One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Uranium One deal, despite the Right's clumsy spin, is a non-story
Page <<first <prev 35 of 35
Nov 18, 2017 21:19:42   #
PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.
 
Morgan wrote:
You can count on it, talking to you is like speaking with someone in a wind tunnel.


You should know. You blow so much wind it is as though your mouth is the tunnel.

Reply
Nov 18, 2017 21:23:23   #
PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.
 
lindajoy wrote:
Egads straight!! Your taxing my brain here... I know what you were saying and SWF do consider size of population and land... Land is an asset and people working paying into their growth ratio are considered..

Some countries worry that foreign investment by SWFs raises national security concerns because the purpose of the investment might be to secure control of strategically important industries (land held)for political rather than financial gains.. That capitalism front and center, right??
Or perhaps my subconscious assumption of the Socialistic ways.. 😳

What brings me to knowing anything about these SWF was that meeting held sometime back by the majority SWFs who came together and formed a temporary International Working Group of Sovereign Funds, or something like that...They drafted common global international standards regarding t***sparency, independence, and accountability in the way that SWFs operate.. T***sparency??? I wonder~~??

They formed their own coalition in essence and from that wound up taking control of the countries that participate by some significant control now.. Just another bank calling themselves something else ?? I think there is credence to the concern..

And now I must go to dinner.. back later..
Egads straight!! Your taxing my brain here... I k... (show quote)

I wonder if he knows the difference between pithy and novella.

Reply
Nov 18, 2017 21:52:49   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
PoppaGringo wrote:
I wonder if he knows the difference between pithy and novella.


Both do apply with straight, Poppa... Honestly do...

Reply
 
 
Nov 18, 2017 22:19:15   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
lindajoy wrote:
Egads straight!! Your taxing my brain here...

that makes your brain socialist!

lindajoy wrote:

I know what you were saying and SWF do consider size of population and land... Land is an asset and people working paying into their growth ratio are considered..

considered...what?
and what is "their growth ratio"? Workers paying into their "growth ratio"... who's growth? The worker's growth? ratio of what?
The people are working; ok I got that...
How do they tie into land? That part I don't get.

Sorry... don't mean to be rude... just... maybe your responses are really good answers to questions that I just don't have. *shrug*

lindajoy wrote:

Some countries worry that foreign investment by SWFs raises national security concerns because the purpose of the investment might be to secure control of strategically important industries (land held)for political rather than financial gains.. That capitalism front and center, right??
Or perhaps my subconscious assumption of the Socialistic ways.. 😳

eeeehhh... no.
:)
The "political rather than financial" part...
If it's capitalism it's ALWAYS financial. Whether or not it's also political is all a matter of how the investors play it.

So... I think I may have found our disconnect... You were mentioning the security concern over foreign investments. First of all, high five for one of the most relevant arguments so far posted on this 34 page topic. :) And yes, it is a concern, the Uranium One deal being one such example. But I guess I'm not talking about the impact foreign investors have on us. I'm talking about the impact these SWFs have on the investors which in this case are the Norwegian people. That $1 trillion is liquid cash, and it's valued on things like our debt. The more we owe the more they own kinda thing. Yeah, the Norwegians... the ones with 34 hour work weeks, paid maternal leave, health coverage, lots of vacations and family time. We don't even have a damned SWF!
I think the State of Alaska has a SWF and that's like it.
Oh hear that? Lars over there, he says... "ha, ha... You Americans are so funny". F U Lars... we got cultural issues.

lindajoy wrote:

What brings me to knowing anything about these SWF was that meeting held sometime back by the majority SWFs who came together and formed a temporary International Working Group of Sovereign Funds, or something like that...They drafted common global international standards regarding t***sparency, independence, and accountability in the way that SWFs operate.. T***sparency??? I wonder~~??

I think you may be talking about the Institute Fund Summit. Yes, you always have to at least wonder... and so many levels... an agreement to be t***sparent could be limited too.

lindajoy wrote:

They formed their own coalition in essence and from that wound up taking control of the countries that participate by some significant control now.. Just another bank calling themselves something else ?? I think there is credence to the concern..

