Overpaid CEOs and Greedy Capitalists.. oh my!

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A corporation is an IRS rule. SCOTUS really screwed up on that one.

I disagree, I think they actually got that one right. Obamacare, they screwed up.

Look, a "corporation" is merely an assembly of people. It's not a humanless entity lumbering through our world, gobbling up everything in sight. It is a group of people who are organized for their own self interests, just like unions or PACs.

The Constitution says, we have the right to assembly. Our rights can not be infringed because we happen to belong to a group. Now seriously... did you want SCOTUS to rule differently? You DON'T want people to be able to form political activist groups to protest what they don't like about government, etc.? We can't create a double standard, where certain groups get this right and others don't, so if they SCOTUS had ruled the opposite, then ANY organized group of people would have to comply.

great points. Liberals hate corporations even though they got us from the stone age to here not because they have a reason but merely because they have been brainwashed by Marx who was the world's most deadly idiot. The beauty of it is the liberals have no idea whatsoever they have been brainwashed.

 

[Boss]

great points. Liberals hate corporations even though they got us from the stone age to here not because they have a reason but merely because they have been brainwashed by Marx who was the world's most deadly idiot. The beauty of it is the liberals have no idea whatsoever they have been brainwashed.

Yes, they have been programmed to hate corporations, but what they don't seem to comprehend is, things like "think-progress.org" are corporations. The Southern Poverty Law Center... another "corporation." Do you suppose liberals would enjoy watching all of their bastions of "the cause" go down in flames, because the SCOTUS rendered them impotent? I highly doubt it! And, whatever would Democrats do, if unions no longer were allowed to participate in the political process?

They THINK they can use SCOTUS to prohibit certain rights to certain groups, namely corporations, but the Constitution is pretty clear on this, plus, we passed laws against segregation, years ago!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

great points. Liberals hate corporations even though they got us from the stone age to here not because they have a reason but merely because they have been brainwashed by Marx who was the world's most deadly idiot. The beauty of it is the liberals have no idea whatsoever they have been brainwashed.

Yes, they have been programmed to hate corporations, but what they don't seem to comprehend is, things like "think-progress.org" are corporations. The Southern Poverty Law Center... another "corporation." Do you suppose liberals would enjoy watching all of their bastions of "the cause" go down in flames, because the SCOTUS rendered them impotent? I highly doubt it! And, whatever would Democrats do, if unions no longer were allowed to participate in the political process?

They THINK they can use SCOTUS to prohibit certain rights to certain groups, namely corporations, but the Constitution is pretty clear on this, plus, we passed laws against segregation, years ago!

what's stunning to me is that the brainwashing is so perfect that a liberal never stops for a second to realize that corporations are
the life blood of civilization. Where corporations are the richest that means owners, workers and consumers are the richest. It 100% escapes them!!

Your idea is of course correct but you're asking far too much of the liberal mind in expecting them to understand it. If they can't see that making everyone rich is a good thing what can they see?

 

[jasonnfree]

A corporation is an IRS rule. SCOTUS really screwed up on that one.

I disagree, I think they actually got that one right. Obamacare, they screwed up.

Look, a "corporation" is merely an assembly of people. It's not a humanless entity lumbering through our world, gobbling up everything in sight. It is a group of people who are organized for their own self interests, just like unions or PACs.

The Constitution says, we have the right to assembly. Our rights can not be infringed because we happen to belong to a group. Now seriously... did you want SCOTUS to rule differently? You DON'T want people to be able to form political activist groups to protest what they don't like about government, etc.? We can't create a double standard, where certain groups get this right and others don't, so if they SCOTUS had ruled the opposite, then ANY organized group of people would have to comply.

But the scotus went farther and called corporations persons with all the rights of persons. Isn't that carrying things a little too far? Corporate personhood should extend only as far signing contracts.

 

[Flopper]

Mike, with all due respect, we are finished with this conversation. You are delusional if you think this radical idea would ever even be uttered on the floor of the house or senate as a possible suggestion. I don't even think Bernie Sanders would have the balls. It's a total non-starter.

