The confidence in the global economy HAS shrunk....and BOTH parties in America have sold out....the 'fat cats' are still trying to hold on to their
virtual value and then their leaders(both democrat and republican) are calling on the rich to pay more of their 'fair share'(we still dont know
that line or use that scale properly) so that the poor slobs of the middle and lower classes can purchases more SH!T from dollar stores/walmart and
multiple other ghetto-marts, taco bell etc etc.....yeah, I get it and I like it,,,capitalism....but what I dont like is the yap yap yap of those in
their 'rich seats'(again BOTH dems/reps) with their patronizing rhetoric/feel good/elect me sh!t......so this guy might be on to something, but the
fact is that it's BOTH parties and it's an ideology and 'spirit' that has been feed too much over the past 50 or so years, so much so that it
has brought us to the brink of tantruming---it's mine, I'm entitled, they need to do something etc etc......

the debt ceiling is a RED HERRING.....the actual argument is over VALUE and where it is and what it is....because without value in a trading
system there are no taxes, no roads, no pensions, no SS, etc etc......the problem lies in the future valuation of something we cant see or
comprehend.....and those 'fat cats' are at a loss as to their worth(not my problem).....

but, the bright side is that BARTER/TRADE WILL ALWAYS HAPPEN....always has and always will.....those who want the controls of the machine
are in a tizzy as to the means of the value and with the new media are having issues grasping that and controling it.....

Hmmmm....Why the heck did Chuck Hagel not like the way the debt ceiling debate went?  Let's see what we can find out about Chucky.

Quoted Text

Chuck Hagel is Chairman of the Atlantic Council.

Chuck Hagel is a Distinguished Professor at Georgetown University and the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He serves on the Boards of Directors of Chevron Corporation and Zurich’s Holding Company of America; the Advisory Boards of Gallup, Deutsche Bank America and Corsair Capital. He also serves as Co-Chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, a member of the Secretary of Defense’s Policy Board, and Secretary of Energy’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. He is Co-Chair of the President’s China 100,000 Strong Initiative’s Advisory Committee, Co-Chair of the Bretton Woods Committee and is a member of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) board of directors.

Quoted Text

Zurich Financial Services
In May 2007, Zurich Capital Markets, a subsidiary of Zurich Financial Services, paid $16.8 million to settle with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission for helping four hedge funds disguise their identities to avoid detection when making frequent trades in mutual fund shares. An SEC director stated, “By knowingly financing their hedge funds clients' deceptive market timing, ZCM reaped substantial fees at the expense of long-term mutual-fund shareholders"

Quoted Text

Deutsche Bank America
Deutsche Bank is deeply involved in the American real estate crisis. After initially profiting from subprime mortgages, it is now arranging to have many of these homes sold at foreclosure auctions. The damage to the bank's image in the United States is growing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/deutsche-bank-americas-fo_n_607427.html

Quoted Text

Corsair Capital
Hedge Fund Corsair Capital Highlights Live Nation, Expedia
Today we present the latest investor letter from Jay Petschek and Steven Major's hedge fund Corsair Capital. For the second quarter, Corsair was down -6.3% and that leaves the hedge fund flat on the year. So, why should you care what Corsair has to say? Well, because it has returned an impressive 14.9% annualized since inception in 1991.

Quoted Text

Co-Chair Bretton Woods Committee

The multilateral institutions need and welcome outside advice and guidance and they count on the Committee's International Council for help.

- Paul Wolfowitz, President of the World Bank, 2005 International Council luncheon

The Bretton Woods Committee’s International Council brings together top financial sector and government leaders to provide advice, support, and constructive criticism to the management of the multilateral financial institutions. The Council was created in 2000 on the premise that development, international financial stability, and trade liberalization are enhanced by a close working partnership between the private sector and multilateral institutions.

Objectives

The International Council seeks to:

Promote members’ shared belief that international economic cooperation is essential and best served through strong and effective multilateral institutions;
Provide advice, support, and constructive criticism to the management of the multilateral financial institutions;
Enhance a close working partnership between the private sector and multilateral institutions; and
Convey ideas and concerns on the future direction of the multilateral institutions to their leadership and host governments

Sooooo...Chuck Hagel sits on the boards of hedge fund investors, investment banks, multi-national corporations, and he's the co-chair of the Bretton Woods Committee, a pure Keynesian organization.  The guy is a**hole deep in global banking, and I should be surprised he was upset that fiscal conservatives wanted to stop America from going trillions of more dollars into debt to global banks.  What a surprise.