Well, that sounds just like what the WTO was doing at the height of neoliberalism (which is I guess, now... lol) but it's been happening since neoliberalism took control of the world order at the end of WW2.

lindajoy wrote:

And now I must go to dinner.. back later..

I had teriyaki turkey meatballs and rice. My wife is on a trajectory to vegan food, I just know it and I don't know if I can hang. lol

Reply
Nov 19, 2017 11:47:25   #
Morgan
 
lindajoy wrote:
I did read your posts.. I asked because I wanted to know if you factored in the mandatory 35% taxation the US mandates and were considering the qualifiers that established that offset of foreign profits.. It is not based on just what the corporation paid but the US qualifies that apply..

I’ll move forward and ask if you support this in Trumps tax plan?? It is after all addressing your comments as well... Then again it may not be as lucrative as believed and the only ones to be enriched are stock/share holders??

One of the proposals in the Republican tax plan set out last week — a bid to get American corporations to “repatriate” their untaxed corporate overseas profits — has support both in Congress and in the Trump administration. As much as $2.6 trillion in such profits sits in offshore subsidiaries of United States corporations.

Under the plan, the government would declare a tax holiday — a rate as low as 10 percent — to encourage the United States companies operating overseas to repatriate their overseas profits. Congress and the president see getting this money back to the United States as a way to goose job and wage growth in the United States and to fill some of the revenue holes that are expected as a result of the plan’s other sweeping tax cuts...
I did read your posts.. I asked because I wanted t... (show quote)





35% sounds like a lot but in reality they are not paying anywhere near that amount due to tax incentives and deductions. These tax deductions from tax repatriations/ tax holiday of up to10%. Are a onetime deal…unlikely?

But taxes are not the real problem it’s the cost of labor and that is not speaking of cost of labor per hour, but what it also costs them in insurances and benefits. These incentives will not bring jobs back to America. These companies are not producing here, they only use us to sell to.

As it is now Trump is giving more tax incentives for companies to use robots. Again this is good for companies but it certainly does not create more jobs for Americans, so who is Trump really working for here, Corporations or the American people? Actions speak louder than words, especially his word.

Why are the imports not being taxed at a higher rate in order to sell to their highest consumer, the American people? That is a power we are not using for revenue. But this buying power is shrinking along with our middle class. Now it will shrink experientially with the new tax breaks and lack of health care.

Reply
Nov 19, 2017 12:07:11   #
Morgan
 
straightUp wrote:
LOL - I haven't heard that one. Are you sure it's not a tax deduction if they DON'T take their company overseas? That would make more sense.

What cracks me up about this 20% corporate tax is that a business can STILL get a better deal in a country like Ireland where the corporate tax rate is 12.5% or they can domicile in countries were there isn't any corporate tax at all. Furthermore, higher wages in the U.S. offsets the tax savings. I hear Republicans advocating lower wages to solve that problem, but if that's really the approach we're going to take then we are effectively competing with third world wages which cannot support the cost of living in America.

I think we need to stop fooling ourselves and face the fact that we're already screwed. They key now is how best to manage in the world we created for ourselves.
LOL - I haven't heard that one. Are you sure it's ... (show quote)



Yes sometimes the line between objective and subjective can be a fine one. Sometimes we try and do “good” and get sand kicked in our face, we then sit there saying WT* what was that about? Maybe it was in the expectation in return even if was only hoping for some smooth was sailing for a bit. LOL So here we are trying to create our shining city on the mountain top, it’s not so easy but come what may it’ll still be well worth it.

I’m not a conspiracy nut, but at the same time people are sheepish and tend to follow each other in their own social class and the wealthy with their investments I believe is a good example.
Sadly, I agree with you, that our efforts to educate all will not be an option. This is what happens when you can’t see past your own nose. The far sighted vision is nonexistent and why it is so important for us to change congress…democratically speaking.
BTW I loved your synopsis of left versus right thinking and couldn’t agree more.

