Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
163. FBI knew, yet DoJ said, ''Fuggedaboudid.''
Sat Feb 14, 2015, 04:35 PM
Feb 2015

Please check out the "The FBI Guy" especially...

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

The Sting

In the best rip-off, the mark never knows that he or she was set up for fleecing.
In the case of the great financial meltdown of 2008, the victim is the U.S. taxpayer.
Going by the lack of analysis in Corporate McPravda, We the People are in for a royal fleecing.



Don’t just take my word about the current situation between giant criminality and the politically connected.

[font color="green"][font size="5"]You see, there is evidence of conspiracy. An honest FBI agent warned us in 2004 about the coming financial meltdown and the powers-that-be stiffed him, too.[/font size][/font color]

The story’s below. And it’s not fiction. It is true to life.



The Set-Up

You don’t have to be a fan of Paul Newman or Robert Redford to smell a BFEE rat. The oily critter’s name is Gramm. Phil Gramm. He helped Ronald Reagan push through his trickle-down fiscal policy and later helped de-regulate the nation's once-healthy Saving & Loan industry. We all know how well that worked out: Know your BFEE: They Looted Your Nation’s S&Ls for Power and Profit.

In 1999, then-super conservative Texas U.S. Senator Gramm helped pass the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act. This law allowed banks to act like investment houses. Using federally-guaranteed savings accounts, banks now could make risky commercial and real-estate loans.

The law should’ve been called the Gramm-Lansky Act. To those who gave a damn, it was obviously a potential disaster. During the bill’s debate, the specter of a “taxpayer bail-out” was raised by Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, warning about what had happened to the deregulated S&Ls.

Gramm wasn’t alone on the deregulation bandwagon. The law passed, IIRC, like 89-9. More than a few of my own Democratic faves went along with this deregulation, “get-government-off-the-back-of-business” law.

Today we have their love child, MOAB—for the Mother Of All Bailouts.


The Mark

In a sting, someone has to supply the money to be ripped off. Crooks call that person the mark or target or mope. In the present case, that’s the U.S. taxpayer.

Today’s financial crisis seems like a re-run of what happened to the Savings & Loans industry in the late 1980s. Well it is a lot like what happened to the S&Ls. Then, as now, it’s the U.S. taxpayer who gets to pick up the tab for someone else’s party.

Don’t worry, U.S. taxpayer. You’re getting something (among several things) for your $700 billion. You’re getting all the bad mortgage-based paper on almost all of Wall Street. I’d rather have penny stocks, because if there ever was something of negative value it’s the complicated notes and derivatives based on this mortgage debt.



When it comes to Bush economic policy, left holding the bag are We the People, er, Mopes. Don’t worry, it can’t get worse. As St. Ronnie would say, “Well. Yes.” You see, what the bag U.S. taxpayers hold is less than empty. It’s filled with bad debt.


The Mastermind

Chief economist amongst these merry band of thieves and traitors was one Phil Gramm (once a conservative Democrat and then an ultraconservative Republican-Taxus). An economist by training and reputation, Gramm was one of the guiding lights of Reaganomics, the cut taxes, domestic spending, and regulations while raising defense-spending to new heights. In sum, it was a fiscal policy to enrich friends – especially the kind connected to the BFEE.




Foreclosure Phil

Years before Phil Gramm was a McCain campaign adviser and a lobbyist for a Swiss bank at the center of the housing credit crisis, he pulled a sly maneuver in the Senate that helped create today's subprime meltdown.


David Corn
MotherJones.com
May 28, 2008

Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure.

Gramm's long been a handmaiden to Big Finance. In the 1990s, as chairman of the Senate banking committee, he routinely turned down Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent. Gramm also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms from getting too close to the companies they audited—at one point, according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut. And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms—setting off a wave of merger mania.

But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industry—friends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional career—came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered dead—even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar with the bill's history.

It's not exactly like Gramm hid his handiwork—far from it. The balding and bespectacled Texan strode onto the Senate floor to hail the act's inclusion into the must-pass budget package. But only an expert, or a lobbyist, could have followed what Gramm was saying. The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps—and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."

