to make it harder to purchase a firearm would have prevented most of these murders?

    Obama mentions that 443 murders happened in Chicago... Was he aware that it is illegal to carry in that town? How did these murders happen?
    He's well aware of that fact. Obama doesn't want gun control. He wants guns gone, period because he knows that's the only thing that would be effective. And he's willing to attain that goal piece by piece over the course of years.

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast