Hillary is Poison!

Hell, I harbor special feelings for Hillary. I used to be nuts about women. She's almost cured me.

0 Replies

Roger- I think no one really knows what a supreme bitch Hillary really is.

Many are not aware of her extortion when she turned $1,000 into $100,000 in a year by betting on cattle futures. How did she do that?

Joe Klein will explain all in his biography of Hillary due out soon.

Some are equating Klein's book with the tome that destroyed Kerry's chances for the presidency--"Unfit for Command"

Did you know,roger, that Hillary worked for the lawyer who was the head of the Communist Party in America?

Klein will give you details.

Did you know, roger, that her High School Student Newspaper called her- "Sister Frigidaire"

Klein will give you details.

Did you know, roger, that when Hillary gave a speech to the League of Women Voters in college, she declaimed:

"How much longer can we let corporations run us? Isn't it about time that they, as all the rest of our institutions, are held accountable to the people:"

I am sure Klein will explore this speech in depth.

Did you know, roger, that Hillary is always cool, calm and collected.

When Minute Maid was implicated in the migrant worker scandal , the CEO of Coca- Cola caoe to testify and Hillary, smooth and judicious lawyer that she is, confronted the CEO and said:

"We're going to nail your ass" Nail your ass"

A great lady Hillary.

Klein will also cover that one, I am sure.

I am looking forward to his book!!!

0 Replies

so it's coming out on "books on tape"?

0 Replies

There's an excerpt of the Klein book in the June or July issue of Vanity Fair. It's pretty mmmmm unexciting. Not sure I'll even ask the library to get it. I was hoping for some good dirt like I've been reading in the Giuliani biographies that are out there. pffffffft No good dirt in the part of Klein I've read (and Vanity Fair LOVES dirt).

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

...she turned $1,000 into $100,000 in a year by betting on cattle futures. How did she do that?

She bought cattle futures. Then they went up, up , up. That's how she did that.

You could have done it too.

Is there a shred of evidence that anyone who bought cattle futures at the same time wouldn't have done the same?

Why don't you investigate everyone who bought Genentech at the beginning?

I asked the question to you before. You did not answer. Why?

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

Why don't you put your brain to use, Dyslxia and find some "errors" in my post?

The errors are these: you have conveniently ignored that since Clinton inherited a HIGH unemployment rate, his first months are going to have high unemployment. It is impossible to go from 7% unemployment to 4% unemployment in one month.
His low months will come later-after he has a chance to drive it low.

It is ridiculous to talk about average levels of anything when one person is going from high to low, and the other is going from low to high.

Example: One son inherits a business that had gone down to the point where it only made $15,000 a year. In two years, he works it up to the point where it nets $100,000 a year.

Then, he turns the business over to the other son, who starts making $100,000 a year but in two years drives it down to the point where it now only nets $15,000 a year.

Both sons have the same average income with that business.

But one son was superlative, and the other son was terrible.

that is why it ridiculous to talk about averages when one person is going from high to low, and the other is going from low to high.

0 Replies

Just to remind the people reading this thread, without chiczaira's ridiculous "analysis" of the figures, here is the chart of unemployment for Alan "The Genius" Greenspan's tenure. Alan doesn't look like much of a genius unless Bill Clinton is president, does he?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/BUnemploymentRateGreenspansTenure.gif

0 Replies

You don't have a clue, do you, Keltic Wizard.

Do you know what the Economic Policy Institute is?

http://www.jopwatch.org/

quote:

"Last month, jobs in the private sector finally reached the level of March 2001"( the unemployment rate was 4,3% then)

"Since March 2001, total employment is UP 0.6%"

" durable manufacturing is down by 16.2% since
March 2001"

Is this to be laid at the feet of George W, Bush? Did he set up policies that made durable manufacturing fall?

Keltic Wixard would say so, but then he would be wrong again and as usual.