Bernie will have all the balls and backup he needs should US voters open their eyes to how much the richest 1% of Americans control their "democracy." Should internet-based social media ever find a way to convince millions of voters to FLUSH hundreds of Republican AND Democrat incumbents alike from DC in a single news cycle by replacing the corporate tools with patriots from already established third parties, it will be American oligarchs who are economically castrated.

What the voters need to open their eyes to, is the incessant rants from Marxist Socialists, preaching the tenets of failed Marxist Socialism. Those of you who truly buy into this 1% bullshit, are too ignorant to help. You are the type who failed world history, didn't bother studying about the past, and have been brainwashed by Marxist Socialists into believing in Utopia.

You fucktards aren't going to repeal the 4th amendment any more than you are going to repeal the 1st or 2nd amendments. You'd need a Congress FULL of Bernie Sanders, then you still would need 37 states to ratify your lunacy. IF you should ever get that far, I predict you'll get your asses kicked in the biggest civil war you can imagine.

It is stunning to me, you people live in the most opportunity-filled society man has ever devised. Every one of you degenerates have the freedom and liberty to go out there and BECOME one of the 1%, if you so desire. Nowhere else on this planet, is that more possible and likely, than here in the US, with free market, free enterprise capitalism. And you want to destroy this so you can implement a failed model of European socialist government, which has been responsible for more death and poverty than any system man has devised. Why? Because you are ignorant proles who believe in something that doesn't exist.

No, the 1% is not bullshit. It's a fact. 1% has 34% of the country's wealth. The top 1% have seen their share of America's income more than double. The bottom 90% have seen their portion shrink.

Most economist agree that a growing middle class is a cornerstone of economic growth in American. It is what separates us from third world countries. The middle class has been shrinking because the upper middle class is jointing the wealthy and lower middle class is falling into poverty.

The lower middle class have been hit with a double whammy. From the mid 20th century, automation has reduced the market for manual labor as well as semi-killed workers while in the later part of the century, globalization has claimed millions of jobs. Globalization of course has not been all bad for America. It has created opportunities for the upper-middle class as well as the wealthy to increase their share of the pie. In emerging markets oversea, globalization has had the opposite effect. The middle class is growing and poverty is shrinking.

I think this trend will continue for many years until the cost of labor abroad becomes high enough that lower middle class American labor can once again compete. I seriously doubt that any changes in government spending, taxes, or entitlement programs will have any major effect. In other words, the rich are going to get a lot richer and the poor are going to get poorer.

 

[georgephillip]

A corporation is an IRS rule. SCOTUS really screwed up on that one.

I disagree, I think they actually got that one right. Obamacare, they screwed up.

Look, a "corporation" is merely an assembly of people. It's not a humanless entity lumbering through our world, gobbling up everything in sight. It is a group of people who are organized for their own self interests, just like unions or PACs.

The Constitution says, we have the right to assembly. Our rights can not be infringed because we happen to belong to a group. Now seriously... did you want SCOTUS to rule differently? You DON'T want people to be able to form political activist groups to protest what they don't like about government, etc.? We can't create a double standard, where certain groups get this right and others don't, so if they SCOTUS had ruled the opposite, then ANY organized group of people would have to comply.

You're not much of an historian yourself, are you?

When Thomas Paine cleared up the confusion about which came first, human beings or governments the rich bitches of his day found it hard to accept that any institution made up by humans from governments to churches to labor unions must be subordinate to individual living people in terms of the rights and powers held by the institution.

Since today's most powerful corporations control vast private fortunes and the Robert's Court has guaranteed the moneyed interests the freedom to raise and spend any amount, from any source, at any time we'll continue to see rich parasites elect representatives (nearly half of whom are millionaires themselves). Those millionaire representatives will then spend 30%-70% of their time sucking up to the real rich bozos who buy and sell politicians like condoms. That will continue to produce a "democracy" in which congress attracts a historic low 10% public approval rate.