What I find incredibly funny and a bit ironic is the fact that the self proclaimed liberal democrat box-a-rox is using the words of an ex republican senator, that has a life long history of being part of the Wall St. establishment(or 'fat cats) to attack the Tea Party conservatism that is sweeping the nation.  

Hagel is one of those rich Republicans that Democrats would demagogue.  You know what they say, in politics, sometimes you make strange bedfellows.  With establishment Republicans and Democrats now teaming up to take on Tea Party conservatism, it is now more apparent than ever that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the current 2 party establishment and it is all hands on deck for the Washington establishment...Ron Paul conservatism must be stopped.  

I can guarantee that if George W. Bush makes a public statement attacking this new Tea Party grassroots movement...Box and the rest of the big government types will use it as fodder in the pubic debate to support big government.

Quoted from CICERO

What I find incredibly funny and a bit ironic is the fact that the self proclaimed liberal democrat box-a-rox

self proclaimed liberal democrat box-a-rox???

On many issues I agree with Liberals (some not), I'm a registered Democrat (although I have occasionally voted for independents and Republicans)...

Funny how the Paulies on this board will bristle if Ron Paul is labeled a "Republican" (which he is) but they have no problem labeling others who they know very little about.

(Please don't try to push the notion that Paul is a "libertarian"... the more I learn about Paul, the more he fits the typical Republican Mold.)

Quoted from Box A Rox

self proclaimed liberal democrat box-a-rox???

On many issues I agree with Liberals (some not), I'm a registered Democrat (although I have occasionally voted for independents and Republicans)...

Funny how the Paulies on this board will bristle if Ron Paul is labeled a "Republican" (which he is) but they have no problem labeling others who they know very little about.

(Please don't try to push the notion that Paul is a "libertarian"... the more I learn about Paul, the more he fits the typical Republican Mold.)

Know little about???  The opinions you expressed on this board since you have been a member would solidly put you left of center on both fiscal and social issues.

I have learned something new about you since your Hagel post. It seems you are shifting to the right, and finding common ground with the hedge fund, Wall Street 'fat cat' rich bankers that Chuck Hagel's has deep political ties to.  Fascinating...

Quoted from CICERO

Know little about???  The opinions you expressed on this board since you have been a member would solidly put you left of center on both fiscal and social issues.

I have learned something new about you since your Hagel post. It seems you are shifting to the right, and finding common ground with the hedge fund, Wall Street 'fat cat' rich bankers that Chuck Hagel's has deep political ties to.  Fascinating...

You'd think that just once, Cic would get it right.  Cicero is so tightly in his Right Wing Nut box, that he has no view to the outside world. He really has no clue.  "Shifting to the Right" LMAO  

Would Cic think that I once sent a check to John McCain??? Or supported Republicans for NY Governor??? or Support Americans right to bear arms???
When I respond to posts on a Over the Edge Right Wing Board, where the average poster is to the Right of Attila the Hun... Every post from the middle would appear to be from the Left.

Cic is comfortable in his little Right Wing Box... but not very accurate.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Would Cic think that I once sent a check to John McCain??? Or supported Republicans for NY Governor??? or Support Americans right to bear arms???

So you supported John McCain, NY Rockefeller Republican Governors, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, pro-abortion, U.N. Charter over the U.S. Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment.  I'm pretty sure I know where you land on the Nolan Chart, and it's not centrist.

Hey, at least I admit I'm a Constitutionalist, and in today's dumbed down society, that is now considered right wing.  Constitutional conservatism is public enemy #1 to the government bureaucrat.  

Quoted from CICERO

So you supported John McCain, NY Rockefeller Republican Governors, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, pro-abortion, U.N. Charter over the U.S. Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment.  I'm pretty sure I know where you land on the Nolan Chart, and it's not centrist.

Hey, at least I admit I'm a Constitutionalist, and in today's dumbed down society, that is now considered right wing.  Constitutional conservatism is public enemy #1 to the government bureaucrat.  

