% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

The Coca-Cola Company Message Board

  • eggsnham007 eggsnham007 Mar 11, 2008 8:18 PM Flag

    Due To Inflation Spitzer Spent at Least $80K on Whores !

    Update: The Associated Press is reporting that Gov. Eliot Spitzer was clearly a repeat customer who spent tens of thousands of dollars -- perhaps as much as $80,000 -- with a high-priced prostitution service over an extended period of time.

    On Monday, when the scandal broke, prosecutors said in court papers that Spitzer had been caught on a wiretap spending $4,300 with the Emperors Club VIP call-girl service. The papers also suggested that Spitzer had done this before.

    Speaking on condition of anonymity, a law enforcement official said today that Spitzer, in fact, had spent tens of thousands of dollars with the Emperors Club. Another official said the amount could be as high as $80,000. But it was not clear over what period of time that was spent. - 6:30 p.m.

    Sources told The New York Post that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has frequented prostitutes going as far back as 2002 or even earlier, according to Post reports.

    Eliot Spitzer had at least seven or eight liaisons over the last several years with prostitutes supplied by an international call girl ring, according to sources cited in a Newsday report. For each encounter, Spitzer paid several thousand dollars, the sources said.

    Although Spitzer is expected to resign, reports are a resignation will not happen today, although some state Republican leaders are calling for Spitzer to quit within 48 hours or face impeachment proceedings.

    My comments - Other reports saying Client 9 spent over $100,000 for whores. Bernanke's fiat printing press probably accounted for at least 25% of that figure! John's in New York are finally figuring out why prostitutes are so expensive now.

    Of course that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.


    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Veterans Rally Against Iraq War
      By Darrin Mortenson/Silver Spring

      When a company of U.S. Marines first battled their way into the southern city of Nasiriyah in the opening days of the Iraq war, they fired at almost anything that moved in the dark. Their aggressiveness was not wanton, but had a purpose: to protect the main convoy from attack by gunmen in civilian clothes who often fired from homes and from among women and children. Less than 24 hours later, however, the shock of all they'd just experienced began sinking in and some of the Marines started to question their actions. During a lull in the fighting their commander told them that if they ever fired at women and children like that again, there'd be hell to pay. But, he added, "no one will question you if you feel you or your Marines are threatened."

      Next week marks the end of the fifth year that U.S. troops have fought in the moral swamp of Iraq; and this weekend, at an event dubbed "Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan," nearly 140 veterans are describing the wars in all their disturbing detail. Billed as the largest gathering of veterans to take a public stand against those wars, veterans and a few active duty troops have filled the National Labor College in Silver Spring, MD, just outside Washington, D.C. to testify about the human cost of the war: the killing of civilians and noncombatants, abuse of prisoners and mistreating the dead.

      "These are not bad people; these are not criminals; these are not monsters," Army Pfc. Clifton Hicks said of his fellow soldiers Friday as he told a hushed crowd of some 300 people how his unit smashed a civilian neighborhood with overwhelming firepower to silence a few insurgents threatening them near Abu Ghraib. "They are put in a horrible situation and they act horribly," he said. "The only way you can ensure your survival is that you put them in the dirt before they put you in the dirt."

      Organizers say they modeled the event on the original Winter Soldier hearings in 1971, a little known gathering in a hotel in Detroit where more than a hundred Vietnam veterans, and a few poseurs described American atrocities in Vietnam at a time when most Americans were sick of the war. That original testimony took flight when it was entered into the Congressional Record by a Republican senator from Oregon and then was partially recounted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the invitation of anti-war Sen. J. William Fulbright. Reading it to a packed house was one young Navy Lt. John Kerry, recently returned from duty on a river "swift boat" in Vietnam. His participation in the original Winter Soldier both catapulted Kerry's political career and marked him as unpatriotic three decades later during his 2004 bid for the presidency, when opponents unearthed his 1971 Winter Soldier testimony and revisited their sense of betrayal, revealing just how fresh the wounds of Vietnam still are. Kerry refused to be interviewed for this article. Military officials also refused to comment.

      The resurrection of Winter Soldier is already be pitting veterans against veterans. Not only are pro-war veterans denouncing the testifiers as a few malcontents, phonies or potential war criminals to be prosecuted according to the alleged crimes they reveal, but the event site itself has become contested ground. Red-shirted security volunteers, almost all gray-haired veterans of Vietnam who opposed that war, face off with their pro-war counterparts, many of them still swearing that the war would have been won in Vietnam had it not been lost at home. During Hick's early testimony, guards wrestled down a man after he burst into the hall screaming, "Kerry lied while good men died! You guys are betraying these guys like he did!"