That's a serious double standard.

 

[Boss]

A corporation is an IRS rule. SCOTUS really screwed up on that one.

I disagree, I think they actually got that one right. Obamacare, they screwed up.

Look, a "corporation" is merely an assembly of people. It's not a humanless entity lumbering through our world, gobbling up everything in sight. It is a group of people who are organized for their own self interests, just like unions or PACs.

The Constitution says, we have the right to assembly. Our rights can not be infringed because we happen to belong to a group. Now seriously... did you want SCOTUS to rule differently? You DON'T want people to be able to form political activist groups to protest what they don't like about government, etc.? We can't create a double standard, where certain groups get this right and others don't, so if they SCOTUS had ruled the opposite, then ANY organized group of people would have to comply.

But the scotus went farther and called corporations persons with all the rights of persons. Isn't that carrying things a little too far? Corporate personhood should extend only as far signing contracts.

Go read the ruling, that's the easiest way to confirm this. The SCOTUS never called corporations persons with all the rights of persons. This is a mischaracterization of the ruling. For instance, corporations were not given the right to register and cast votes as corporations. The ruling wasn't even about granting anything to corporations, it was about whether something could be denied. Namely, free speech.

The question was whether or not the law could deny a corporation the right to free speech, on the basis it was a corporation. You see, under McCain-Feingold CFR, they were restricted from the right of free speech, and this is what was challenged. What SCOTUS ruled, was that corporations are groups of people, or "assemblies" which are protected specifically, under the 1st Amendment. We can't deny freedom of speech to any assembly of people, it's the same as denying that right to an individual. In fact, you are denying that right to individuals based on the fact they belong to a group. ....Do you agree, that people should be denied freedom of speech because they belong to a specified group? Yes or No?

 

[Boss]

A corporation is an IRS rule. SCOTUS really screwed up on that one.

I disagree, I think they actually got that one right. Obamacare, they screwed up.

Look, a "corporation" is merely an assembly of people. It's not a humanless entity lumbering through our world, gobbling up everything in sight. It is a group of people who are organized for their own self interests, just like unions or PACs.

The Constitution says, we have the right to assembly. Our rights can not be infringed because we happen to belong to a group. Now seriously... did you want SCOTUS to rule differently? You DON'T want people to be able to form political activist groups to protest what they don't like about government, etc.? We can't create a double standard, where certain groups get this right and others don't, so if they SCOTUS had ruled the opposite, then ANY organized group of people would have to comply.

You're not much of an historian yourself, are you?

When Thomas Paine cleared up the confusion about which came first, human beings or governments the rich bitches of his day found it hard to accept that any institution made up by humans from governments to churches to labor unions must be subordinate to individual living people in terms of the rights and powers held by the institution.

Since today's most powerful corporations control vast private fortunes and the Robert's Court has guaranteed the moneyed interests the freedom to raise and spend any amount, from any source, at any time we'll continue to see rich parasites elect representatives (nearly half of whom are millionaires themselves). Those millionaire representatives will then spend 30%-70% of their time sucking up to the real rich bozos who buy and sell politicians like condoms. That will continue to produce a "democracy" in which congress attracts a historic low 10% public approval rate.

That's a serious double standard.

Again... should groups of people be denied rights on the basis of the group they belong to? You're saying they should in this case, because you don't like or trust the group. But if this were about Unions or PACS, or MoveOn.Org, or Truth-matters, or MSNBC, you'd be humming a completely different tune. You'd be protesting in the streets over the Fascist policy to restrict free speech. It was precisely because we CAN'T have a double standard, the SCOTUS ruled as they did. That, and the Constitutional protection of our right to assembly.

Hey look... I HATE some of these left-wing pro-Socialist activist groups, I think they are destroying our nation and the people who run these organizations should be charged with treason. So if you want to support legislation to prohibit ALL these groups from participating in the political process, and include corporations, fine... let's write that up and pass it! But what YOU want is the double standard. You want this applied to corporations because they are corporations, and you don't like corporations. Sorry, didn't work!