What country has lost manufacturing jobs at a very very high rate in the last five years>

Keltic Wizard, who obviously knows little about economics would say the USA.
Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.asianlabour.org/archives/002130.php

quote

"China is losing more manufactuirng jobs than the United States. For the entire economy between 1995 and 2002, China lost 15 Million Manufacturing jobs compared with 2 Million in the USA...As its manufacturing PRODUCTIVITY increases, Chinas is losing jobs in manufacturing and gaining them in services, a pattern that has been playing out in the developed world for many years>"

Now, why should that be true. Keltic Wizard, profoundly ignorant about Economics apparently knows nothing about Productivity, but Tom Friedman in his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree does---

quote Friedman-

I visited the Lexus factory outside Toyota city outside of Tokyo. At that time, the factory was producing 300 Lexus sedans a day, made by 66 human beings and 310 robots."

Get it- Keltic Wizard???? Increased Productivity comes from better technology. Durable manufacturing is decreased sharply.

I am amazed at Keltic Wizard's prescience. He KNOWS that the rest of Bush's tenure will not have Employment rates as high as Clinton's did in his last term.

The CIA should hire Keltic Wizard forthwith.

And with regard to his chart. The chart is only useful if you cut a line down in the middle of 1997. That is the only part of the chart that can be compared with the chart for Bush.

Why? Bush's chart shows fifty four months, therefore only the first fiftyfour months of Keltic Wizard's chart on Clinton can fairly be used.

As I said in my previous post( which Keltic Wizard did not rebut point by point since he could not.

There were 23 months in Clinton's first fifty six months in office in which the unemployment rate was lower than President Bush's first fifty six months in office.

On the other hand, there were 33 months in Bush's first fifty six months in office in which the unemployment rate was lower than President Clinton's first fifty six months in office.

The data is there for anyone to review and comment on!

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

You don't have a clue, do you, Keltic Wizard.

Hee hee. Who are you kidding? I've been slaughtering you on this thread for pages.

chiczaira wrote:

Do you know what the Economic Policy Institute is?

Nope. And neither did you, until you hit the search engines in desperate quest of an answer to the charts I posted.

Quote:

quote:

"Last month, jobs in the private sector finally reached the level of March 2001"( the unemployment rate was 4,3% then)

So let me get this straight. It took to the summer of 2005 to reach the level of private sector jobs that existed just after Clinton left office-and you're trying to brag about it? Razz

Economic Policy Institute wrote:

"Since March 2001, total employment is UP 0.6%"

Up 0.6% in four years-Bush is not exactly going like a house on fire, is he?

Economic Policy Institute wrote:

" durable manufacturing is down by 16.2% since March 2001"

Gee, that 's a shame. In Clinton's last two years, it went UP 3.6% a year. What the heck is wrong with Bush?

By the way, is that statistic for the number of jobs in durable manufacturing, or for the dollar output in the durable manufacturing sector? Do you even know the difference?

chiczaira wrote:

Is this to be laid at the feet of George W, Bush? Did he set up policies that made durable manufacturing fall?

.
You have a better explanation?

chiczaira wrote:

Keltic Wixard would say so, but then he would be wrong again and as usual.

"Keltic Wixard" is waiting for some explanation as to why durable manufacturing was going UP under Clinton, and going DOWN under Bush.

chiczaira wrote:

What country has lost manufacturing jobs at a very very high rate in the last five years>

Keltic Wizard, who obviously knows little about economics would say the USA.
Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.asianlabour.org/archives/002130.php

It says in asianlabour.org that is what I would say? I never even met anyone from asianlabour.org. How would they possibly know?

chiczaira wrote:

quote

"China is losing more manufactuirng jobs than the United States. For the entire economy between 1995 and 2002, China lost 15 Million Manufacturing jobs compared with 2 Million in the USA...As its manufacturing PRODUCTIVITY increases, Chinas is losing jobs in manufacturing and gaining them in services, a pattern that has been playing out in the developed world for many years>"

So?

chiczaira wrote:

Now, why should that be true. Keltic Wizard, profoundly ignorant about Economics apparently knows nothing about Productivity, but Tom Friedman in his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree does---

With all due respect, and with no malice intended, the time truly has come to ask: What the HELL are you babbling about?

chiczaira wrote:

]quote Friedman-

Why? Who was talking about Friedman?