    • A Crude Case for War?

      By Steven Mufson
      Sunday, March 16, 2008; B01

      It's hard to miss the point of the "Blood for Oil" Web site. It features one poster of an American flag with "Blood for oil?" in white block letters where the stars should be and two dripping red handprints across the stripes. Another shows a photo of President Bush with a thin black line on his upper lip. "Got oil?" the headline asks wryly.

      Five years after the United States invaded Iraq, plenty of people believe that the war was waged chiefly to secure U.S. petroleum supplies and to make Iraq safe -- and lucrative -- for the U.S. oil industry.

      We may not know the real motivations behind the Iraq war for years, but it remains difficult to distill oil from all the possibilities. That's because our society and economy have been nursed on cheap oil, and the idea that oil security is a right as well as a necessity has become part of our foreign policy DNA, handed down from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Jimmy Carter to George H.W. Bush. And the war and its untidy aftermath have, in fact, swelled the coffers of the world's biggest oil companies.

      But it hasn't happened in the way anyone might have imagined.

      Instead of making Iraq an open economy fueled by a thriving oil sector, the war has failed to boost the flow of oil from Iraq's giant well-mapped reservoirs, which oil experts say could rival Saudi Arabia's and produce 6 million barrels a day, if not more. Thanks to insurgents' sabotage of pipelines and pumping stations, and foreign companies' fears about safety and contract risks in Iraq, the country is still struggling in vain to raise oil output to its prewar levels of about 2.5 million barrels a day.

      As it turns out, that has kept oil off the international market at just the moment when the world desperately needs a cushion of supplies to keep prices down. Demand from China is booming, and political strife has limited oil production in Nigeria and Venezuela.

      In the absence of Iraqi supplies, prices have soared three-and-a-half-fold since the U.S. invasion on March 20, 2003. (Last week, they shattered all previous records, even after adjusting for inflation.) The profits of the five biggest Western oil companies have jumped from $40 billion to $121 billion over the same period. While the United States has rid itself of Saddam Hussein and whatever threat he might have posed, oil revenues have filled the treasuries of petro-autocrats in Iran, Venezuela and Russia, emboldening those regimes and complicating U.S. diplomacy in new ways.

      * * *
      Version two: As laid out in an April 2003 article in Le Monde Diplomatique, "The war against Saddam is about guaranteeing American hegemony rather than about increasing the profits of Exxon." Yahya Sadowski, an associate professor at the American University of Beirut, argues that "the neo-conservative cabal" had a "grand plan" to ramp up Iraqi production, "flood the world market with Iraqi oil" and drive the price down to $15 a barrel. That would stimulate the U.S. economy, "finally destroy" OPEC, wreck the economies of "rogue states" such as Iran and Venezuela, and "create more opportunities for 'regime change.' >



    • Canoodle.. Dumber than a rock or just a fox playing with your NeoCon flock.

      Repeat you lies all you like. Aint gonna change that US was authrozied to go into Iraq b/c of fear of WMDs. Staying as rent-a-cops for 6 plus billion a month and 1000s of dead 10,000s of injured service men was W, Cheney, Rummy and your choice. Accept it. YOu are fools.

    • In our 2 party system, it really doesn't matter who is in control. Just look at the past year, just a series of unkept promises and same ol' policies. Those like Alpha who promote partisanship are terribly mislead.

    • Alpha, we invaded iraq because those like you wanted to. We remain in Iraq for the same reasons we remained in Japan in Germany, and still are there, 60+ years later. This was stated earlier and the costs, reasons and benefits can be discussed, but shouldn't be ignored by those like you who shun history to prove a tunnel visioned partisan position.

    • Senate Majority No Longer Republicans' Goal
      With Democrats leading in polls and the national mood going against Republicans, Senator Ensign's goal has changed
      By Katherine Skiba
      Posted March 14, 2008

      The battle cry of the Republican Party is "Two seats to capture the Senate." But Nevada Sen. John Ensign, who is leading the charge for the GOP, now concedes the party may not win the fight, particularly after two prospective candidates he had hoped to recruit—one in New Jersey, one in South Dakota— refused to sign up for the struggle. "Realistically, we have a very, very slim chance of getting back into the majority," says Ensign, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "That's not even our goal anymore. Our [numeric] goal is to hold as close to where we are as possible." Democrats control the chamber by a narrow majority, 51 to 49.