 

[OnePercenter]

A corporation is an IRS rule. SCOTUS really screwed up on that one.

I disagree, I think they actually got that one right. Obamacare, they screwed up.

Look, a "corporation" is merely an assembly of people. It's not a humanless entity lumbering through our world, gobbling up everything in sight. It is a group of people who are organized for their own self interests, just like unions or PACs.

The Constitution says, we have the right to assembly. Our rights can not be infringed because we happen to belong to a group. Now seriously... did you want SCOTUS to rule differently? You DON'T want people to be able to form political activist groups to protest what they don't like about government, etc.? We can't create a double standard, where certain groups get this right and others don't, so if they SCOTUS had ruled the opposite, then ANY organized group of people would have to comply.

So Haliburton Corporation should be allowed steer our Government?

 

[Boss]

A corporation is an IRS rule. SCOTUS really screwed up on that one.

I disagree, I think they actually got that one right. Obamacare, they screwed up.

Look, a "corporation" is merely an assembly of people. It's not a humanless entity lumbering through our world, gobbling up everything in sight. It is a group of people who are organized for their own self interests, just like unions or PACs.

The Constitution says, we have the right to assembly. Our rights can not be infringed because we happen to belong to a group. Now seriously... did you want SCOTUS to rule differently? You DON'T want people to be able to form political activist groups to protest what they don't like about government, etc.? We can't create a double standard, where certain groups get this right and others don't, so if they SCOTUS had ruled the opposite, then ANY organized group of people would have to comply.

So Haliburton Corporation should be allowed steer our Government?

What do you mean by "steer our government?" They should have the same right of free speech and assembly that everyone else has. Our government is "steered" by a Congress of elected representatives. If Halliburton influences them and you don't like that, don't vote for them!

 

[AmazonTania]

No, the 1% is not bullshit. It's a fact. 1% has 34% of the country's wealth. The top 1% have seen their share of America's income more than double. The bottom 90% have seen their portion shrink.

That's called 'quantitative easing.' An inflationary measure used by central banks to stimulate the economy by printing money and purchasing assets (Government Bonds, Mortgages, etc).

Most economist agree that a growing middle class is a cornerstone of economic growth in American. It is what separates us from third world countries. The middle class has been shrinking because the upper middle class is jointing the wealthy and lower middle class is falling into poverty.

Most economist would be wrong. A middle class is the result of what you get from a prosperous economy, not the other way around. Developing nations become productive, work towards building their economy and become wealthier. The middle class is the product of the wealth they create.

A middle class comes from economic growth. You don't achieve economic growth by creating a middle class. There is no way that can be done.

The lower middle class have been hit with a double whammy. From the mid 20th century, automation has reduced the market for manual labor as well as semi-killed workers while in the later part of the century, globalization has claimed millions of jobs. Globalization of course has not been all bad for America. It has created opportunities for the upper-middle class as well as the wealthy to increase their share of the pie. In emerging markets oversea, globalization has had the opposite effect. The middle class is growing and poverty is shrinking.

One of the reasons why America is the wealthiest nation in the world because it has automation. It makes American's more productive, and as a result, Americans have higher incomes per capita than most of the world. Globalization has helped the lower class in more ways than it has hurt. It decreases their cost of living, which gives them more disposable income. It frees up resources so they can spend this income on other things, not just items to survive. Because countries are able to globalise, more citizens are able to enjoy things which would have only been luxuries by the wealth among us.

I think this trend will continue for many years until the cost of labor abroad becomes high enough that lower middle class American labor can once again compete.

Countries need to be able to export what they manufacture. This keeps said country's currency strong and makes said country more competitive. If Americans cannot compete in the global marketplace, then it shouldn't be in the business of manufacturing.

