Republican or Democrat

451 replies [Last post]
executivejock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

I was curious what political affiliation financial advisors are involved with..
Maybe it is better to be in the middle or FLIP FLOP to the audience like John Kerry!

annuity guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-03-27

Brokers are Republicans, planners are Dummycraps.
Republicans seek their own success, Dummycraps try to legislate success.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Repulican here.  Located in a blue state, but the county that I live in always votes 80% + republican.  I don't talk polictics with my clients, however.   Just to be on the safe side.
Here is an interesting test you might want to take.  I ended up right near Mitlon Friedman
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
 

doberman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-22

I, also, do not make a point to discuss politics with my clients. However, if they ask, I tell them I'm Libertarian.
Here is another political quiz:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

annuity guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-03-27

I ended up near George W. Bush.

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

Wasn't there a Money magazine article before the election saying that Democrats normally have higher returns on the s&p 500 compared to republicans.  Something like 10% more.   Not sure - but I did remember reading it because the numbers where a surprise since Republicans like to claim that they are better for business etc.
Anywho I vote for the better candidate - I never cared for W because of what he did against McCane back in 2000 primaries.
So I voted democrat in both 2000 and 2004 - but being from chicago area - voting republican would have been pointless anyway.
 

Put Trader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-08

Juiced6 wrote:Wasn't there a Money magazine article before the
election saying that Democrats normally have higher returns on the
s&p 500 compared to republicans.  Something like 10%
more.   Not sure - but I did remember reading it because the
numbers where a surprise since Republicans like to claim that they
are better for business etc.
Anywho I vote for the better candidate - I never cared for W because of what he did against McCane back in 2000 primaries.
So I voted democrat in both 2000 and 2004 - but being from chicago area - voting republican would have been pointless anyway.
 

Let me see if I have this right.  You admired a
Republican--Senator McCain--who was involved in an intense political
fight with another Republican--President Bush--so you voted for a
Democrat.

And to think there are those who believe that universal sufferage is a stupid idea.

annuity guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-03-27

Just to add to what put trader said...McCain is a traitor to his party and is not to be trusted.

giff74's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-30

I am a Repub in a Demo city which sucks. To be safe I also try avoid talking politics with clients.

fargo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-10

I think most brokers/planners are more interested in economics, than politics. Who has not felt the thrill of the 90's, depression in 2000, pain after 9/11? I just took a trip to ground zero, looked down at the site from the offices at Oppenheimer. Look how the world economy was devastated, rebounded, and what might happen, good or bad, and how that affects our clients. It's not about red or blue, but I have a pretty good idea on who I trust to keep the world economy alive!

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

How any financial advisor can reconcile his career of trying to make
people more money with the Democratic Party's never-ending attempts to
steal money from the people who earn it is beyond me.  It makes no
sense at all.

Democrats are morons.

All during the economic slowdown of 2001 and 2002 Democrats wanted to
RAISE taxes.  At every step they fought to RAISE taxes--our taxes.

I like to ask Democrat voters, "how does raising taxes help stimulate
the economy and create needed jobs?"  Typically, they don't have
an answer.  They are flustered, and their deficiency of brain
cells shows.  The few who do have an answer say stuff like, "well,
we only want to raise taxes on the RICH."  Uh huh.  There
aren't that many rich people to begin with--not nearly enough for the
Democrat fools to create cradle-to-grave welfare benefits so no one
will ever have to work.  And the money that would have been spent
on "yachts", like most Democrat morons insist, would have actually
created jobs.  Yachts don't magically appear out of thin air, you
know. 

Have you ever noticed that the very first place Democrats go when they
do their vote drives are the housing projects?  It's true. 
You'll find no shortage of Democratic voters in a welfare housing
project (of those who aren't too lazy to actually vote).  "If the
Republicans get elected, you'll have to get a job," they'll tell the
welfare parasites.  Oh my!  Imagine the horror on the face of
the 19-year-old welfare momma who is counting on the Democrats to give
her free cash and free housing--in a luxury town house, no less--for
the next 18 years.  Imagine the horror on the face of the
60-year-old welfare grandma who has never worked a day in her miserable
life.

Liberal kooks, welfare parasites, and lazy union workers--that is what
comprises the modern Democratic Party.  If you look at the red
states-blue states map, you'll see that in most of the red AND blue
states, the urban cores voted Democrat while most of the rest of the
area voted Republican.  (One main exception being MA.)

And to no surprise, the inner-cities--which are most heavily
Democrat--are nothing but crime-ridden, poverty-laden hellholes of
violence, crime, urban decay, grafitti, and garbage-strewn
streets.  What?  Welfare momma can't get off her lazy ass and
pull herself away from taxpayer-provided cable TV and pick up some
trash in her neighborhood?

Both crime and taxes are highest in the Democrat-controlled
cities.  Makes sense, huh?  Invite the welfare parasites
in--who vote for Democrats--and then tax the working class out--who
vote for Republicans.  What a way to stack the deck in your favor!

Take a drive through the most loyally Democratic areas sometime.  It's a different world...  It really is.

If I had to guess, I'd say that 75%-90% of the people who work in this
industry are Conservative.  With the exception, of course, of the
"elites" in management. 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/electoral.c ollege/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

Thank god that childish a-hole John Kerry didn't get elected!  How
can anyone vote for someone who attained wealth by marrying it--TWICE?

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

fargo wrote: It's not about red or blue, but I have a pretty good
idea on who I trust to keep the world economy alive!

Stock markets all over the world were up after Bush was
re-elected,  including here in the USA.  And I do mean all
over the world.