Subprime 1-2-3

Don't understand credit default swaps? Don't worry—neither does Congress. Herewith, a step-by-step outline of the subprime risk betting game. —Casey Miner

CONTINUED…

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclo...




A fine mind for modern Bushonomics. Kill the middle class. Then, rob from the poor to give to the rich.

The Mentor



Anyone who’s ever heard him talk knows that Gramm must’ve learned all this stuff from somebody. He could never think it all up on his own. He had to have help. That’s where Meyer Lansky, the man who brought modern finance to the Mafia, comes in.



Money Laundering

Answers.com


EXCERPT...

History

Modern development


The act of "money laundering" was not invented during the Prohibition era in the United States, but many techniques were developed and refined then. Many methods were devised to disguise the origins of money generated by the sale of then-illegal alcoholic beverages. Following Al Capone's 1931 conviction for tax evasion, mobster Meyer Lansky transferred funds from Florida "carpet joints" (small casinos) to accounts overseas. After the 1934 Swiss Banking Act, which created the principle of bank secrecy, Meyer Lansky bought a Swiss bank to which he would transfer his illegal funds through a complex system of shell companies, holding companies, and offshore accounts.(1)

The term "money laundering" does not derive, as is often said, from Al Capone having used laundromats to hide ill-gotten gains. It was Meyer Lansky who perfected money laundering's older brother, "capital flight," transferring his funds to Switzerland and other offshore places. The first reference to the term "money laundering" itself actually appears during the Watergate scandal. US President Richard Nixon's "Committee to Re-elect the President" moved illegal campaign contributions to Mexico, then brought the money back through a company in Miami. It was Britain's Guardian newspaper that coined the term, referring to the process as "laundering.&quot 3)


Process

Money laundering is often described as occurring in three stages: placement, layering, and integration.(3)

Placement: refers to the initial point of entry for funds derived from criminal activities.

Layering: refers to the creation of complex networks of transactions which attempt to obscure the link between the initial entry point, and the end of the laundering cycle.

Integration: refers to the return of funds to the legitimate economy for later extraction.

However, The Anti Money Laundering Network recommends the terms

Hide: to reflect the fact that cash is often introduced to the economy via commercial concerns which may knowingly or not knowingly be part of the laundering scheme, and it is these which ultimately prove to be the interface between the criminal and the financial sector

Move: clearly explains that the money launderer uses transfers, sales and purchase of assets, and changes the shape and size of the lump of money so as to obfuscate the trail between money and crime or money and criminal.

Invest: the criminal spends the money: he/she may invest it in assets, or in his/her lifestyle.

CONTINUED...

http://www.answers.com/topic/money-laundering



The great journalist Lucy Komisar has shone a big light on the subject:



Offshore Banking

The U.S.A.’s Secret Threat


Lucy Komisar
The Blacklisted Journalist
June 1, 2003

EXCERPT…

In 1932, mobster Meyer Lansky took money from New Orleans slot machines and shifted it to accounts overseas. The Swiss secrecy law two years later assured him of G-man-proof banking. Later, he bought a Swiss bank and for years deposited his Havana casino take in Miami accounts, then wired the funds to Switzerland via a network of shell and holding companies and offshore accounts, some of them in banks whose officials knew very well they were working for criminals. By the 1950s, Lansky was using the system for cash from the heroin trade.

Today, offshore is where most of the world's drug money is laundered, estimated at up to $500 billion a year, more than the total income of the world's poorest 20 percent. Add the proceeds of tax evasion and the figure skyrockets to $1 trillion. Another few hundred billion come from fraud and corruption.

Lansky laundered money so he could pay taxes and legitimate his spoils. About half the users of offshore have opposite goals. As hotel owner and tax cheat Leona Helmsley said---according to her former housekeeper during Helmsley's trial for tax evasion---"Only the little people pay taxes." Rich individuals and corporations avoid taxes through complex, accountant-aided schemes that routinely use offshore accounts and companies to hide income and manufacture deductions.

The impact is massive. The IRS estimates that taxpayers fail to pay in excess of $100 billion in taxes annually due on income from legal sources. The General Accounting Office says that American wage-earners report 97 percent of their wages, while self-employed persons report just 11 percent of theirs. Each year between 1989 and 1995, a majority of corporations, both foreign- and U.S.-controlled, paid no U.S. income tax. European governments are fighting the same problem. The situation is even worse in developing countries.