Cicero... what can I do... You always and I mean always get it wrong.

I didn't support John McCain for president, I supported him in NY when he was trying to get on the 2000 Republican primary.
I never supported Rocky, I support realistic gun laws and where did you come up with "U.N. Charter over the U.S. Constitution"... did you open up your mouth and that fall out of your butt?

As far as supporting the US Constitution, I took an oath, like all Marines that doesn't end when I left the Corps...
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely; and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter; So help me God."

(The "Domestic Enemies" in this case are working among Right Wing Extremists (See "Right Wing Terrorism" report from homeland security)

One last point... Your post:  "Hey, at least I admit I'm a Constitutionalist," is laughable.  You don't understand the US Constitution... you just mouth the hyped right wing TeaBagger version of the document.

Quoted from Box A Rox

where did you come up with "U.N. Charter over the U.S. Constitution"... did you open up your mouth and that fall out of your butt?

You've defended U.S. bombing of a foreign sovereign nation under NATO colors to enforce a U.N. resolution...If you swear to uphold the Constitution, is it your understanding of the Constitution that Congress vote on a declaration of war before sending our son's and daughters to battle?  Or do you believe the Constitution grants the president the unchecked authority to commit troops to combat without Congressional consent?  

After Vietnam, I'm surprised you still stand by that oath. Especially after have 40 years to reflect, and realizing that those bums dragged us into an un-winable war without declaration.  And we've been at war with somebody in the world ever since.  If every congressman and woman had to cast a vote to declare war on these counties we engage with militarily, I'm sure America's appetite fore war wouldn't be so insatiable.

But...As long as your leader supports abortion and gay marriage...They can bomb whoever they want.

In Cicero's world, there is EITHER the US Constitution, or The UN... NEVER BOTH.

(the same people who held high a UN Resolution against Iraq, are now suddenly divesting themselves of any knowledge of that resolution or it's resulting Oil War.)
What hypocrites!

Quoted from Box A Rox

In Cicero's world, there is EITHER the US Constitution, or The UN... NEVER BOTH.

(the same people who held high a UN Resolution against Iraq, are now suddenly divesting themselves of any knowledge of that resolution or it's resulting Oil War.)
What hypocrites!

Box, the difference is, I can say that out of my own ignorance and being caught up in the war propaganda, political rhetoric and fervor, I was led to believe a vote by the UN Security Council was a justifiable reason to send American's into war.  You on the other hand, admirably served our country and did take an oath to defend the Constitution with your life...And for that I truly commend you.  

I am not ashamed to tell you as new information are brought to light, my opinions on war and who has the authority to wage war have drastically changed.  

Our Founding Fathers mantra was 'No Taxation without Representation'.  Our new mantra is 'No Militarization without Representation'.  I find it appalling that one vote in the UN Security Council can launch our nation of 300 million into war, bypassing our 535 elected representatives that are responsible for making such dire decisions.  Why do we bother to vote for a congress if the President and UN can unilaterally send our children to war to die?  

And yes box, I am talking about both the Iraq War and the Libyan ‘kinetic military action’.

I wouldn't call my position 'hypocrisy' but rather evolving.

Quoted from CICERO

Box, the difference is, I can say that out of my own ignorance and being caught up in the war propaganda, political rhetoric and fervor, I was led to believe a vote by the UN Security Council was a justifiable reason to send American's into war.  You on the other hand, admirably served our country and did take an oath to defend the Constitution with your life...And for that I truly commend you.  

I am not ashamed to tell you as new information are brought to light, my opinions on war and who has the authority to wage war have drastically changed.  

Our Founding Fathers mantra was 'No Taxation without Representation'.  Our new mantra is 'No Militarization without Representation'.  I find it appalling that one vote in the UN Security Council can launch our nation of 300 million into war, bypassing our 535 elected representatives that are responsible for making such dire decisions.  Why do we bother to vote for a congress if the President and UN can unilaterally send our children to war to die?  

And yes box, I am talking about both the Iraq War and the Libyan ‘kinetic military action’.

I wouldn't call my position 'hypocrisy' but rather evolving.

Evolving is good...
(maybe it will open your eyes to human evolution)

I mostly oppose military action by the USA.  I especially oppose it in cases of aggression or greed as in Iraq.  I don't justify my position by weather the UN agrees or weather there is public support for the war.  I look at each case individually.