There are plenty of developed, wealthy countries which do manufacture, and these nations do not have to worry about their jobs being shipped to emerging economies. Why is this? It's because they have lower regulations, lower taxes, spend less (relative to the US) and less red tape.

I seriously doubt that any changes in government spending, taxes, or entitlement programs will have any major effect. In other words, the rich are going to get a lot richer and the poor are going to get poorer.

You are free to continue whatever reckless policies as you see fit. Because it worked out so well before.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If Halliburton influences them and you don't like that, don't vote for them!

yes don't vote for them, become a competitor, or form your own group to lobby Washington! This is a free country after all!

 

[MikeK]

Yes, they have been programmed to hate corporations, but what they don't seem to comprehend is, things like "think-progress.org" are corporations. The Southern Poverty Law Center... another "corporation." Do you suppose liberals would enjoy watching all of their bastions of "the cause" go down in flames, because the SCOTUS rendered them impotent? I highly doubt it! And, whatever would Democrats do, if unions no longer were allowed to participate in the political process?

They THINK they can use SCOTUS to prohibit certain rights to certain groups, namely corporations, but the Constitution is pretty clear on this, plus, we passed laws against segregation, years ago!

The notion that individuals or groups of individuals have been "programmed to hate corporations" is paranoid hysteria. The simple fact is corporate profits have risen steadily to record heights while average levels of working class incomes have steadily declined or have remained stagnant. That situation understandably has fostered resentment, which is considerably different from programmed hatred.

Comparing the Southern Poverty Law Center to General Electric, for example, is flagrantly specious. The latter corporation exists specifically and exclusively for the purpose of generating profit while the former has no such interest. And the idea that wishing to prevent the influence of potentially enormous amounts of corporate money on elections is a form of "segregation" is absurd.

 

[Boss]

Yes, they have been programmed to hate corporations, but what they don't seem to comprehend is, things like "think-progress.org" are corporations. The Southern Poverty Law Center... another "corporation." Do you suppose liberals would enjoy watching all of their bastions of "the cause" go down in flames, because the SCOTUS rendered them impotent? I highly doubt it! And, whatever would Democrats do, if unions no longer were allowed to participate in the political process?

They THINK they can use SCOTUS to prohibit certain rights to certain groups, namely corporations, but the Constitution is pretty clear on this, plus, we passed laws against segregation, years ago!

The notion that individuals or groups of individuals have been "programmed to hate corporations" is paranoid hysteria. The simple fact is corporate profits have risen steadily to record heights while average levels of working class incomes have steadily declined or have remained stagnant. That situation understandably has fostered resentment, which is considerably different from programmed hatred.

Comparing the Southern Poverty Law Center to General Electric, for example, is flagrantly specious. The latter corporation exists specifically and exclusively for the purpose of generating profit while the former has no such interest. And the idea that wishing to prevent the influence of potentially enormous amounts of corporate money on elections is a form of "segregation" is absurd.

You're confusing topics, we were talking about the "corporations are people" nonsense, prompted by a recent SCOTUS ruling that corporations could not be denied freedom of speech on the basis they were corporate entities. A corporation is a form of assembly, and we do have the right to assembly, you can't deny constitutional rights on that basis.

I don't accept your lie about middle class incomes. My father had a fantastic job when I was a child, he made just over $8,000 a year in 1964. Now you want to try and claim incomes have been stagnant, and that is simply false. His same job, today, pays over $100k per year. So, in the span of 40 years, that's how much of a percent increase? You ca do the maths, but it is substantial.

When I see that corporations have made "record profits" do you know how that translates to me? That a group of people have successfully practiced free market capitalism by producing a wanted and needed good or service to a satisfied consumer base, who willingly bought their product or service, and they did this better than their competition. In earning "record profit" they also paid "record taxes." In my opinion, we need MORE of this, not LESS.