The issue surfaces in the press when an accounting scam is so outrageous that it strains credulity. Take the case of Stanley Works, which announced a "move" of its headquarters-on paper-from New Britain, Connecticut, to Bermuda and of its imaginary management to Barbados. Though its building and staff would actually stay put, manufacturing hammers and wrenches, Stanley Works would no longer pay taxes on profits from international trade. The Securities and Exchange Commission, run by Harvey Pitt---an attorney who for more than twenty years represented the top accounting and Wall Street firms he was regulating---accepted the pretense as legal.

"The whole business is a sham," fumed New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who more than any other U.S. law enforcer has attacked the offshore system. "The headquarters will be in a country where that company is not permitted to do business. They're saying a company is managed in Barbados when there's one meeting there a year. In the prospectus, they say legally controlled and managed in Barbados. If they took out the word legally, it would be a fraud. But Barbadian law says it's legal, so it's legal." The conceit apparently also persuaded the Securities and Exchange Commission.

CONTINUED…

http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column92e.html



Socialize the risk for Wall Street. Privatize the loss to Uncle Sam’s nieces and nephews. Congratulations, Dear Reader! Now you know as much as Phil Gramm.

The Diversion

Still, a global financial meltdown sounds like something bad. Making things worse, we’re hearing that Uncle Sam is broke! Flat busted. Tapped out.

That’s odd, though. We the People see the Treasury being emptied with tax breaks for the wealthy and checks to the companies they own that make money off of war. Want to know how to make a buck these days? Invest in the likes of Halliburton and Northrup Grumman. Anything in the warmongering business connected to Bush and his cronies will weather the downturn or depression.

The Wall Street Journal -- a paper owned and operated by Fox News’ head, Rupert Murdoch – was very quick to promote the crisis, as DUer JustPlainKathy observed. The paper was even faster to pounce on a solution: What’s needed is a safety net for banks. And quick as a wink, they found the answer!
Only the U.S. taxpayer has the wherewithal to prevent the collapse of the global financial system -- a global economic meltdown that would freeze up credit and investment and expansion and prosperity and a return to the Great Depression. Who can be against that?

Oh. Kay. Sounds about right – Rupert the Alien agreeing with what Leona Helmsley said: “Only the little people pay taxes.”



Gramm and McCain also are in favor of privatization. How nice is that?

The Getaway

George Walker Bush and his right-wing pals feel they can get away with this, their latest rip-off the American taxpayers. Who can blame them? When compared to their clear record of incompetence, lies, fraud, theft, mass-murder, warmongering and treason, what’s a few trillion dollar rip-off?



Still, it's weird how they act.
They must really think they’ll be welcomed with open arms in Paraguay and Dubai and Switzerland.
Going by the welcome the world gave the Shah of Iran, they’re in for a big surprise.

The FBI Guy

Don’t say we weren’t warned. An intrepid FBI agent with something sorely lacking in the rest of the Bush administration, integrity, blew the whistle on the bank thing…



FBI saw threat of mortgage crisis

A top official warned of widening loan fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere.

By Richard B. Schmitt
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

August 25, 2008

WASHINGTON — Long before the mortgage crisis began rocking Main Street and Wall Street, a top FBI official made a chilling, if little-noticed, prediction: The booming mortgage business, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, was starting to attract shady operators and billions in losses were possible.

"It has the potential to be an epidemic," Chris Swecker, the FBI official in charge of criminal investigations, told reporters in September 2004. But, he added reassuringly, the FBI was on the case. "We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis," he said.

Today, the damage from the global mortgage meltdown has more than matched that of the savings-and-loan bailouts of the 1980s and early 1990s. By some estimates, it has made that costly debacle look like chump change. But it's also clear that the FBI failed to avert a problem it had accurately forecast.

Banks and brokerages have written down more than $300 billion of mortgage-backed securities and other risky investments in the last year or so as homeowner defaults leaped and weakness in the real estate market spread.

