Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/30/2005 11:39:15 AM EDT
A few years back I read where Hillary (what a babe!) invested $50,000.00 in some cattle stock and in less than 1 year she earned over $500,000.00. Then Terry MacCauliffif (SP? the ex-DNC chairman) also invested some chump change and reaped in hundreds of millions of dollars. These were called smart investments.

Well, then, my question is this: What about them folks in NO,LA? Is looting a Winn-Dixie any different? Ain't "gettin' over" just gettin' over, whether you're gettin' over on the the stock market, cattle futures, or just gettin' over on a plump ripe juicy cherry unattended Winn-Dixie supermarket?

Think about it. Ain't gettin' over just gettin' over?
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 11:40:35 AM EDT
They're both scum and they deserve each other.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 11:41:20 AM EDT
So investing in a company or realestate is the same as thief of private property?

Just trying to understand the rules here?

EPOCH
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 12:24:44 PM EDT
The looting doesn't really matter in a monetary sense.
The grocery stores would have written off all their stock as a loss as it is.

I'm kind of torn over this.

On one hand, stealing is a crime. Of course, I think it depends on what you take in times like this. If you are stealing berr and liquor, arrest them.
If you are taking baby food and dipers for your infant, well, I can live with that.
However, if you go into someone's HOME, then you get shot on sight.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 12:32:16 PM EDT
The stealing food for survival argument is bull. The Red Cross, National Guard, Federal Government and all sorts of relief organizations are distributing food and water. All these people need to do is get to a collection point. These people are simple thieves. Looters should be dealt with on the spot. If the Government cannot guarantee peace and security then the citizens should. With each disaster these bottom feeders surface. Society doesn't need them.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 12:57:21 PM EDT
Looters can be shot on sight; I don't think investors can.
This scum ain't looting for food, they're looting because they can. I've never seen anyone eat a jean jacket or diamond bracelet.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 12:58:49 PM EDT
The Hillary deal was set up. Inside info.

The hurricane is not.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 2:17:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zip06:
The stealing food for survival argument is bull. The Red Cross, National Guard, Federal Government and all sorts of relief organizations are distributing food and water. All these people need to do is get to a collection point. These people are simple thieves. Looters should be dealt with on the spot. If the Government cannot guarantee peace and security then the citizens should. With each disaster these bottom feeders surface. Society doesn't need them.



There are places in NO where people are trapped because of flooding. No way in and no way out unless they are picked up by boat or air.
And they cannot get everyone out at one time.

IF you are getting food for survival, fine. But material property, you get shot....
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 3:29:05 PM EDT
www.sfgate.com

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 3:44:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2005 3:46:32 PM EDT by raven]
Hillary invested $1000 through a broker who doctored the trade tickets to make it look like she had made winning trades and had credited her account through the exchanges. She seemed to buy her contracts at the perfect low and sell at the perfect high, which is virtually impossible. Then after a spectacular run, she quit and never traded futures again. It was clearly some kind of illegal payoff to her husband that had to be disguised as a legal transaction. Who knows what Clinton did for the payoff.

McAulliffe made about $20m on investing in an internet infrastructure company's stock (Global Crossing). I know a lot of people who made money in that stock and millions on other technology stocks in the 1990's. As far as I know, he didn't make that money dishonestly.

People looting a Winn-Dixie is probably not as bad as corrupting the political process, as the Clintons did. They were sworn to serve and uphold the constitutions of AR and the US, and they betrayed that trust for their own self-interests. The looters are taking advantage of a lawless situation where the institutions and agencies such as the Clintons were trusted to administer collapsed due to a natural disaster. The Clintons are lawyers but have similar disregard for the law. But they were smart enough to know how to break the law to get what they want and not get caught (or at least able to be proven in court).

Give me looters any day, because in a lawless situation, they can be dealt with in an old-fashioned manner. The Clintons got away with murder (figuratively).
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 4:11:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Hillary invested $1000 through a broker who doctored the trade tickets to make it look like she had made winning trades and had credited her account through the exchanges. She seemed to buy her contracts at the perfect low and sell at the perfect high, which is virtually impossible. Then after a spectacular run, she quit and never traded futures again. It was clearly some kind of illegal payoff to her husband that had to be disguised as a legal transaction. Who knows what Clinton did for the payoff.

McAulliffe made about $20m on investing in an internet infrastructure company's stock (Global Crossing). I know a lot of people who made money in that stock and millions on other technology stocks in the 1990's. As far as I know, he didn't make that money dishonestly.

People looting a Winn-Dixie is probably not as bad as corrupting the political process, as the Clintons did. They were sworn to serve and uphold the constitutions of AR and the US, and they betrayed that trust for their own self-interests. The looters are taking advantage of a lawless situation where the institutions and agencies such as the Clintons were trusted to administer collapsed due to a natural disaster. The Clintons are lawyers but have similar disregard for the law. But they were smart enough to know how to break the law to get what they want and not get caught (or at least able to be proven in court).

Give me looters any day, because in a lawless situation, they can be dealt with in an old-fashioned manner. The Clintons got away with murder (figuratively).



raven,

That is a most logical and reasonable argument. I'll take the looters too, thanks for your input.
Top Top