Thomas Friedman wrote:

I visited the Lexus factory outside Toyota city outside of Tokyo. At that time, the factory was producing 300 Lexus sedans a day, made by 66 human beings and 310 robots."

And exactly how does productivity with robots in Tokyo have anything to do with loss of manufacturing jobs in China.
Sit down, Chiczaira, and take a deep breath. Tokyo is in Japan. It is a separate country from China. I know, I know, they all look alike to your kind, but trust me on this one-these are two separate places.

chiczaira wrote:

Get it- Keltic Wizard???? Increased Productivity comes from better technology. Durable manufacturing is decreased sharply.

Then explain how durable manufacturing went UP under Clinton, and so did productivity. And unemployment went down. All at the same time.

chiczaira wrote:

I am amazed at Keltic Wizard's prescience. He KNOWS that the rest of Bush's tenure will not have Employment rates as high as Clinton's did in his last term.

It probably won't happen, but it wouldn't matter anyway.

The desirable goal is to keep unemployment down. Clinton drove it down throughout his term. Even if Bush drives it down the rest of the way, the fact is that he drove it UP first. So he can NEVER equal Clinton, who steadily drove it down throughout his two terms.

Unless, of course, Bush drives it way UNDER 4%. Like down to 2%. Care to claim that he can do that?

chiczaira wrote:

The CIA should hire Keltic Wizard forthwith.

Why? Do they keep labor statistics?

chiczaira wrote:

And with regard to his chart. The chart is only useful if you cut a line down in the middle of 1997. That is the only part of the chart that can be compared with the chart for Bush.

Yes, and the chart shows Clinton steadily driving unemployment DOWN right from the start, and Bush driving unemployment UP first, then driving it down.

chiczaira wrote:

As I said in my previous post( which Keltic Wizard did not rebut point by point since he could not.

No, the chart rebuts all your points at once.

chiczaira wrote:

There were 23 months in Clinton's first fifty six months in office in which the unemployment rate was lower than President Bush's first fifty six months in office.

On the other hand, there were 33 months in Bush's first fifty six months in office in which the unemployment rate was lower than President Clinton's first fifty six months in office.

Clinton started with over 7%, and drove it down to 4.2%. Bush started with 4.2% from Clinton, and drove it UP, then partly down.

The idea is to drive unemployment down, or at least keep it from rising. This, Clinton did. This, Bush did NOT do for many months.

chiczaira wrote:

The data is there for anyone to review and comment on!

And my chart is here for all to see. Very Happy

PS: Just to remind you, Chiczaira-Tokyo is not in China. I wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself again, like you did here.

0 Replies

Keltic Wizard says that Hillary bought some Cattle Futures and they went up, up, up. Keltic Wizard is profoundly ignorant about this. Hillary and Bill got a good deal of money in a conspiracy.

The new book by Klein will give more details.

Here is what the ignorant Keltic Wizard does not know:

In 1978, when Bill was still Attorney General of Arkansas, Hillary opened a "futures account" with Recim a Chicago based firmm whose local broker was "Red" Bone, Hillary TURNED THE MANAGEMENT OF THIS ACCOUNT OVER TO JAMES BLAIR, COUNSEL FOR TYSON'S FOODS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHICKEN PROCESSORS IN THE US AND A MAJOR ARKANSAS EMPLOYER.

Tyson was a major contributor to Clinton's campaigns. The account grew like wildfire.

It stood at almost $100,000 almost a year later.