SNIP…

Most observers have declared the mess a gross failure of regulation. To be sure, in the run-up to the crisis, market-oriented federal regulators bragged about their hands-off treatment of banks and other savings institutions and their executives. But it wasn't just regulators who were looking the other way. The FBI and its parent agency, the Justice Department, are supposed to act as the cops on the beat for potentially illegal activities by bankers and others. But they were focused on national security and other priorities, and paid scant attention to white-collar crimes that may have contributed to the lending and securities debacle.

Now that the problems are out in the open, the government's response strikes some veteran regulators as too little, too late.

Swecker, who retired from the FBI in 2006, declined to comment for this article.

But sources familiar with the FBI budget process, who were not authorized to speak publicly about the growing fraud problem, say that he and other FBI criminal investigators sought additional assistance to take on the mortgage scoundrels.

They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.

CONTINUED…

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mortgagefraud25-2008aug25,0,6946937.story



We were warned and nothing happened.

Repeat: And nothing happened.

They must think We the People are really stupid. Are we supposed to believe that all that $700 billion in bad debt just happened? Where did all that money go? Who got all the money?

Meyer Lansky moved the Mafia’s money from the Cuban casinos to Switzerland. He did so by buying a bank in Miami. Phil Gramm seems to have done the same thing as vice-chairman of UBS, except the amounts are in the billions.

Who cares? He’s almost gone? Nope. That money still exists somewhere. I have a pretty good idea of where it might be. And George Bush and his cronies are poised to get away with a whole lot of loot.


Who Should Pay for the Bailout

If you are fortunate enough to be one, good luck American taxpayer! You’re in for a royal fleecing. Once the interest is figured into the bailout, we’re looking at a couple of trill.

The people who should pay for the bailout aren’t the American people. That distinction should go to the crooks who stole it -- friends of Gramm like John McCain and George Bush and the rest of the Raygunomix crowd of snake-oil salesmen. For them, the Bush administration -- and a good chunk of time since Ronald Reagan -- has not been a disaster. It’s been a cash cow.