You’re correct, you can’t educate everyone, which I believe that is also the conclusion the Germans came up with…LOL. Where they would judge the potential of their up and coming youth and place them in the correct academic institution as they saw fit for the best outcome of the individual and in turn for its country. In practicality that has to be admired, as for the choices for the individual, possibly not so much…lol. On the other hand it could be completely complementary to them.

I understand your perspective on law and business. Business is a heartless cold entity devoid of emotion and it is eat or be eaten, a matter of survival. A predator and we can’t blame a snake for behaving as a snake. Its actions are acceptable because it’s the nature of the beast, but Straight we are the ones who created the beast.

However, I feel they do run hand in hand. I understand the world of competition, but business is created by man, it is what we make it to be therefore if we make business an unethical entity, then there should be no laws placed on it. But business impacts people and their lives, and so it does run hand in hand with ethics, a conscience, and the law. Business is created by man, it is what we make it to be therefore what moral standards “we” impose. This reminds me of the movie “You’ve got mail” When Tom Hank says… ”it’s just business, nothing personal” and she replies” it’s personal to me” I think we’re speaking along those same lines. But in that case he didn’t do anything illegal, we can even say unethical, yet he was the giant beast that devoured the small one in its wake.

But I’m not talking about that in regards to law and business, but maybe that is your point… it is when a business does roll over people for its gain, illegally and our laws are in place for that exact reason. I agree law and business though very different, must work together hand in hand, and I believe there is always time for deep human judgment if that is our priority.

Such a great statement you just made, your quote: ”The great American irony is how the people are advocating their own victimization by asking to be led by businessmen.”

Peter is correct, you do hit the nail on the head, your comment I also find to be true. Parallel to the abused the wife staying with her abuser. Trump a so called “non-politician” Ha ,now we have the Wall Street wolves taking residency in the white house, congress, and other government offices. Beautiful. That’ll fix everything.

Reply
Nov 19, 2017 12:11:20   #
Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ
 
straightUp wrote:
LOL - "Neither party gives a damn but I'm v****g Republican 'cause the Democrats don't give a damn!".

But seriously, what I know (or at least what I think) is that they DO give a damn... (if they didn't, they wouldn't get reelected), but they can't satisfy everyone because the people are so divided on every issue that comes up, so for every citizen they help, there is another one infuriated that "they don't give a damn".

I also think you're putting too much emphasis on party. I actually went back and edited my closing statement before you I saw your response. I took "Republican" out because on second thought I knew that was quite accurate. In it's place, I put "I'll let you guess who you think that is". I was curious to see how you fill in the blank. Of course I figured you would assume I meant Republicans anyway and this would become a partisan argument. Well, I did say Republicans before the edit, but I am really talking about a cultural divide not a political one.

Political parties are t***sient and d******e. One might say even fickle. I often refer to the big switch during the Nixon campaigns when the Republican Party switched from the liberals they were to the conservatives the Democrats used to be. The progressive movement which was originally championed by Republicans straddled both parties throughout what we now refer to as the Progressive Era. And even today we can clearly see a fracture within the GOP along cultural lines, with isolationists like Gingrich advocating a completely different view from the neoconservatives like Bush.

So when I talk about the Great American Irony... (my phrase for our example of when half the v**ers in a country pledge their allegiance to the people who abuse them.) I am referring to a cultural condition, not a political one because as you say, neither side of the political fence seems to care. The difference is whether a culture promotes awareness or loyalty.

...I don't think it's the culture that promotes awareness that delivers v**es to the abusive.
LOL - "Neither party gives a damn but I'm v**... (show quote)


You said the Democrats gave the b****s their civil rights!! I believe that every time there was a v**e for civil rights for the b****s most of the Democrats v**ed against every bill to promote civil rights and that was still the same in the 1964. That bill was the same as the Republican platform in 1866 and a bill passed by the Republicans with out support from the Dems. At other times in our history there have been other bills for civil rights have been passed by Republicans with out major support from Democrats.
This can be found in an article written by Darrell Cheney, on March 6, 2014. "A brief history of civil rights legislation".

