On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 2:36:22 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:10:29 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 9:06:42 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 4:14:38 PM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2015 07:07:57 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

snip
I'm not sure that our current lawmakers are c=
apable of such discussion.
snip

It's called stool sample legislation -- you have to pass it
to see what's in it. If the TPP is such a good deal why
isn't the complete agreement [no secret protocols] posted on
the web in a searchable format such as pdf?

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

But, but, slow eddy says trust them.

BBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa

jon, even then, you can't really call Bill and Hillary pro- Wall Streeters, because the Clintons were actually in debt after they left the White House. If they are pro-Wall Street, then I don't see why. "Wall Street" rewards certain never came for the Clintons. Otherwise, they'd be worth billions.


There is no longer any place Hillary Clinton can hide. She's
a puppet of big Wall St. banks and she's a hypocrite:

Was Bernie ever $10 million dollars in debt? The Clinton's were. Now, jon, I'd agree with you *if* the Clintons hadn't been in as much as $10 million in debt. No "friend of Wall Street ever fits that description.
--------------------------------------------------
"the couple had no more than $2 million in assets, but perhaps as much as $10 million in debt"

--http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/12/dead-broke-a-deep-dive-into-the-clintons-finances/