YES... you have been brainwashed. Programmed to HATE corporations. To be envious and jealous of corporations and the "wealthy" because this is precisely how Socialist Marxist sell their failed ideology. I learned this back in high school, 30+ years ago, but the public education system isn't what it used to be. Now, when the Socialist Marxists were selling this crap to Europeans, it wasn't hard to do, because most of those countries were run by kings and oligarchies, where the ruling class and wealthy controlled all power and people had no freedom or opportunity. Under such brutal and dismal conditions, I can see where people were duped into accepting this new innovative idea. But here in our country, we don't have a ruling class oligarchy run by the wealthy, we have a constitutional republic with a free enterprise system and free market capitalism, which affords EVERY PERSON the opportunity to become as wealthy as they please.

Because you are highly uneducated or uninformed of past world history, you are easily convinced that we have a ruling class oligarchy, that the wealthiest 1% call all the shots, and that we MUST do something about that dynamic. What they have convinced you we have to do, is destroy the greatest system ever devised by man, to raise more people out of poverty and afford more economic opportunity, for a system that has repeatedly failed, every time it has ever been attempted, has led to more oppression and death, poverty and lack of opportunity, than any other system. You are trading a steak dinner for a shit sandwich, and you don't even seem to realize it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't accept your lie about middle class incomes. My father had a fantastic job when I was a child, he made just over $8,000 a year in 1964. Now you want to try and claim incomes have been stagnant, and that is simply false. His same job, today, pays over $100k per year. So, in the span of 40 years, that's how much of a percent increase? You ca do the maths, but it is substantial.

Wait! STOP right there! Your father? Statistics BE DAMNED! This man has a FATHER! No other data required!

 

[OnePercenter]

I disagree, I think they actually got that one right. Obamacare, they screwed up.

Look, a "corporation" is merely an assembly of people. It's not a humanless entity lumbering through our world, gobbling up everything in sight. It is a group of people who are organized for their own self interests, just like unions or PACs.

The Constitution says, we have the right to assembly. Our rights can not be infringed because we happen to belong to a group. Now seriously... did you want SCOTUS to rule differently? You DON'T want people to be able to form political activist groups to protest what they don't like about government, etc.? We can't create a double standard, where certain groups get this right and others don't, so if they SCOTUS had ruled the opposite, then ANY organized group of people would have to comply.

So Haliburton Corporation should be allowed steer our Government?

What do you mean by "steer our government?" They should have the same right of free speech and assembly that everyone else has. Our government is "steered" by a Congress of elected representatives. If Halliburton influences them and you don't like that, don't vote for them!

Here's the President of Halliburton Corporations address:

David J. Lesar
Emirates Towers, 13th Floor
Sheikh Zayed Road
Dubai, UAE
Tel: +971 4 303 6836

Starting to see the problem yet?

 

[Boss]

So Haliburton Corporation should be allowed steer our Government?

What do you mean by "steer our government?" They should have the same right of free speech and assembly that everyone else has. Our government is "steered" by a Congress of elected representatives. If Halliburton influences them and you don't like that, don't vote for them!

Here's the President of Halliburton Corporations address:

David J. Lesar
Emirates Towers, 13th Floor
Sheikh Zayed Road
Dubai, UAE
Tel: +971 4 303 6836

Starting to see the problem yet?

So we are to discriminate against people because of where they live now?

Does it dawn on you that most of what Halliburton does, as a US defense contractor, is in the middle east? Dubai just so happens to be one of the few places over there, who have a somewhat 'western' culture, and toilet paper. UAE is also a US ally... so why is it godawful wrong for the president of Halliburton to live there? Logistically speaking, it makes sense.

And why do you start foaming at the mouth when someone mentions Halliburton? Did you realize Clinton gave more no-bid contracts to Halliburton than Dubya? I bet you didn't, because you had never heard of Halliburton (or no-bids) until Bush was president.

 

[georgephillip]

What do you mean by "steer our government?" They should have the same right of free speech and assembly that everyone else has. Our government is "steered" by a Congress of elected representatives. If Halliburton influences them and you don't like that, don't vote for them!