Reply
 
 
Nov 19, 2017 12:51:19   #
PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.
 
Louie27 wrote:
You said the Democrats gave the b****s their civil rights!! I believe that every time there was a v**e for civil rights for the b****s most of the Democrats v**ed against every bill to promote civil rights and that was still the same in the 1964. That bill was the same as the Republican platform in 1866 and a bill passed by the Republicans with out support from the Dems. At other times in our history there have been other bills for civil rights have been passed by Republicans with out major support from Democrats.
This can be found in an article written by Darrell Cheney, on March 6, 2014. "A brief history of civil rights legislation".
You said the Democrats gave the b****s their civil... (show quote)


Shhh. Edification of Dem failings and obstructionism is not one of their strong points. That is where both eyes go blind and ears become plugged.

Reply
Nov 19, 2017 13:35:13   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
Morgan wrote:
Yes sometimes the line between objective and subjective can be a fine one. Sometimes we try and do “good” and get sand kicked in our face, we then sit there saying WT* what was that about? Maybe it was in the expectation in return even if was only hoping for some smooth was sailing for a bit. LOL So here we are trying to create our shining city on the mountain top, it’s not so easy but come what may it’ll still be well worth it.

I’m not a conspiracy nut, but at the same time people are sheepish and tend to follow each other in their own social class and the wealthy with their investments I believe is a good example.
Sadly, I agree with you, that our efforts to educate all will not be an option. This is what happens when you can’t see past your own nose. The far sighted vision is nonexistent and why it is so important for us to change congress…democratically speaking.
BTW I loved your synopsis of left versus right thinking and couldn’t agree more.

You’re correct, you can’t educate everyone, which I believe that is also the conclusion the Germans came up with…LOL. Where they would judge the potential of their up and coming youth and place them in the correct academic institution as they saw fit for the best outcome of the individual and in turn for its country. In practicality that has to be admired, as for the choices for the individual, possibly not so much…lol. On the other hand it could be completely complementary to them.

I understand your perspective on law and business. Business is a heartless cold entity devoid of emotion and it is eat or be eaten, a matter of survival. A predator and we can’t blame a snake for behaving as a snake. Its actions are acceptable because it’s the nature of the beast, but Straight we are the ones who created the beast.

However, I feel they do run hand in hand. I understand the world of competition, but business is created by man, it is what we make it to be therefore if we make business an unethical entity, then there should be no laws placed on it. But business impacts people and their lives, and so it does run hand in hand with ethics, a conscience, and the law. Business is created by man, it is what we make it to be therefore what moral standards “we” impose. This reminds me of the movie “You’ve got mail” When Tom Hank says… ”it’s just business, nothing personal” and she replies” it’s personal to me” I think we’re speaking along those same lines. But in that case he didn’t do anything illegal, we can even say unethical, yet he was the giant beast that devoured the small one in its wake.

But I’m not talking about that in regards to law and business, but maybe that is your point… it is when a business does roll over people for its gain, illegally and our laws are in place for that exact reason. I agree law and business though very different, must work together hand in hand, and I believe there is always time for deep human judgment if that is our priority.

Such a great statement you just made, your quote: ”The great American irony is how the people are advocating their own victimization by asking to be led by businessmen.”

Peter is correct, you do hit the nail on the head, your comment I also find to be true. Parallel to the abused the wife staying with her abuser. Trump a so called “non-politician” Ha ,now we have the Wall Street wolves taking residency in the white house, congress, and other government offices. Beautiful. That’ll fix everything.
Yes sometimes the line between objective and subje... (show quote)


LOL... Yeah, you wouldn't think people would be dumb enough to listen to a billionaire, charged with fraud, saying he's going to "drain the swamp" and actually fall for it.