Now, it is important to note that Refco did not issue magin calls, Buying on the margin means putting up a down payment on a contract.You put down 10 per cent, say, selling cattle futures short based on the current price. This means you are betting the price will fall, If the price increases, your liabliilty increases and the new 10 percent is higher than the old one. AT THAT POINT, A BROKERAGE HOUSE WILL USUALLY ISSUE A MARGIN CALL ASKING YOU TO PUT IN MORE MONEY TO COVER WHAT LOOMS AS A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS.

Red Bone never called for the margin calls.

Had Bone and Blair played by the rules, according to James Glassman of the New Republic, HILLARY SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A MARGIN CALL TO PUT UP $117,500. SHE NEVER GOT A CALL.

Hillary entered the market on Oct 11, 1978. On her first ten cattle contracts, she sold short--A MOST DANGEROUS KIND OF TRADING SINCE YOU ARE BETTING THE PRICE WILL DROP AND YOU ARE RISKING ENORMOUS LOSSES IF THEY RISE.

Marshall Magazine, A publication of the Marshall School of Business at USC printed the following:

These results are remarkable. Twoi thirds of her trades showed a profit by the end of the day shehad made them and 80 percent were ultimately profitable. MANY OF HER TRADES TOOK PLACE IN OR NEAR THE BEST PRICES OF THE DAY.

Only four explanations can account for these remarkable results.
l. Blair may have been an exceptionally good trader.

2. The inexperienced Hillary may have been exceptionally lucky

3. Blair may have arranged to have a broker fraudently assign trades to benefit Hillary's account or

4. Blair may have been front running other orders.

MANY PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH THESE MARKETS THINK THAT THE FIRST TWO EXPLANATIONS ARE EXCEEDINGLY UNLIKELY. WELL INFORMED TRADERS RARELY TRADE WITH SUCH REMARKABLE SUCCESS AND CONSISTENCY.

The Journal of Economics and Statistics placed the odds for the results obtained by Hillary at 250 Million to one.

Why Might have Blair given this largesse to Hillary?

A surrreptitious transfer of an illegal bribe to Clinton for a political favor or for political influence.

Some say Don Tyson was the benefactor.

This is the kind of material that Keltic Wizard never reads!!!

0 Replies

Keltic Wizard says that Hillary bought some Cattle Futures and they went up, up, up. Keltic Wizard is profoundly ignorant about this. Hillary and Bill got a good deal of money in a conspiracy.

The new book by Klein will give more details.

Here is what the ignorant Keltic Wizard does not know:

In 1978, when Bill was still Attorney General of Arkansas, Hillary opened a "futures account" with Recim a Chicago based firmm whose local broker was "Red" Bone, Hillary TURNED THE MANAGEMENT OF THIS ACCOUNT OVER TO JAMES BLAIR, COUNSEL FOR TYSON'S FOODS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHICKEN PROCESSORS IN THE US AND A MAJOR ARKANSAS EMPLOYER.

Tyson was a major contributor to Clinton's campaigns. The account grew like wildfire.

It stood at almost $100,000 almost a year later.

Now, it is important to note that Refco did not issue magin calls, Buying on the margin means putting up a down payment on a contract.You put down 10 per cent, say, selling cattle futures short based on the current price. This means you are betting the price will fall, If the price increases, your liabliilty increases and the new 10 percent is higher than the old one. AT THAT POINT, A BROKERAGE HOUSE WILL USUALLY ISSUE A MARGIN CALL ASKING YOU TO PUT IN MORE MONEY TO COVER WHAT LOOMS AS A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS.

Red Bone never called for the margin calls.

Had Bone and Blair played by the rules, according to James Glassman of the New Republic, HILLARY SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A MARGIN CALL TO PUT UP $117,500. SHE NEVER GOT A CALL.