The two cases you bring up... IRAQ and LIBYA...
Both were expensive.
But one was destined from the start to cost American lives... lots of them.  To invade Iraq, Americans lives were going to be lost, even if the invasion went exceptionally well.

The non invasion of Libya took air power, US intelligence and US technology.  No American lives were lost (so far) and the prospect of loss of American life was minimal from the start.

If the USA is to 'go to war', then congress should approve the action.  If a military strike is vital to the security of the nation, then IMO the president has authorization for limited military intervention.  

One point to consider... Just look at the latest Republican fiasco over the debt.  It had nothing to do with dollars and everything to do with an upcoming election.  Can you imagine what the debate would look like if instead of debt, the debate was over war?  
No US president has ever lost reelection while the country is at war.  (GWB 2004) Unfortunately, there are those on both sides of the isle who would bring the country to war, just to win an election.

Box, you always seem to bring the conversation back to GWB and Republican vs. Democrat, my guy versus your guy.  I think many Americans are seeing through that charade...There are many Americans that are no longer buying the bipartisan consensus to ignore the Constitution and the recognition of things like UN charter and International law, over U.S. Constitutional law.  Marching a guy like Chuck Hagel out (who is supposedly “conservative”) onto a Progressive talk show to chastise his own party and the Tea Party is transparent and his intentions and self interests are obvious.

In all of your explanations for your personal justifications for war, not once do you outline what the Constitution says about waging wars.  Whether it is ground invasion or airstrikes and missile strikes...Is it your belief that military actions in sovereign nations require congressional approval?  And I'm not talking about "imminent threats" I'm talking about sustained action - whether air invasion or ground invasion.

So back to the question…Would you be upholding your oath to defend the Constitution if YOU were flying air strikes into Libya under NATO colors to enforce a UN Charter, without a congressional vote, risking your own life, killing innocent Libyans that are in the middle of their own revolution or civil war, whatever you want to call it?  You know, kinda like Vietnam, Libya is not an imminent threat to America, but we're doing the same thing just without the large scale ground invasion.  We are just 'advising' the Libyan rebels, kinda how we 'advised' the South Vietnamese in the beginning of that war.

Quoted from CICERO

Box, you always seem to bring the conversation back to GWB and Republican vs. Democrat, my guy versus your guy.  I think many Americans are seeing through that charade...There are many Americans that are no longer buying the bipartisan consensus to ignore the Constitution and the recognition of things like UN charter and International law, over U.S. Constitutional law.  Marching a guy like Chuck Hagel out (who is supposedly “conservative”) onto a Progressive talk show to chastise his own party and the Tea Party is transparent and his intentions and self interests are obvious.

In all of your explanations for your personal justifications for war, not once you outline what the Constitution says about waging wars.  Whether it is ground invasion or airstrikes and missile strikes...Is it your belief that military actions in sovereign nations require congressional approval?  And I'm not talking about "imminent threats" I'm talking about sustained action - whether air invasion or ground invasion.

So back to the question…Would you be upholding your oath to defend the Constitution if YOU were flying air strikes into Libya under NATO colors to enforce a UN Charter, without a congressional vote, risking your own life, killing innocent Libyans that are in the middle of their own revolution or civil war, whatever you want to call it?  You know, kinda like Vietnam, Libya is not an imminent threat to America, but we're doing the same thing just without the large scale ground invasion.  We are just 'advising' the Libyan rebels, kinda how we 'advised' the South Vietnamese in the beginning of that war.

I see very little similarities between Vietnam and Libya.  
Vietnam was not a revolution of the masses... had their been fair elections in the South, Ho Chi Minh would have won at any time in the war... even after he was dead!
Libya is a revolution,similar to many uprisings in the area in the last year.  

For any action similar to Vietnam, congress should approve (which they did with the Gulf Of Tonkin Amendment).  Congress approved action in Iraq, but had they had access to all pertinent information, congress would have not authorized the Iraq war.
**************************************
I posted Hagles interview because he is no longer running for anything and so, open to speak his mind with out political repercussions.
*************************************
Again you make assumptions about how I view the Vietnam war.  You're assumptions are usually wrong.