The above was posted on DU on Sept. 21, 2008. Lots of info from DUers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4055207
"Russia Today" is Putin's pet propaganda outlet. Archae Feb 2015 #1
No more than CNN or BBC America is... MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #63
I'm saying no, because RT controls the editing in such a case. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2015 #2
And ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, PBS, and BBC America aren't? MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #68
I don't think anything of them because I don't watch them. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2015 #82
I'll say! That was simple alright… and REVEALING... MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #94
+100% - sad to profess an opinion based only on hearsay and innuendos -- n/t mazzarro Feb 2015 #116
Abby Martin and Cross Talk are also excellent, from the Left Pov of course. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #129
I don't watch ABC, CBS, etc. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2015 #174
You sure don't... MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #177
Well la di friggin' da Bluzmann57 Feb 2015 #201
so you watch FOX. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #207
I'd measure the truths from Thom Hartmann over any other "mainstream" news programs... cascadiance Feb 2015 #203
Very well said. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #237
LOL ...got nothing ...attack the messenger is soooo old. Purists will stay with all the others... L0oniX Feb 2015 #184
RT isn't the 'messenger' when playing videos of other people. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2015 #191
rt doesn't edit hartmann, or most of the other independents on its air space. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #211
Thanks for that clarification. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2015 #258
I don't bother clicking on HappyMe Feb 2015 #3
Of course. polly7 Feb 2015 #4
^^^ +1000 nt magical thyme Feb 2015 #51
thank you for a common sense answer. guillaumeb Feb 2015 #141
Thank you, Polly. onyourleft Feb 2015 #172
Putin is an autocrat and that's being generous. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #5
RT.com is not sunlight attempting to illuminate the truth. randome Feb 2015 #7
That's why I referred to the slickly produced Russian cable television station... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #10
RT is not the same as Russian television. It is produced here in the US with mostly sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #45
I didn't pay attention to where it was produced. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #48
What the hell does this mean? MattSh Feb 2015 #97
Because it lacked all nuance, the announcers spoke in stilted English, and was boringly predictable. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #102
What did you expect? Enthusiast Feb 2015 #238
This message was self-deleted by its author 2banon Feb 2015 #222
What part of "That being said I oppose censorship and I would allow the videos" don't you understand DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #224
Didn't read your posts through to the end, My Bad. 2banon Feb 2015 #226
No problem DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #227
How the fuck is this even a question? sibelian Feb 2015 #6
+1000 nt Logical Feb 2015 #13
Fox News should be reported on an equal basis with everything else? randome Feb 2015 #26
+ another Scuba Feb 2015 #27
^ What sibelian said ^ MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #69
People who are willing and capable of thinking critically Maedhros Feb 2015 #175
During the Scottish referendum campaign it was RT and ONLY RT that accurately reported the violence sibelian Feb 2015 #8
RT was the only network that covered the anti-Putin demonstrations in Russia also. It always sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #16
Abso-fricken. sibelian Feb 2015 #20
lutely! MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #73
sigh... SidDithers Feb 2015 #104
The BBC is part of the US Corporate Media?? Since when? sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #106
Your claim was "RT was the only network that covered the anti-Putin demonstrations in Russia"... SidDithers Feb 2015 #107
I filled in what you tried to leave out. I can understand your attempt to change the meaning of sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #118
I left nothing out, sabrina... SidDithers Feb 2015 #140
And?? You choose to misinterpret that post. The BBC is not a US media outlet, I will make sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #150
Keep spinning, sabrina... SidDithers Feb 2015 #154
there are two here spinning Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #157
Who are the 'Putiin Boot Lickers' on DU? Seriously, people want to know. I want to sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #158
People already have figured that out Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #162
IF there are trolls on DU, which is what sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #168
If there are trolls here and there have been Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #170
Sid says there are trolls here. You are getting things a bit mixed up. IF he sees sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #188
I have no idea Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #190
I know what he posted also, and have said repeatedly and will do it once again, sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #264
and you would be wrong again Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #266
I'm sure a list will be produced soon. polly7 Feb 2015 #242
I see you are still fine Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #244
I see you are still fine with someone/anyone/everyone (as no one was excluded) polly7 Feb 2015 #245
He never said "all" once again, I will type slower Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #246
My, my ......... you do go on and on and on. polly7 Feb 2015 #247