      Related News
      Women of Congress Focus on Bipartisanship
      In Congress, the Uphill Battle for Gun Control
      The House Is Looking for a Few Good Men and Women
      Like Voters, Black Politicians are Split on Hillary and Obama
      Video: Bush to Veto House Surveillance Bill
      Leading up to the November elections, analysts say the Senate contest in Louisiana—"It's going to be a bloodbath," Ensign promises—poses a good-news, bad-news scenario for Republicans. The good news: The incumbent Democrat, Mary Landrieu, twice has won her Senate seat by narrow margins, meaning she's a target. Plus, her base has shrunk demonstrably since Hurricane Katrina hit. And what's emerged of late is a state trending red. The bad news: Landrieu is not only the GOP's best hope to oust an incumbent but, at the moment, the only one.

      Analysts studying the 35 U.S. Senate races on the ballot say Democrats began the campaign with two key advantages. Not only did they have far fewer lawmakers up for re-election, they didn't confront a retirement boom. Twenty-three seats now held by Republicans are up for election—compared with only a dozen in the hands of Democrats. Five of the Republican seats are open because of retirements, while not a single Democrat is eyeballing the exits. In three of the five states where Republicans are retiring—Colorado, New Mexico, and, especially, Virginia—observers see opportunities for Democrats to enlarge their majority.



    • You are definitely in yhour declining years Canoodle and it is showing in spaeds.

      Whatever you think our forces in Japan and Germany 60 years after WW2 have to do with our Misadventure in Iraq, you are sadly mistaken.

      Again. Try and understand. Iraq did not attack us. We invaded do to 'inteligence' that they had WMDs. They did not. Our occupation resulted in turning tens of thousands of Iraqi Shiites and Suniis into 'rebels with a cause.' We are spending over 6 Billion a month in Iraq now trying to holdback a Civil War. Al Qaeda and the Taliban, our actual enemies have regruoped and gotten stronger elsewhere. Our War on Terror has, in effect, built a Maginot Wall in Iraq and is wasting men, money & materiel that is badly needed elsewhere.

      Methinks your history is about as faulty and missaplied as your Science. You really do need find what has been happening over the last 20 years.


    • Alpha, I've belittled nothing but challenged you to support your arguments based on proper use of history. I will repeat anew: US forces have been in Germany and Japan, en masse, for 60+ years after terribly costly wars. And we are better for it.

    • Guess you Cons talk avout character, but bottom line you would rather lie and sling your untruths:

      <Russert falsely attributed "epitomized greatness" quote to Rev. Wright

      Summary: During the February 26 Democratic presidential debate, Tim Russert falsely claimed that Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, which Sen. Barack Obama attends, "said that Louis Farrakhan 'epitomizes greatness.' "

      During the February 26 Democratic presidential debate, co-moderator Tim Russert said to Sen. Barack Obama, "The title of one of your books, Audacity of Hope, you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church." Russert then claimed, falsely, "He said that [Nation of Islam leader] Louis Farrakhan 'epitomizes greatness.' " Russert went on to ask, "What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?" But it was not Wright who said Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness." Rather, in an article in which Trumpet Newsmagazine -- a publication whose CEO and founder is Wright, then-pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, which Obama attends -- awarded Farrakhan the "Lifetime Achievement 'Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpeter Award,' " it was managing editor Rhoda McKinney-Jones, who wrote, "I could not help but think, the Minister, the man with whom I had been so casually speaking, truly epitomized greatness." Fox News' Sean Hannity similarly misattributed the quote on numerous occasions in January. Other media outlets -- in some cases citing Russert -- have misattributed the quote to Wright.>

      While I think Russert is honorable and will likely 'correct' his mistake, the likes of Hannity will cont to repeat & repeat the lie like he naerly always does with such consistency. Neither he nor his audience care about the facts. Do you.


    • You belittle the importance and sacrifice of WW2 by comparing it to any of the other conflicts you mentioned. Your stupidity runneth over of late. Your desperation is surprising.


    • View More Messages
43.11+0.70(+1.65%)Feb 12 4:00 PMEST