Hillary entered the market on Oct 11, 1978. On her first ten cattle contracts, she sold short--A MOST DANGEROUS KIND OF TRADING SINCE YOU ARE BETTING THE PRICE WILL DROP AND YOU ARE RISKING ENORMOUS LOSSES IF THEY RISE.

Marshall Magazine, A publication of the Marshall School of Business at USC printed the following:

These results are remarkable. Twoi thirds of her trades showed a profit by the end of the day shehad made them and 80 percent were ultimately profitable. MANY OF HER TRADES TOOK PLACE IN OR NEAR THE BEST PRICES OF THE DAY.

Only four explanations can account for these remarkable results.
l. Blair may have been an exceptionally good trader.

2. The inexperienced Hillary may have been exceptionally lucky

3. Blair may have arranged to have a broker fraudently assign trades to benefit Hillary's account or

4. Blair may have been front running other orders.

MANY PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH THESE MARKETS THINK THAT THE FIRST TWO EXPLANATIONS ARE EXCEEDINGLY UNLIKELY. WELL INFORMED TRADERS RARELY TRADE WITH SUCH REMARKABLE SUCCESS AND CONSISTENCY.

The Journal of Economics and Statistics placed the odds for the results obtained by Hillary at 250 Million to one.

Why Might have Blair given this largesse to Hillary?

A surrreptitious transfer of an illegal bribe to Clinton for a political favor or for political influence.

Some say Don Tyson was the benefactor.

This is the kind of material that Keltic Wizard never reads!!!

0 Replies

Clearly, Keltic Wizard has no clue about who Italgato was or what the CLEAR EVIDENCE on posting science tells us.

If he had read what Richard Posner, the former chief judge US court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, had written in his numerous widely admired books on the suject, he would not exhibit such blatant ignorance here.

Keltix Wizard has obiously not read any of those books.

Furthermore, does this "Wizard" even know what Robbert Kamlan wrote about the consequences of globalisation?

In his "The Ends of the Earth", Kamlan, who has a PhD in neurological science as well as having done extensive doctoral work on economic science, writes:

"The globalisation of personal interaction incurred by the emergence of postmodern, Internet-based communication tools paradoxically leads to, simultaneously, a shortening of distances and an increased confrontation between different cultural frames of reference."

Keltix is demonstratively ignorant of such writings! If he had even had an inklng of these matters,he would have known how Slimebag Clinton caused a serious deterioration of the human quality standards (HQS) in our country. Doesd he even know what HQS stands for? Of course he does not.

Dim-witted Keltix does not know( or perhaps DOES NOT WANT TO KNOW) that THE FACTS show it is the same drop in HQS that led the Al-Qaeda slaughterers to believe they could attack the heart of the American economy and government!!!!! Does he think perhaps that is coincidental???

Does he know that Hillary Clinton's former financial consultant and "intimate" housefriend, Jonathan Myers, made 8,12 MILLION dollars when he sold his stocks in WTC-based companies the very week before 9/11?

I am sure that Keltix would not care, or would not be able to discrn what THAT MEANS.

But if he really had any concern for his country, he would have known that I predicted that under Bush Junior, unemployment at the end of the first year of his tenure would be LOWER than that at the end of the first year of Clinton's.

These are THE FACTS, that are there for all TO SEE.

And if Keltix had gotten beyond cartoons and read up on his posting science, he would have known the power of the Bermuda triangle!! :wink:

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Hell, I harbor special feelings for Hillary. I used to be nuts about women. She's almost cured me.

well don't despair about that rog ,in Hillarys white house there is room for everyone. You can be Secretary of the Interior Decorations. :wink:

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Not to ignore his/her last post, but one more question regarding when

Scrat wrote:
You can pretend ignorance of the facts, but they are there in front of you. When did unemployment start to go down? Under Bush I. When did it start to go back up? Under Clinton. IF YOU WANT TO CREDIT THE SITTING PRESIDENT FOR THESE THINGS, THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE TO LAY THE CREDIT.

