Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 7:30 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 2 hrs.


% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Altria Group Inc. Message Board

carsonogenik 605 posts  |  Last Activity: Jul 11, 2014 11:45 PM Member since: Dec 30, 2001
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Benghazi!!!!1!!™ is BS

    by carsonogenik Jul 11, 2014 7:37 PM
    carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 11, 2014 11:45 PM Flag

    Boehner's lawsuit is a complete waste of time.

    Although Boehner has not fully revealed the basis for his suit against Obama, the legal analysis must start by recognizing that there is no real precedent for Congress to sue the President for failing to execute the law. A primary reason for this is that courts generally find that Congress as a plaintiff lacks “standing,” or any kind of personal and concrete damage that a court would legally recognize. Battles over the balance of power among the branches of government are more “political questions” which courts have long recognized need political, not judicial, resolution. Given the lack of precedent for it, such a suit would almost certainly lose in the first round in federal district court, and political pressure against the matter would mushroom immediately.

    The real purpose of the suit then would seem to be more political than legal, creating a bit of theater in which two very unpopular branches of government, the executive and legislative, duke it out in front of the third branch, the judiciary. And frankly, the people have no patience for this.

    Even better, Boehner is basically suing the President for failing to enforce a part of the PPACA (employer mandate) in a timely manner....because Republicans, including Boehner himself, actually delayed that part of Obamacare from being executed in a timely manner.

    It's absurd. The GOP has become a pathetic collection of hypocritical losers and schizoid morons.

  • Yahoo Finance
    Did Bush tax cuts cost the U.S. economy $6.6 trillion?

    The U.S. economy has recovered the 8.7 million jobs lost during the Great Recession and its unemployment rate is now the lowest it's been in almost six years. But David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, author and visiting lecturer at Syracuse University's law school and business school, says the economy would be a lot stronger if not for the Bush tax cuts.

    Americans have lost $6.6 trillion from 2001, when the tax cuts first took effect, through 2012, according to Johnston. That's more than one-third of the country's annual GDP.

    "When you look at the long-term income in this country and adjust for inflation and population growth, we're not getting better off," says Johnston. He calculated those losses by comparing average incomes in U.S. tax returns from 2000 tax returns to every year through 2012, and published his findings in a recent column on Al Jazeera America.

    ...Johnston says tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 slowed growth while tax increases in 1993 boosted it. Tax cuts leave the government with less money to invest for growth, explains Johnston.

    "We're not investing in the future of America," Johnston tells Yahoo Finance in the video above. "Because we have less revenue, we are not putting the same money we used to put into research ... infrastructure ... [or] education. We are creating a more and more inefficient economy in the name of 'tax cuts will save us.'"

    But they won't, says Johnston. "The empirical evidence that tax cuts produce jobs ... just doesn't exist."

    Tax increases, on the other hand, are helping to produce jobs in California, where job growth is about 50% faster than the rest of the country, says Johnston. He favors more government investment in research, infrastructure and education and changing incentives so that money flows out of finance and into productive assets.

  • carsonogenik by carsonogenik Jul 11, 2014 7:37 PM Flag

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- [Nine] Military officers testified that there was no "stand-down order" that held back military assets that could have saved the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans killed at a diplomatic outpost and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya. Their testimony undercut the contention of Republican lawmakers.

    The "stand-down" theory centers on a Special Operations team - a detachment leader, a medic, a communications expert and a weapons operator with his foot in a cast - that was stopped from flying from Tripoli to Benghazi after the attacks of Sept. 11-12, 2012, had ended. Instead, it was instructed to help protect and care for those being evacuated from Benghazi and from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

    The senior military officer who issued the instruction to "remain in place" and the detachment leader who received it said it was the right decision and has been widely mischaracterized. The order was to remain in Tripoli and protect some three dozen embassy personnel rather than fly to Benghazi some 600 miles away after all Americans there would have been evacuated. And the medic is credited with saving the life of an evacuee from the attacks.
    Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the oversight panel, has suggested that Hillary Rodham Clinton gave the order, though as secretary of state at the time, she was not in the military chain of command.
    Republicans investigating Benghazi have clashed over whether military superiors, in effect, ordered the team to stand down. Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., the Armed Services Committee chairman, has cited previous testimony from military officers that ordering the foursome to stay in Tripoli and protect embassy personnel there didn't amount to "standing down."

    Others, such as Issa and Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, have said a stand-down order was given.

    I doubt the facts will prevent Repukes from proceeding with their snipe hunt. Ahead warp factor 9!

