Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers--
that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
depend on the government liking what they publish?

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...rica?page=full

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:14:35 -0700 (PDT), N¯ ¯baMa¯
puked:

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers--
that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
depend on the government liking what they publish?

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...rica?page=full

Yeah, I pretty much saw all of this **** coming. That's why I held my
nose and voted for McCain. It's gonna get worse before it gets
better...
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

"lab~rat :-)" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:14:35 -0700 (PDT), N¯ ¯baMa¯
puked:

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers--
that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
depend on the government liking what they publish?

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...rica?page=full

Yeah, I pretty much saw all of this **** coming. That's why I held my
nose and voted for McCain. It's gonna get worse before it gets
better...
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

Should've moved to Haiti.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:14:35 -0700, N∅ ∅baMa∅ wrote:

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government
official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply
one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily
cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90
percent?


I hope my insurance agent get's to turn down your chemo treatment to
fund the CEO's balloon payment!

Or, Perhaps you did't keep your retirement money in a bank and it's all
under your bed, safe and sound? Hell, I don't think you would be stupid
enough to invest it and come here to complain about your losses that went
to the CEOs of the banks?

Aaa You brought a bunch of gold at the market high? Next you will be
bitching about that!

Damn! You must be ****ing stupid? BTW, Who post for you?

Remember, Ru$$h limpballs is entertainment, not the GOP leader! His
stated goal is to destroying America through stupid dip****s like you

N∅ ∅baMa∅ wrote:
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
percent or 90 percent?

I thought the "pay cuts" only applied to execs of companies that took
the governments bailout money in order to survive. If that is the case,
then the companies would have gone under without the bailout so it's
only fair the government impose some conditions as to how the companies
operate. Especially so when, in the publics mind, the exec pay is
excessive with respect to company profitability.

Krypsis

snip

On Oct 27, 1:14Â*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅ wrote:
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers--
that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
depend on the government liking what they publish?

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...dismantling_am...

The majority stock holders wanted the executive pay cut. When it's
put that way any good free market person would think that cutting pay
is the way to go. Now throw in that the majority stock holder is the
evil government and the repugs think that pay should go up.

That is how moronic the repugs are. We, the people of America, are
the majority share holders in a bunch of financial companies. If we
want pay cut, pay should be cut.

No further need for discussion.

On Oct 27, 2:33Â*pm, Kevin Cunningham wrote:
On Oct 27, 1:14Â*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅ wrote:

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers--
that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
depend on the government liking what they publish?

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...dismantling_am...

- The majority stock holders wanted the executive pay cut.

At which meeting and what was the 'vote'

-Â*When it's put that way any good free market person
- would think that cutting pay is the way to go.

"put that way" is a Lie not a Fact

-Â*Now throw in that the majority stock holder is the
- evil government

The US Government Did Not Take 'Stock' in these
Companies. - that's another Lie

and the repugs think that pay should go up.

NO but a Legal Mechanism "US Law" Passed by
the US Congress and Signed by the US Prez
should be the Means of Action NOT THE WHIM
OF SOME OBAMA-CZAR©.

"unelected government official, not even a
Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
but simply one of the many "czars" appointed
by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay
of executives in private businesses"

That is how moronic the repugs are.

-Â*We, the people of America, are the majority
- share holders in a bunch of financial companies.

No "We, the people of America" did not take
a Share Holder right in these Companies; all
we did was make them a Loan.

- If we want pay cut, pay should be cut.

"we" OK When Did 'WE' Vote To Do So ?
-ps- Never Happen and that's another Lie.

- No further need for discussion.

Right Because you make-up Facts and Lie.

"unelected government official, not even a
Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
but simply one of the many "czars" appointed
by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay
of executives in private businesses"

Once Again a Legal Mechanism "US Law"
Passed by the US Congress and Signed by
the US Prez should be the Means of Action :
NOT THE WHIM OF SOME OBAMA-CZAR©.

On Oct 27, 6:15Â*pm, RHF wrote:
On Oct 27, 2:33Â*pm, Kevin Cunningham wrote:

On Oct 27, 1:14Â*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅ wrote:

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers--
that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
depend on the government liking what they publish?

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...dismantling_am....

- The majority stock holders wanted the executive pay cut.

At which meeting and what was the 'vote'

-Â*When it's put that way any good free market person
- would think that cutting pay is the way to go.

"put that way" is a Lie not a Fact

-Â*Now throw in that the majority stock holder is the
- evil government

The US Government Did Not Take 'Stock' in these
Companies. Â*- that's another Lie

and the repugs think that pay should go up.

NO but a Legal Mechanism "US Law" Passed by
the US Congress and Signed by the US Prez
should be the Means of Action NOT THE WHIM
OF SOME OBAMA-CZAR©.

"unelected government official, not even a
Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
but simply one of the many "czars" appointed
by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay
of executives in private businesses"

That is how moronic the repugs are.

-Â*We, the people of America, are the majority
- share holders in a bunch of financial companies.

No "We, the people of America" did not take
a Share Holder right in these Companies; all
we did was make them a Loan.

- If we want pay cut, pay should be cut.

"we" OK When Did 'WE' Vote To Do So ?
-ps- Never Happen and that's another Lie.

- No further need for discussion.

Right Because you make-up Facts and Lie.

"unelected government official, not even a
Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
but simply one of the many "czars" appointed
by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay
of executives in private businesses"

Once Again a Legal Mechanism "US Law"
Passed by the US Congress and Signed by
the US Prez should be the Means of Action :
NOT THE WHIM OF SOME OBAMA-CZAR©.
Â*.
Obama-Czars© = NO Checks-and-Balances
that's Un-Accountable {Bad} Government ~ RHF
Â*.

We own financial companies, we as Americans. We own a the majority
stake in banks and Wall Street financial groups. We own Fanny and
Freddie. We own AIG, a nationalized company. That's own, moron, they
were nationalized.

From what drivel came from your mouth I doubt that you have ever
gotten a loan. Do you know that when you have a line of credit, a
type of loan, the holder of the line can just walk in and take a look
around! Wow, never heard of that did you? Even the companies we
loaned money to had to agree to certain things like what payments they
would make and business they would and wouldn't conduct.

The biggest loan you ever got came from the Bank of the Back Pocket.

On Oct 27, 10:14Â*am, N∅ ∅baMa∅ wrote:
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers--
that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
depend on the government liking what they publish?

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...dismantling_am...

Think how proud Chairman Mao would be...

Hell, Chavez and Castro are already on the record praising Obama's
Authoritarian moves.

pyjamarama wrote:


Think how proud Chairman Mao would be...

Hell, Chavez and Castro are already on the record praising Obama's
Authoritarian moves.

You bow to the Saudis, but shun Chavez, who is much less evil.