In your opinion, in terms of who started the boat pushing which way, should the credit/blame for the sudden and huge increase in unemployment in 1990-1992, up to the highest point its been in twenty years, go to Bush I-era economic policies, because it took place during his term, or to Reagan II-era policies, because the turnaround in unemployment started at the very end of his second term?

Are you not reading what I write, or failing to comprehend it? I wrote that we have to look at policies AND OTHER CONDITIONS, and I specifically wrote that I am NOT attributing anything to the machinations of any president; I'm shooting holes in the moronic suggestions of people who are trying to do so.

Now, if you'll excuse me, my circuits are overtired from having to repeat the same, simple English phrases for you intellectually challenged partisan hacks. ;-)

0 Replies

I am stunned at the facility with which nimh has rebutted my inadequate precis concerning Hillary's avaricious extortion.

Perhaps, with all of his gifts, nimh will be able to competely rebut Klein;s forthcoming book which, I am sure, will nail Hillary to the wall on the Cattlegate matter as well as on many other choice items.

Despite Nimh's blatherings--My post stands unrebutted. I am sure that Nimh has never read and never heard of Marshall Magazine and the Journal of Economics and Statistics.

But, I think Hillary must be given credit. Even though Marshall magazine has printed outrageous lies about her involvement with the Cattle Futures, she chose NOT TO SUE FOR LIBEL. How magnaminious of her!!!

0 Replies

Anyhoo, I caught this Ed Klein fellow on FoxNews, where Hannity's feed to Alan Colmes on location in Aruba happened to go kerflooey about the time Klein showed up. He has witnesses of interesting events related to his decidedly ugly episode wherein Bill is reported to have forced Hill into the in and out.

I usually don't give these things credence....

When you have witnesses to pertinent related facts, and you allude to the deed, I don't think you can sue.

0 Replies

Exactly, Lash, but nimh does not understand that. It certainly appears that Hillary will run. I am sure that the Cattlegate affair will be aired many times. It will be then that I will note what Nimh has to say.

0 Replies

Moving away from these manufactured "issues", let's get back to important things.

Below you will find a chart, prepared from Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, for the number of people working full time each year during Alan Greenspan's tenure.

Note the mediocre performance of Bush I and Bush II. Also note the sustained excellence of Clinton throughout his tenure, as more and more people got full time jobs.

Once again, we see that Alan Greenspan only looks good when Bill Clinton is president. He looks not nearly so good when either Bush is president.

Consistent excellence from the Clinton Administration.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/FullTimeEmployedGreenspan.jpg

0 Replies

Keltic Wizard shows his profound ignorance about Greenspan vis a vis Clinton. I thinl Keltic Wizard slept through Econ. 101.

Keltic Wizard suggests that Clinton directed Greenspan. WHAT A CROCK!!

Greenspan directed Clinton and Greenspan is the architect of any Economic Boom during the Nineties.

Evidence?
Testimony from someone who knows forty six hundred times more about the truth concerning the economy of the ninties that KELTIC WIZARD---Namely--Bob Woodward who wrote in his book on Greenspan--"Greenspan, who is, after all, the steward of the economy of the nineties"

Woodward recounts in his book_"Maestro" that Clinton was initially opposed to Greenspans Economic Plan but was persuaded by Greenspan to adopt it.

It's a good thing Greenspan was around. He ran the economy. The only thing Clinton ran was the humidor placement for his cigars.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

seems like the pot calling the kettle....

Verily I say unto thee, I am loaded with the personal invective---AFTER I receive incoming.

I prefer to discuss the issue, of course, <I also cut up...sorry, sense of humor>...but I don't like to use the personality of an opponent to score false points. That doesn't appeal to me. Unless, they've already done that to me, in which case I do love it. It's like a good poo. A little unpleasant, but necessary and good for digestion.

This guy is all about negative personal characterization. All poo.

0 Replies

Hillary is Poison!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know