  • The top House Republican in charge of government spending said Friday that President Obama's $3.7 billion request in emergency funding to deal with an influx of Central American minors along the southern border is "too much money" -- but added that he's not ready to name a potential price tag.

    Cute, but par for the course: after whining that Obama doesn't care about border security, Republicans refuse to fund border security.

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 11, 2014 6:28 PM Flag

    Don't forget to DVR it, gun nuts. Then, when the little woman's out shoppin fer yer Hungry Man dinners and you're at home's fappin time!!

  • Reply to

    Bad news for nutcases

    by andimsupposedtobelazy Jul 8, 2014 12:09 PM
    carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 11, 2014 6:24 PM Flag

    What's the world coming to when liars and shills can't spew their garbage via the BBC? Bloody limeys- no respect for a FREE PRESS!

  • Convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza joined Megyn Kelly to discuss his plea deal on campaign finance laws that also kept him out of a second charge that carried a maximum five year prison term.

    D'Souza: I was facing two charges Megyn, the first one was exceeding the campaign finance limits. The second one was causing the government, the election commission to file a false report and that second charge carried a maximum of five years in prison so what happened is I pleaded guilty to the charge.

    So we now know for sure that Dinesh D'Souza, a conservative golden boy is nothing more than a cheap hood. He knew what he was doing the whole time and got caught like so many other white collar criminals. Megyn was equally laughable in this segment when she tried to frame his conviction as if he was pure of heart all along.

    Kelly: There was really never any doubt that you did it. Your defense in this case was not, "I didn't do it." It was, "I didn't do it with any intent, I didn't do it with the right requisite state of mind and it's selective prosecution by the government who doesn't go after anybody for this kind of crime.

    Kelly is wrong of course because his first defense was that he pleaded not guilty.

    So D'Souza is a liar too, oh my. It appears his whole defense was to get Fox News and any other conservative media outlet to blame the Obama administration for zealously prosecuting him because he's meanie and a critic. He's only been trying to rehabilitate his reputation so that the rubes will see his movies. he must know that conservatives that like his dribble will only feel exhilarated at his conviction because it'll prove to them that the evil librul's did this to poor, goodhearted Dinesh.

    And there's also some comedy gold in there from Megyn, who tries to paint him like his attorney did -- a man without bad intentions. Hahaha.

    The Kelly/D'Souza exchange is hilarious.
    Reminds me of Jack Torrance v Lloyd the Bartender in 'The Shining'

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 9, 2014 10:52 PM Flag

    "He did plead guilty to donation fraud, which by the way is not a conviction"

    Your hero D'Souza pled guilty to a felony. The only real difference is the amount of time served (2-5 years if he had gone to trial and lost), but it is the same as a conviction.

    "He was only persued because of his first movie denigrating the pothead, and the pothead thru Eric Holder pressed the issue."

    I see. Despite the mountains of evidence against him, D'Souza was indicted by a grand jury for political reasons, all of whom were operating at the behest of Eric Holder because of some huge conspiracy.

    "As to adultery, was it in the oval office with a 22 YO intern???"

    No, I think she was 21.

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 9, 2014 8:48 PM Flag

    First off, Hannity is completely wrong in declaring that we have co-equal branches of government. While that's what the Constitution sez per attributing checks and balances to the triumvirate of Executive/Judicial/Legislative branches, for obvious and non-obvious reasons, the balance of power is not equitably distributed. (Example: does anyone here believe a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS actually serves the best interests of liberal democracy?)

    I agree with most of Turley's response, but his concept of "imperial presidency" is an idea that has been rooted in every Republican administration since Nixon. Indeed, the worst thing you could say about Obama is that he's co-opted, or endorsed, many of the practices of Republican administrations.

    Hannity's followup question is unbelievably obtuse:
    "If I broke the law, why do I think they would be the first people to hand kickoff me, perp walk me and send me off to jail. This is just my belief system. Paranoia or truth?"

    If Hannity was a poor black guy who broke the law (inciting hate crimes, for one; also inciting treason) instead of a rich white guy on the TV, he'd have been arrested years ago and probably indicted for spewing hate rhetoric. Basically he's a White Panther.

    Turley's reply to Hannity's unbelievably stupid question above has the virtue of being at least somewhat true...but then again, Obama is essentially endorsing GW Bush's eradication of the 4th Amendment (and in many ways, less transparent ). Despite the racist complaints and accusations of Kenyan Socialism tyranny, Obama is merely a champion of the status quo markers established by Bush.