and, once again Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #248
Post removed Post removed Feb 2015 #249
once again Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #250
Getting to work on that shrine, time is money! polly7 Feb 2015 #251
here is the difference Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #252
Hey, at least I was brave enough to specify. polly7 Feb 2015 #253
so you like to insult a DU member by name and take credit for it Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #254
I give what I get. polly7 Feb 2015 #255
"I give what I get." Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #256
Let me try it another way: Who is NOT a 'Putin Boot Licker' on this site? sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #265
I would think about 99% Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #267
Surprised, you did not answer any of my questions. all I hear is "crickets" Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #272
There are actual fucking sockpuppets. In great numbers. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #239
Skinner has spoken about obsessive troll hunting. Apparently the message is not getting through. L0oniX Feb 2015 #186
I luv Putin. There ...happy now? L0oniX Feb 2015 #185
They can afford to be objective about another country that has nothing to do with them at the moment treestar Feb 2015 #78
And everything they report is done with the spin that the West is bad... SidDithers Feb 2015 #88
You make your posts and takes your chances on any topic. aikoaiko Feb 2015 #9
Yes, they should be allowed... SidDithers Feb 2015 #11
If the hate site, Little Green Footballs is allowed here ANY source is better than that piece of sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #18
LOL... SidDithers Feb 2015 #21
I know a great deal about LGF. They were part of the Right Wing Noise Machine that went after sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #36
Sure you do, sabrina... SidDithers Feb 2015 #39
LGF's proprietor, Johnson, contributed to the extreme hatred, in fact inspired it, and had sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #56
The Breivik thing is actually a lie. OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #187
No, it is not a lie. He followed Little Green Footballs at the time they were feeding the hatred sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #189
Yes it is. OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #195
aka "Little Green Goofballs" nt bananas Feb 2015 #57
Yes, they did a great deal of harm during the Bush era. They spread vile bigotry sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #103
Sid doesn't do names. polly7 Feb 2015 #22
Don't need to... SidDithers Feb 2015 #24
Who are they, Sid? polly7 Feb 2015 #25
that would be a callout and you know it Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #30
I'm not trying for anything. polly7 Feb 2015 #31
Make the post and chance the jury Fumesucker Feb 2015 #40
What he just did IS a callout. He has called out all DUers as 'Putin boot lickers'. If that is not sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #62
Not all Duers treestar Feb 2015 #65
I believe Sid can speak for himself. He has called DUers 'Putin Bootlickers'. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #70
As I said, do you have the same rule for people who call other DUers treestar Feb 2015 #74
Post a link to where I have ever called ANYONE here ANY NAMES? sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #77
OK, I'll look out for that treestar Feb 2015 #79
That's a fair question. Personally I don't think name calling, especially if it's a collective smear sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #111
... NuclearDem Feb 2015 #85
Thanks for posting that. As I said, I don't call people names, I prefer to be direct giving them sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #117
Your "comment" was nothing more than a baseless, inflammatory smear. NuclearDem Feb 2015 #142
No, that is how I read your comment, and was honest enough to give you a chance to correct sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #160
How the blue hell did you extract THAT from my post? NuclearDem Feb 2015 #166
so now you remove "ALL" Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #83
"He has called out all DUers as 'Putin boot lickers'" Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #66
Everyone does NOT know. Is he, or you, eg, calling ME a Putin bootlicker?? You can sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #75
do you take back the "all" comment or not? Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #86
Sid calle Duers 'Putin boot lickers'. Supposedly we all know who they are. If YOU know, because I sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #100
you are the one that added "all" Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #105
I agree with her ...... if you're not specifying certain individuals, polly7 Feb 2015 #110
you do not add things to a quote Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #119
I added NOTHING. polly7 Feb 2015 #123
sabrina 1 did, not you Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #126
No, I explained why being too * to specify who you're talking about polly7 Feb 2015 #127
Sids own words Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #133
So WHAT is your point? polly7 Feb 2015 #135
she did in this case Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #146
No, she did NOT. polly7 Feb 2015 #148
One more time Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #151
How could everyone possibly know who the 'Putin boot-lickers are' polly7 Feb 2015 #155
Once again Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #156
Baloney treestar Feb 2015 #145
Backatcha. polly7 Feb 2015 #149
Yes, that is what I said and I will repeat it. If someone launches a collective smear sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #159
He is refusing to do that because of DU rules Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #161
I changed NOTHING. I offered my own interpretation of the collective smear sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #164