Reply
Nov 19, 2017 15:25:36   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
Louie27 wrote:
You said the Democrats gave the b****s their civil rights!! I believe that every time there was a v**e for civil rights for the b****s most of the Democrats v**ed against every bill to promote civil rights and that was still the same in the 1964. That bill was the same as the Republican platform in 1866 and a bill passed by the Republicans with out support from the Dems. At other times in our history there have been other bills for civil rights have been passed by Republicans with out major support from Democrats.
This can be found in an article written by Darrell Cheney, on March 6, 2014. "A brief history of civil rights legislation".
You said the Democrats gave the b****s their civil... (show quote)

And that article can ONLY be found on The Blaze, one of the most imaginative conspiracy theory sites available on the right wing. ;) Oh well, at least I know it will be a short article written at a nice easy 4th grade reading level and I have a few minutes to k**l...

OK, that didn't take long... I already saw the trick in the opening paragraph. The whole point of the article is to remind us that Johnson's Civil Rights movement, was preceded by civil rights concerns going back 100 years earlier. But it's a moot point when you consider what I said in the post you are actually responding to.

I was telling linda that... "I am really talking about a cultural divide not a political one." I was referring to the cultural divide between right-wing conservatives and left-wing liberals, not the political division between Republicans and Democrats. I really elaborated on that point... not sure how you missed it. Part of that elaboration was the example of the "Big Switch" where the political-cultural connections were realigned. It's a part of history that defeats the whole point of the Blaze article.

Let me be very clear before you get even more confused... The people that v**ed against civil rights in 1866 were right-wing conservatives, not left-wing liberals. It just so happened that right-wing conservatives in 1866 were Democrats. That's the history the alt-right refuses to acknowledge so they can continue to support the illusion that the Republican Party was always conservative, even when it was doing decent things. I'm sure you will choose to deny that part of history too.

But the second point I'm going to make is very simple. None of the 19th century civil rights movements gave the black people legal e******y. Efforts were made but b***k A******ns did NOT have full legal e******y until 1965 when a Democratic president signed the V****g Rights Act.

So let's have a look at this conversation...

linda asked me - "Just exactly what have the Dems done to help the b****s???"
straightUp answered - "They gave them civil rights." (I think the right to v**e counts, don't you?)

So then YOU come along with all this stuff about civil rights in 1866 as if somehow that makes 1965 untrue... So my answer to linda is unchanged... The Democrats have the black people civil rights.

Reply
Nov 19, 2017 16:05:37   #
PeterS
 
Louie27 wrote:
You said the Democrats gave the b****s their civil rights!! I believe that every time there was a v**e for civil rights for the b****s most of the Democrats v**ed against every bill to promote civil rights and that was still the same in the 1964. That bill was the same as the Republican platform in 1866 and a bill passed by the Republicans with out support from the Dems. At other times in our history there have been other bills for civil rights have been passed by Republicans with out major support from Democrats.
This can be found in an article written by Darrell Cheney, on March 6, 2014. "A brief history of civil rights legislation".
You said the Democrats gave the b****s their civil... (show quote)


You are referring to Southern conservative blue dogs. Conservatives of both parties attempted to block the civil rights bill...

Reply
 
 
Nov 21, 2017 15:50:15   #
Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ
 
straightUp wrote:
And that article can ONLY be found on The Blaze, one of the most imaginative conspiracy theory sites available on the right wing. ;) Oh well, at least I know it will be a short article written at a nice easy 4th grade reading level and I have a few minutes to k**l...

OK, that didn't take long... I already saw the trick in the opening paragraph. The whole point of the article is to remind us that Johnson's Civil Rights movement, was preceded by civil rights concerns going back 100 years earlier. But it's a moot point when you consider what I said in the post you are actually responding to.

I was telling linda that... "I am really talking about a cultural divide not a political one." I was referring to the cultural divide between right-wing conservatives and left-wing liberals, not the political division between Republicans and Democrats. I really elaborated on that point... not sure how you missed it. Part of that elaboration was the example of the "Big Switch" where the political-cultural connections were realigned. It's a part of history that defeats the whole point of the Blaze article.

