10,000+? For how long?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Charles

I'm not sure as to what this GITMO thing really is. Just how long does it take to have a trial?

Perhaps GITMO and things like it are simply the ruse, keep everyone's attention focused on the left hand, so that they don't notice what the right hand is, or isn't doing.

Chas

Bingo, Chas!

Just like this stupid "Terrorists on American Soil" hysteria. So long as they're kept inside the penitentiary----who in their right mind gives a shit? It's just another scare tactic.
"OOOooooo! You're not letting terrorists molest my kids, Obama!!!" Please.

Now, the civil trial thing does complicate things. And I agree it is bullshit. (IMO, they should have been shot on the battlefield.) But what most people don't understand or aren't being told is that the millitary tribunal was already attempted and shot down-----by the millitary JAG Corp itself, during the Bush Administration. But, to whom is all blame being assigned for this as well?

Don't get me wrong, Obama has made some decisions that have me scratching my head. But, I'm just being objective. He is not entirely to blame for all of this mess.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

We're getting way off topic, again.

Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

And if anyone were stupid enough to run on a “we need to pay the bills” ticket, I’d not count their chances of getting elected as very high.

In fact there was a proposition on the recent ballots in the states of Maine and Washington along the lines of California's Prop 13. It was rejected by the voters because they figured it would lead to failing infrastructure.

There may be hope after all. Now if Congress has the cojones to let the Bush tax cut die a quiet death . . .

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by merrylander

There may be hope after all. Now if Congress has the cojones to let the Bush tax cut die a quiet death . . .

If this happens I'll be convinced there is some hope. Not holding my breath. The Republicans go on and on when it's some spending they don't want. "We can't afford it? Where will the money come from?" Watch the hypocrites when this comes up. "How could you raise taxes?!"

[BlueStreak]

Well when you've respond to an inability to pay your bills by accepting lower pay, you just let all of your loans default and file bankrupcy, right? Then quit buying the tools you need to do your job to save money. Then when you get fired for not being able to do your job, (Due to the lack of tools.), you blame all of the people who were "stupid enough" to loan you all of this money in the first place, and say, "Well, I guess I'll just go live in the woods the way a truly rugged individual would. 'Cuz this modern economics thing is just a big BS dependency scheme. Real men live off of the land, anyhow! Hoorah!!!!!!!"

Isn't that how it works?

Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

If this happens I'll be convinced there is some hope. Not holding my breath. The Republicans go on and on when it's some spending they don't want. "We can't afford it? Where will the money come from?" Watch the hypocrites when this comes up. "How could you raise taxes?!"

I think the Republicans are suffering from PMS.


PMS = Pi** and Moan Syndrome.

[Fast_Eddie]

Wow Dave, I think that might be pretty much it. When you move to the woods, don't forget to take your Plasma TV (from Wal-Mart and made in China). Otherwise you won't be able to watch The Howard Beale Hour on Fox News.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I probably shouldn't have mentioned GITMO in this context. My point is that the DOJ has criminal and civil jurisdiction to pursue price-fixing and other monopolistic behavior, and for years, corporations have been getting a wink and a nod instead of enforcement.

Regards,

D-Ray

I got your point the first time, I suppose my response wasn't very plain.

It was a round about way of saying that the DOJ doesn't want to go after the corporations. No one in Washington has the will to go after their sugar daddies.

Chas

[merrylander]

Will? It is the first time I have heard them called that.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

I got your point the first time, I suppose my response wasn't very plain.

It was a round about way of saying that the DOJ doesn't want to go after the corporations. No one in Washington has the will to go after their sugar daddies.

Chas

I'm thinking class action then. The only problem is that most of the experienced anti-trust lawyers are business lawyers. Private anti-trust litigation is most often business against business, with both sides wanting more control of the market. In this case the greatest harm is to the consumers. I would love to see the fat cats pay.

Regards,

D-Ray