you said "He has called out all DUers as 'Putin boot lickers'." Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #169
I thought I repeated that twice already. By refusing to name the 'trolls' he is sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #173
"Do you speak for him btw?" Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #176
Hey ........ I was told I was humping Putin's leg just yesterday, lol. polly7 Feb 2015 #89
You just can't hide anything around here, polly. Caught in the act were you? sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #200
Yeah, I wasn't so thrilled with being accused of being a leg humper. polly7 Feb 2015 #240
LOL! 2banon Feb 2015 #225
I just post what Sid said Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #182
Oh my. OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #193
Some people seem to think that they can twist what someone wrote two inches away from where it's Number23 Feb 2015 #180
Yes, it's clear as day-- just read the string. Desert805 Feb 2015 #192
This thread is all kinds of awesome... SidDithers Feb 2015 #263
RT is watched now by over 50 million US households, Sid. zappaman Feb 2015 #269
That number is way off Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #270
Nice to see you Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #271
I don't know who they are. You just called DUers 'Putin boot lickers' so unless you are either sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #41
but, lots of these guys…. MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #80
An update on Little Green Footballs War Horse Feb 2015 #38
Don't confuse 'em with facts... SidDithers Feb 2015 #42
They were cited for their hate filled attacks on Muslims and then hid them. And you are correct, the sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #44
Yes, while they were criticizing others for doing the same thing, polly7 Feb 2015 #47
Don't confuse anyone with what actually happened... MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #81
I'm not expecting to change any minds War Horse Feb 2015 #64
I know they had their internal rift and followed it with some sense of schadenfreude at the time. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #137
"The fact is that the Norwegian mass killer was inspired by Charles Johnson." OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #196
I believe the mass murderer's own assessment of who he was influenced by. Johnson was one of the sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #205
As I said, despicable. OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #210
And you leave out WHY the mass killer said he was angry at Johnson. And that is despicable. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #216
And nothing about Schaeffer or Brock. OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #217
Did Brock spew hateful bigoted rhetoric for YEARS against Muslims? I do not recall that. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #219
Bravo. OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #228
Exuse me, wait a minute. Warren was a bigoted hater?? Wow, you really are getting desperate sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #229
I didn't accuse Warren of being "a bigoted hater". OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #233
I'm not aware that they aren't. Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2015 #12
"lacking in objectivity" - yeah that;s bullshit sibelian Feb 2015 #23
Most of what Parry writes these days, concerning Russia and Ukraine, is conspiracy garbage... SidDithers Feb 2015 #99
'You' posted that. polly7 Feb 2015 #108
We're all (or mostly) adults here. elias49 Feb 2015 #14
People should post whatever they want, but posting crap from known bigoted organizations comes with Bluenorthwest Feb 2015 #15
Does Noam Chomsky qualify as "crap"? nt MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #95
Did I say he is crap? No, you are attempting to exploit Chomsky as a wrapper for the actual issue Bluenorthwest Feb 2015 #167
RT is an effective propganda too for Putin etherealtruth Feb 2015 #17
Could you provide some examples of the programming on RT that are 'propaganda for Putin' sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #35
It is well known that it is Russian state media Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #19
Noam Chomsky? left-of-center2012 Feb 2015 #28
Should videos from Fox News be allowed on DU? Iggo Feb 2015 #29
Fox News isn't goverment controlled so it's objective Fumesucker Feb 2015 #43
no but it is allowed to criticize the government treestar Feb 2015 #67
LOL. Iggo Feb 2015 #112
Yes. Of course they should. Again... sibelian Feb 2015 #132
Word order and that squiggly line over the dot at the end. Iggo Feb 2015 #134
Oh, poot. Now you've got me all confused. sibelian Feb 2015 #138
RT is trash. Censorship is trashier. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #32
That's this whole debate in a nutshell. Panich52 Feb 2015 #260
We need a two-prong test for locking threads: 1) unacceptable media; AND 2) unacceptable message. leveymg Feb 2015 #33
I find the RT propaganda kind of amusing. Nye Bevan Feb 2015 #34
Sure, people can post them all they like. NuclearDem Feb 2015 #37
Compare RT to corporate media Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #46
"Non-corporate information sources" NuclearDem Feb 2015 #49
....... polly7 Feb 2015 #54
And if you can find where I've said I trust corporate media in the West NuclearDem Feb 2015 #55
It's utterly ridiculous to call ALL of those mouthpieces for the world's bankers and 1% polly7 Feb 2015 #59
Hell, I'm convinced! HappyMe Feb 2015 #58
RT would be more like whitehouse.gov treestar Feb 2015 #76
Why would you compare RT to corporate media? randome Feb 2015 #121
Why not edhopper Feb 2015 #50
Yes (nt) bigwillq Feb 2015 #52
RT, Fox, and all rightwing sites are nonexistent to me, never click on them randys1 Feb 2015 #53
RT is a Left Wing site, the antithesis of Fox. Amazing how people will offer opinions of sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #60