Here's the President of Halliburton Corporations address:

David J. Lesar
Emirates Towers, 13th Floor
Sheikh Zayed Road
Dubai, UAE
Tel: +971 4 303 6836

Starting to see the problem yet?

So we are to discriminate against people because of where they live now?

Does it dawn on you that most of what Halliburton does, as a US defense contractor, is in the middle east? Dubai just so happens to be one of the few places over there, who have a somewhat 'western' culture, and toilet paper. UAE is also a US ally... so why is it godawful wrong for the president of Halliburton to live there? Logistically speaking, it makes sense.

And why do you start foaming at the mouth when someone mentions Halliburton? Did you realize Clinton gave more no-bid contracts to Halliburton than Dubya? I bet you didn't, because you had never heard of Halliburton (or no-bids) until Bush was president.

So are we to discriminate against "people" who profit from the maiming, murder, rape and incarceration and displacement of millions of innocent Muslims? Logically speaking, capitalists who profit from war crimes deserve a Nuremberg accounting. Starting with the "decider."

 

[MikeK]

You're confusing topics, we were talking about the "corporations are people" nonsense, prompted by a recent SCOTUS ruling that corporations could not be denied freedom of speech on the basis they were corporate entities. A corporation is a form of assembly, and we do have the right to assembly, you can't deny constitutional rights on that basis.

Your entire premise rests on the use of fragile semantic gimmicks, such as "assembly." A corporation is not an "assembly." It is a legal condition, an organizational arrangement. But because the majority of Americans are at the very least deficient in the use and understanding of the English language the Supreme Court gets away with these hair-splitting discrepancies.

Worse is the assertion that money is speech when in simple fact money is property. But because the Supreme Court says money is speech, and because that perversion of language accommodates your agenda, you will agree with it.

 

[MikeK]

What do you mean by "steer our government?" They should have the same right of free speech and assembly that everyone else has. Our government is "steered" by a Congress of elected representatives. If Halliburton influences them and you don't like that, don't vote for them!

Here's the President of Halliburton Corporations address:

David J. Lesar
Emirates Towers, 13th Floor
Sheikh Zayed Road
Dubai, UAE
Tel: +971 4 303 6836

Starting to see the problem yet?

So we are to discriminate against people because of where they live now?

It's not a matter of discriminating but rather of paying attention. This reason being one outstanding example of why:

(Excerpt)

A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. That’s a sum equal to the gross domestic products of the United States and Japan added together. The number may sound unbelievable, but the study was conducted by James Henry, former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, an expert on tax havens and offshoring. It was commissioned by Tax Justice Network, a British activist group.

Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says - Forbes

(Close)

Does it dawn on you that most of what Halliburton does, as a US defense contractor, is in the middle east? Dubai just so happens to be one of the few places over there, who have a somewhat 'western' culture, and toilet paper. UAE is also a US ally... so why is it godawful wrong for the president of Halliburton to live there? Logistically speaking, it makes sense.

And why do you start foaming at the mouth when someone mentions Halliburton? Did you realize Clinton gave more no-bid contracts to Halliburton than Dubya? I bet you didn't, because you had never heard of Halliburton (or no-bids) until Bush was president.

If Barack Obama was not in the pocket of the Military Industrial Complex (as well as the finance industry) . . .

. . . and if he truly were the man who Candidate Obama pretended to be, rather than appointing a Wall Street lawyer and wooden indian as Attorney General he would have appointed an ethical and motivated prosecutor to that offiice, one who would have diligently investigated and prosecuted the Bush crime Family, there is no doubt in my mind that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would be sitting in prison today, along with their entire conspiratory cartel -- and the conduct of Halliburton would have served as a major platform of evidence.

Of course you will openly disagree with that. But you are far too intelligent to not be aware that it's 100% true. And in response to your reference to Clinton, are you under the impression that I regard that man as anything other than a cunning, self-serving, devious, duplicitous degenerate? Don't allow your partisan fixations to cloud your judgment.