Let me be very clear before you get even more confused... The people that v**ed against civil rights in 1866 were right-wing conservatives, not left-wing liberals. It just so happened that right-wing conservatives in 1866 were Democrats. That's the history the alt-right refuses to acknowledge so they can continue to support the illusion that the Republican Party was always conservative, even when it was doing decent things. I'm sure you will choose to deny that part of history too.

But the second point I'm going to make is very simple. None of the 19th century civil rights movements gave the black people legal e******y. Efforts were made but b***k A******ns did NOT have full legal e******y until 1965 when a Democratic president signed the V****g Rights Act.

So let's have a look at this conversation...

linda asked me - "Just exactly what have the Dems done to help the b****s???"
straightUp answered - "They gave them civil rights." (I think the right to v**e counts, don't you?)

So then YOU come along with all this stuff about civil rights in 1866 as if somehow that makes 1965 untrue... So my answer to linda is unchanged... The Democrats have the black people civil rights.
And that article can ONLY be found on The Blaze, o... (show quote)


I didn't miss what you call the big switch. That theory was contrived by the liberals when it was pointed out they had not really wanted civil liberties for b****s. Just a figment of your imagination. I believe the party switch was just the liberals in the Republican party joining the Democratic party. You were wrong on the count of the Democrats. The House passed the bill with just 63% of Democrats and 80% of the Republicans passed the bill. In the Senate, Democrats 69% to the Republicans 82% passed the bill. With all of that said there were far more Democrats in both the senate and the House. So, with statistic it seems that we were both right, you on number of v**es and me on percentage per party. Win some and lose some.

Reply
Nov 22, 2017 09:33:34   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
rumitoid wrote:
Low grade uranium, not weapon's grade as the premiere liars of the Right state or insinuate. Plus it cannot be exported--even if that mine was ever mined. Donations to Clinton Foundation by a Russian are not donations to the Clinton's; they were never touched or used that money for themselves (unlike the Trump Foundation, who used, and admitted to improperly using donations, for a tRump portait). The Russian who donated the money had left Uranium One three years prior. Clinton was one of nine people to okay the sale, which was unanimous. There is zero evidence of any effort to persuade or coerce the other eight to approve the sale by Hillary. The matter had been thoroughly investigated by the FBI and no wrong-doing of any nature was found. Classic sleight-of-hand by the GOP.
Low grade uranium, not weapon's grade as the premi... (show quote)


Who has any idea how and wht ranchers are being forced off of family farms and ranches?


"The Bundys are criminals. They have been given more than ample time in the courts" - khemmer
The Bundiea are having their days in court right now.
The MSM is blacking it out.
If the governmrnt wins, it will be onn all the networks.
If the ranchers win; complete silence.

Who will stand up for Constitutional protections better than than Roy Moore will?
Who will protect Americans from the elitist establishment?
Thia is going on right now, and not a word from the MSM or DC.
Our food supply is being shanghaid, by the FEDS and corporate farming.

"Is One Political Plaza right-wing propaganda? Have you noticed that about 96% posts on OPP are extreme right wing? Why is it so extreme?" - glaucon
Are there any other forums that don't censor out conservatives or those on the side of freedom?
The LSM sure does.
The MSM continues to black out the trial.
Our country's direction/ destiny could be in the balance; and the MSM continues to black out the trial.
Will the B*M/government continue to steal family ranches and farms?
Will the government thugs be let off the hook?
The Bundies were the last to stand up in Nevada.
Trial proceedings went real well on Monday. Huge exposures.
The Trial procedings are only covered on RBN; 10PM EST
http://republicbroadcasting.org/

The trial continues today, Wednesday morning Nov 12, in Las Vegas.
All patriots near Las Vegas should be at the courthouse, witnessing the trial.
Pass this on.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 35 of 35
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.