AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

What can't be justified is an action by government that appears at least questionable that benefits a particular person or group for political purposes and smells very much like payola.

Fact: The Bank’s bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank’s Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush.

Quote:

Fact: The Bank’s bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank’s Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush.

http://www.exim.gov/brazil/pressrelease_082009.cfm

i think freeduck may have posted this already, but incase you didn't notice...

Soros reports 73.5% increase in Petrobras stake - MarketWatch
Feb 17, 2009 ... Soros, through his Soros Fund Management LLC, reported holding 36.8 million American ... Soros reports 73.5% increase in Petrobras stake ...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/soros-reports-735-increase-petrobras-stake

Aug. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire George Soros cut his stake in his biggest holding, Petroleo Brasileiro SA, in the second quarter while buying more shares of other energy producers.

His New York-based hedge-fund firm, Soros Fund Management LLC, sold 22 million U.S.-listed common shares of Petrobras, as the Brazilian oil company is known, according to a filing today with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Soros bought 5.8 million of the company’s U.S.-traded preferred shares.

Soros is taking advantage of the spread between the two types of U.S.-listed Petrobras shares, said Luis Maizel, president of LM Capital Group LLC, which manages about $4 billion. The common shares were 21 percent more expensive than preferred today, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“He knows he held a voting right in the common shares that would never translate to actual power,” Maizel said in an interview from San Francisco. “He’s just playing the spread.”

Petrobras preferred shares have also a 10 percent additional dividend, said William Landers, a senior portfolio manager for Latin America at Blackrock Inc.

“Given that there will most likely never be a change in control in the company, I see no reason to pay a higher price for the common shares.” Brazil’s government controls Petrobras and has a majority stake of voting shares.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.V5sgGzdsQY

The problem is that some of the mentally ill and the more chronic addicts won't accept the help, especially if it comes with any kind of requirement or expectation. And the law is prohibited from forcing them to accept help.

He didn't dump any Petrobas stock. He switched from common to preferred

And this is the second or third time I've pointed out that your source is the government entity being questioned here. How many government entities do you know who will admit that what they are doing isn't absolutely wonderful for God, country, mother, and apple pie? And since when does any of our government entities have their own money that does not belong to the American people?

He didn't dump any Petrobas stock.

He reduced the stake by reducing shares.

I haven't seen anybody really put the pencil to it, but I would be really surprised if his hedge fund reduced the dollar amount of its investment.

Foxfyre wrote:

The problem is that some of the mentally ill and the more chronic addicts won't accept the help, especially if it comes with any kind of requirement or expectation. And the law is prohibited from forcing them to accept help.

If someone is mentally ill here and doesn't accept help, he's send by court to the psychiatric hospital (mentally health law). The court is informed by the local "code enforcement office" (kind of 'public order civil servants', at all town/city councils).

Charities help here, of course as well, towns/cities/counties just provide the basic as ordered by our constitution (that's home, and a small amount for food, cloth etc).

I fully understand that some mental ill persons don't accept help - that's exactly the reason why they go in a hospital by juridical order 8and get a legal guardian after 48 hours).
What chronic addicts do is more or less their business .... as long as they can decide about that, and they aren't caught doing something illegal.

My point, however, was more that we generally don't combine 'homeless' and 'mentally ill'. [Well that some consider the homeless as mentally ill, others the town councillors and again others both of these groups - that's a different kettle of fish.]

Every winter on unusually cold nights, the police and others comb the streets looking for those without shelter. They provide transport to the shelter for any who will accept it. There are always a few who will not, and therefore there are always a few who succumb to the elements. This is not because of neglect or uncaring.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I.
Section 2. ...
The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Section 3. ...
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Section 5. ...
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment V.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

How many government entities do you know who will admit that what they are doing isn't absolutely wonderful for God, country, mother, and apple pie? ...

...And no matter how much DTOM wants to blame Reagan for all of it

first of all, i did not blame reagan for "all of it". but, he didn't help either, because;

it was certainly was not his initiative and his ( Reagan's)only 'crime' was signing legislation...

which he could have, but did not veto. so it became his initiative, right? just like Afghanistan is now "Obama's war"?

Foxfyre wrote:

Every winter on unusually cold nights, the police and others comb the streets looking for those without shelter. They provide transport to the shelter for any who will accept it. There are always a few who will not, and therefore there are always a few who succumb to the elements. This is not because of neglect or uncaring.

I didn't mean such at all.
It's quite similar here, too.
And again: I didn't reall refer to 'neglect' and/or 'uncaring' but to connect this group(these groups with "mentally ill" and especially with "psychiatric hospital".


I've been quite often in the wards for mentally (psychiatric) ill who are mentally disabled - that are departments (or just wards) in our psychiatric hospitals as well ... (As well as in any other department/ward .... over 30 years by now.)

Foxfyre wrote:

How many government entities do you know who will admit that what they are doing isn't absolutely wonderful for God, country, mother, and apple pie? ...

how convenient that you only now come on that thought.

you are throwing contradictions like mad today, babe.

so far, all you have come up with is that it's okay for everybody to make money except george soros.

And it certainly is not the first time that I have suggested that a highly prejudiced source is not the best place to go for complete information.

I think it completely naive to depend on Paul to explain why it was a bad thing to rob from Peter to pay Paul.

The Homeless people, however, according to our LAW, are able to make choices and to function in intentional ways and are not a danger to themselves or others, and they cannot be required against their will to be institutionalized. The Lefties--probably some of the same group who made the law to be rewritten as it now is--are the ones who now blame Reagan and the Republicans because we have homeless people on the street, many or most of whom would likely be in mental institutions under our old law.