    I guess what bothers me is that Obama wants to have it both ways.

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 9, 2014 7:35 PM Flag

    Context: Hannity interviews Turley on Faux News:

    SEAN HANNITY: We do have co-equal branches of government, separation of powers. You teach this regularly. You agree with the president politically. For you to say we are at a tipping point constitutionally -- now, I agree with you. What does that mean considering our constitution is our rule of law and they are ignoring it?

    JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, unfortunately our system is changing, and it's changing without a debate. Or even a discussion about what we're going to do in the future when we have a three branch system, a tripartite system but one branch is so dominant. What's emerging is an imperial presidency, an uber presidency as I've called it, where the president can act unilaterally. This is only the latest example of that.

    What's troubling is that we have a system that has been stable precisely because these are limited and shared powers. This president has indicated that he's just not willing to comply with some of those aspects. He told Congress he would go it alone and in our system you're not allowed to go it alone.

    SEAN HANNITY: If I broke the law, why do I think they would be the first people to hand kickoff me, perp walk me and send me off to jail. This is just my belief system. Paranoia or truth?

    JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, I think that the biggest problem we have is that the system itself, if we have a dominant branch, simply begins to shut down in terms of the safeguards. People don't seem to understand that the separation of powers is not about the power of these branches, it's there to protect individual liberty, it's there to protect us from the concentration of power. That's what is occurring here. You know, I've said it before, Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be. You know, he's been allowed to act unilaterally in a way that we've fought for decades.

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 9, 2014 7:15 PM Flag

    He's got a pretty mouth.

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 9, 2014 7:06 PM Flag

    Ah yes, that would be the same Dinesh D'Souza who on May 20, 2014 pleaded d'guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to a charge of d'using "straw donors" to make d'illegal political campaign donations. The charge carries a sentence of 10 to 16 months according to the plea agreement reached between D'Souza and federal prosecutors.

    Also an adulterer!....but since he's not a Democrat and his name isn't Bill Clinton, I rather suspect his moral oversights wrt marital (in)fidelity don't matter much to you.

  • Reply to

    Where is the GOP replacement for Obamacare?

    by pilodialcyst Jul 9, 2014 12:47 PM
    carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 9, 2014 5:54 PM Flag

    The GOP has no alternative to Obamacare because
    a) they simply don't believe everyone has a "right" to health care, and more specifically
    b) they reject the idea that any Republican's tax dollars should be used to pay for any Democrat's welfare

    "If House Republicans were capable of being embarrassed over their incompetence..."

    It is difficult to humiliate sociopaths...indeed, it may be impossible. What everyone needs to realize is that a sociopath does not care who gets used or hurt, because sociopaths have no conscience or scruples. All they are interested in is self-gratification and control to the exclusion of all other concerns. In Freudian terms, sociopaths lack the capacity to moderate their own behavior: the superego is is atrophied or entirely absent; their psychology precludes the ability of empathy.

    The GOP has spent the last 50 years glorifying Ayn Rand, who's entire "philosophy" can be largely summarized as a rationalization of sociopathic behavior in which the ends (feudal rule by economic Napoleons) always justify the means.

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 2, 2014 2:10 AM Flag

    Kenny-do you not get tired of changing IDs?? Why do loony libs think they can post under several Izds
    And not be caught???

    LOL. Whatever happened to your threat to broadcast my IP address? How's that coming along??

  • Reply to

    Who saved world Socialism in 1939?

    by stars_and_stripes888 Jul 1, 2014 1:09 AM
    carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 2, 2014 1:59 AM Flag

    "You are a thinker ,when it comes to international history."

    Apparently you aren't:
    "What I realised is that Hitler desperately wanted to avoid a war "on two fronts".


    "By 01 Sept ,the war was on with the Poland invasion."
    Necessarily causing Britain and France to declare war on Germany two days later.

    "It's now becoming clear that Dubya could have rolled Saddam's army in 2003 and been outa there in one or two years ,if he had split Iraq into 3 areas of control."

    Uh, Dubya did exactly that. Like his father did 12 years before...but with one tiny difference: Bush41 didn't actually invade Iraq to perform regime change surgery based on a pack of lies.

    BTW, this might amuse you: Bush41 intimated to the Iraqi Kurds that if they were to collectively rise up against Saddam Hussein, the US military would support them. Result? Hussein basically annihilated 5,000 Kurds using chemical weapons. So when you hear or read about Saddam Hussein "killing his own people" that's what's happened.

    "Very few US casualties ,no $trillion war!"