RT is a propaganda site controlled by Putin...period, that is ALL I need to know randys1 Feb 2015 #61
Sooooo left wing they believe climate change is a hoax! NuclearDem Feb 2015 #71
RT is a jingoistic Tiger Beat for the Pooter. Very little "Left Wing" about it. Throd Feb 2015 #84
No, it isn't. It's extremely left wing which is why the Right hates it so much. The only sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #98
"Alex Jones on Climategate: Hoax of all time a global Ponzi scheme" NuclearDem Feb 2015 #109
Yes, they do give voice to all sides, wacko CT even, then they are refuted. They allow Right Wingers sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #113
There is no "other side" to climate change. NuclearDem Feb 2015 #139
The BBC has also had Alex Jones the air. Good for them. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #144
There is no "other side" to climate change, and the media has no business NuclearDem Feb 2015 #147
So censorship works, is that what you are stating? If books are banned, or confined to a small sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #152
We've already been down that road. No more. NuclearDem Feb 2015 #165
So censorship works, is that what you are stating? If books are banned, or confined to a small sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #152
Fox News, Alex Jones Join Forces to Race Bait polly7 Feb 2015 #115
RT = Vlad Sez Bobbie Jo Feb 2015 #72
DU has always been a heavily censored site due to trolls Chuuku Davis Feb 2015 #87
Yeah, but it used to be right wing voices that were not welcome Fumesucker Feb 2015 #91
If you don't want to see Left voices on the air, you won't like RT. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #171
These are last century Straight White Men you list. They, like you, seem to think that a person or Bluenorthwest Feb 2015 #273
I think the gatekeepers of GD should be left alone to do their self-appointed job. Rex Feb 2015 #90
Yes! Snarkoleptic Feb 2015 #92
Where else are you going to see William K. Black on tee vee? Octafish Feb 2015 #93
And you know the "statute of limitations" (whether "real" or not) has run, or is running out.. 2banon Feb 2015 #114
FBI knew, yet DoJ said, ''Fuggedaboudid.'' Octafish Feb 2015 #163
I wonder if that Swiss Bank Lansky bought is UBS? 2banon Feb 2015 #213
Where else are you going to see Max Keiser discuss the HSCB law breaking and benefit from QE? MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #96
Love Max and Stacey Oilwellian Feb 2015 #197
Many can't view RT objectively because... MattSh Feb 2015 #101
Yes! n/t wildbilln864 Feb 2015 #120
I love these polls LittleBlue Feb 2015 #122
Of course they should...and then they should be given the response they deserve brooklynite Feb 2015 #124
But that also could mean an "Alert" with Jury Post Lock..... KoKo Feb 2015 #136
Absolutely. It streamlines the process of determining who ... 11 Bravo Feb 2015 #125
And a post alert and lock? KoKo Feb 2015 #143
The difference betwen RT and FOX news is the source of the propaganda. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2015 #128
Spoken from experience of watching? Seriously doubt it... MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #130
No, the difference between Fox and RT is that RT has actual, professional reporters sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #131
RT is not independent news. They are Russian national propoganda. Putin's private network. kwassa Feb 2015 #198
I asked some specific questions of another poster I believe, because I am seeing comments, such as sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #199
Here is an expose of the RT propaganda apparatus. kwassa Feb 2015 #202
Here is another look at the RT propaganda machine kwassa Feb 2015 #204
Something from RT itself, not the corporate media's 'opinion' of RT. Again, it appears you are not sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #206
Oh bullshit. Read the very long Buzzfeed expose, full of specifics. You are disingenuous. kwassa Feb 2015 #208
Bullshit yourself. I reject liars who led this country to war, and now set themselves up as sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #209
You shoot the messenger rather than debate the specifics in the Buzzfeed expose. kwassa Feb 2015 #212
The WSJ is OWNED by Right Wing Global Propagandist, Rupert Murdoch. The trick is to allow a few sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #215
Your avoidance technique is fascinating. False, but fascinating. kwassa Feb 2015 #218
Omg, Liz Wahl!! Do you know anything about her?? Clearly not. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #220
"I do not comment on anything I am not educated about." OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #230
???? What is your point? Or are you trying to make MY point? That the US media is being sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #231
you are arguing with someone who wont face the truth Ramses Feb 2015 #232
Yes, I know. Our propaganda media appears to have had the desired effect sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #261
True Renew Deal Feb 2015 #223
troublemaker reddread Feb 2015 #178
sure. we allow NYT & broadcast ABC, NBC, CBS, and they lied us into war. NuttyFluffers Feb 2015 #179
Exactly! polly7 Feb 2015 #243
Well done, Manny. zappaman Feb 2015 #181
Enjoyed the show, did you? Number23 Feb 2015 #214
See this: Lithos Feb 2015 #183
Yes they should be, I'm not in favor of censorship. People don't want to watch it no one Autumn Feb 2015 #194
Yes, but only in these two groups Renew Deal Feb 2015 #221
#JeSuisRT Violet_Crumble Feb 2015 #234
Why I didn't like either option Jim Lane Feb 2015 #235
Oh, dear, we might be influenced! Enthusiast Feb 2015 #236
Should DU stop beating its wife? Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2015 #241
No vote from me. MineralMan Feb 2015 #257
Very good post Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #259
Yes, but with caveats... Blue_Tires Feb 2015 #262
'Allowed' is the wrong word LeftishBrit Feb 2015 #268
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Poll: Should videos from ...»Reply #163