    Tell that to the US families (4,000 US troops killed in Iraq; 30,000 maimed) and to the US Treasury ($3 trillion spent or obligated, but still counting). That's just Iraq.

    Now would be a good time for you to shut up and spend the rest of your life writing checks to the VA. Of course, if you don't want to shut up you can apologize to everyone.

  • Reply to

    Who saved world Socialism in 1939?

    by stars_and_stripes888 Jul 1, 2014 1:09 AM
    carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 2, 2014 1:08 AM Flag

    Barry Schultz is actually the correct response to everything on this board.

  • carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 1, 2014 10:50 PM Flag

    "If true, it is indicative of massive voter fraud, which according to all liberal loons is non-existent
    Yah RIGHT"

    Except of course it isn't true: this entire situation is best described as one right wing crank opposing another right wing crank for not being sufficiently Tbaggy (plus additional weird stuff)

    (ABC News) Chris McDaniel has presented no evidence to support his claim that voter fraud pushed Senate incumbent Thad Cochran to victory in Mississippi's GOP runoff. And without evidence, the tea party-backed hopeful is going to have a tough time overturning Cochran's nearly 6,800-vote win.

    But a week after the balloting, McDaniel isn't giving up.

    McDaniel spokesman Noel Fritsch said Tuesday that the campaign continues to examine poll books for possible examples of crossover voting that is prohibited by state law — people who voted in both the Democratic primary June 3 and the Republican runoff June 24.

    "We haven't determined our specific legal recourse," Fritsch said. "We're kind of in a holding pattern, to a certain degree, while we're collecting evidence."

    Ah yes, the evidence:
    "On his Tuesday radio show, conservative talker Mark Levin took on the controversy surrounding Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) and the allegations that his opponent, Republican senatorial hopeful State Sen. Chris McDaniel’s campaign was implicated in a 'rogue operative' taking images of Cochran’s wife, who is suffering from dementia at a Mississippi nursing home."

    "Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Hannity blamed the establishment media and Democrats for McDaniel’s loss."

    "Limbaugh said the tactics used in Cochran’s victory, like encouraging African-Americans to vote, were “reprehensible,” calling those voters “Uncle Toms.”"

    Republican outreach! Ahahahahhah

  • Reply to

    Who saved world Socialism in 1939?

    by stars_and_stripes888 Jul 1, 2014 1:09 AM
    carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 1, 2014 10:11 PM Flag

    Eating that US flag icon on Faux News has choked off the oxygen to your brain.

    1) Britain -and France- declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland (despite Neville Chamberlain and because of a good-faith alliance). September 1939
    2) Uncle Adolf broke his non-aggression "pact" with Stalin and stupidly invaded Soviet Russia during winter (Oct-Nov 1941). Between 22 million and 28 million Russians died during that conflict, 2/3 civilian. Not that Stalin cared about that...but that and the brutal weather is what destroyed Germany's invasion of Russia. (Apparently Uncle Adolf ignored Napoleon's similar attempt from 150 years previous)
    3) The US didn't declare war on Germany until Pearl Harbor (because of Japan's alliance with Germany & Italy: the Axis Powers). December 8, 1941.

    Aside from some tactical brilliance in North Africa (Rommel!), Germany's and Italy's military engine had pretty much evaporated by 1942. US military commitment was largely a mop-up job at that point...but a very difficult job.

    "Why do the academics and the media promote Churchy and Roosie as heroic statesmen?"

    Because they opposed fascist tyranny.

    Why do right-wing nut "academics" and the MSM promote Uncle Adolf (National Sozialistische Deutsch Arbeiter-Partei/ National Socialist German Worker's Party) and Uncle Joe of the CCCP (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) as being the same when they clearly are not?

    Personally I would be more concerned about Russia's post-glasnost, pro-capitalist sleaze: selling WMDs to anyone willing to pay.

  • Reply to

    Who saved world Socialism in 1939?

    by stars_and_stripes888 Jul 1, 2014 1:09 AM
    carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 1, 2014 9:03 PM Flag

    American conservatives don't think.

  • Reply to

    Contard pedophilia-fest

    by andimsupposedtobelazy Jul 1, 2014 5:00 PM
    carsonogenik carsonogenik Jul 1, 2014 8:05 PM Flag

    Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency. True fact.

41.72-0.21(-0.50%)Jul 23 4:02 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Facebook, Inc.
NasdaqGSWed, Jul 23, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
Gilead Sciences Inc.
NasdaqGSWed, Jul 23, 2014 3:59 PM EDT