9/11, massive corporate fraud (mostly committed during the Clinton
years), bursting of the tech bubble, it has been a challenging 4 years
for President Bush.  Hopefully, he'll be able to enjoy the fruits
of his labor this term.  Unfortunately, Democrats will try to
derail that any chance they get.  (Americans are Nazis, didn't you
know?  We shut off the air conditioning in Guantanamo--oh
no!  How cruel!)

And as for Iraq, Bush did NOT lie.  The only people lying are the
Democrats.  Clinton said that Iraq had WMDs and was trying to
obtain nukes back in 1998.  Too bad the leftist media doesn't ever
mention that.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

How come Democrats never discuss Clinton's statements on Iraq from
December of 1998--2 YEARS before Bush was even elected???  Oh, but
Bush lied--he fabricated the entire thing.  Right, Democrats?

By the way, folks, Bush won Florida 2000 fair and square, too.  It
was the Democrats who tried to steal the 2000 election.  And they
did nothing but spread lies of "voting irregularities" in 2004,
too.  Voting irregularities?  Kind of vague, isn't it? 

Oh, they mean that minorities had to wait in line to vote. 

Well guess what.  I live in a 90% white area, and I had to wait in
a long line to vote, too.  That's what happens when everybody
tries to get in before work.  Good thing the polls are open until
8 PM, huh?

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/m ain.html

By the way, why is it that ONLY Democrat voters are too stupid to vote properly?

noggin's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-30

Inquistive- Come on man, Bush didn't lie???  I don't even want to take the time to blow that up..... It's pretty obvious that you are as oblivious as you accuse the Democrats of being....

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

noggin wrote:Inquistive- Come on man, Bush didn't lie???  I don't
even want to take the time to blow that up..... It's pretty obvious
that you are as oblivious as you accuse the Democrats of
being....

What did Bush say?  Ah yes, he said that Iraq had WMDs and was
seeking nukes.  Where oh where did he ever get that idea
from?  Maybe from the previous administration???

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

Dec. 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton said:

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the
world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike
military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces."

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Now, what did BUSH say that Clinton did not say years prior?

There isn't a thing that Bush said that Clinton didn't say. 
Further, no President, nor any mortal man, can look into the future and
decide what to do today.  You work with what you've got. 
Whether the intelligence is flawed or not, you must decide whether or
not to act upon it.

I don't think the intelligence was flawed.  Why not? 
Because much of the UN believed that Saddam was in possession of
chemical weapons.  OTHER nations like Great Britain and Germany
believed that Saddam was in possession of WMDs, and the UN believed
that Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons.

Let's compare Bush to Clinton, shall we?

* Clinton gave the Chinese critical missile guidance technology so
they could aim their nuclear warheads against us in exchange for
campaign contributions

* Clinton gave the North Koreans a nuclear reactor so they could make material for nuclear bombs--which they promised not to do

* Clinton treated terrorist attacks like the 1993 World Trade Center
bombing as simple, criminal acts instead of the acts of war that they
are, enabling the terrorists to become more brazen

By the way, back in the summer of 2004, Clinton defended Bush's invasion of Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Now, go ahead.  Try to persuade us that Bush lied.  It's your turn.

Starka's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-30

C'mon, guys!  Aren't you any more cynical than that?  They're all scum...Democrat and Republican.  ANY of them would come out in favor of cancer if they thought there was a vote in it.  Having the citizenry snipe at each other simply allows the two parties to cut up the pie without us!

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Starka, I don't believe that.

There are still some honest, decent people out there.  I consider
myself one of them.  I've also flirted with the idea of running
for local government because I don't like some of the crap I see.

Would I take a position contrary to my beliefs because someone made some contributions to my campaign?  NO. 

Would I listen to what other people had to say, whether they be a corporation, lobbyist, or just a regular citizen?  YES.

(Would I knowingly recommend an unsuitable investment because it paid me more?  HELL NO!)

Politicians aren't experts at everything.  Part of what they have
to do is listen to people.  So a lobbyist talks to a
politician.  So what?  Proves nothing.  I'm more than
willing to listen to what someone has to say, even if I initially
disagree with them.  Who knows.  Maybe they'll have a
convincing argument.

By the way, folks, those CNN cites I provided I found by doing a quick
Google.  Search for Clinton + Iraq and you'll find plenty. 
It's amazing how some people pretend that things that were said a few
years back were never said.  Fortunately, CNN has archived their
old news stories for us.

Starka's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-30

Inquisitive, I'm not impugning your honor.  But consider...if you're the one honest person in a tainted field like politics, how far do you think you'll get?  Further, one doesn't rise to national politics without compromising his/her values to the point that they can't recognize them anymore.  This is certainly not what Washington, Jefferson, Adams et al had in mind.

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
There you go - a nice video of Powell in Feb 2001 and Rice in July 2001 saying Iraq has no WMD or is capable of making them.
Bush did not lie?  His own team said Iraq did not have them in 2001 - that was after Clinton.
 
Now Tony Blair has said the Downing Street Memo is an authentic memo - I think if democrats get control of congress in 2006 - Bush is looking at impeachment.
I also would like to know how McCain is a traitor? 

executivejock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

Hey ladies and gents.. Amazes me that educated people do not accept the professional Bull Sh.t that others who are educated by Hollywood want to hear ......(Reid, Boxer, Kerry and Kennedy).We won and are ahead in every aspect of government. I guess integrity goes a long way..
I always question if a thousand extreme muslims with guns are a WMD? I mean two DC snipers had 40 million Americans scared to death.
As for me I live in CT and work in DC. Both are the center of the bs..
 
 

executivejock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

In 2002 the dems pushed hard to sign a bill supporting IRAQ war once again..
 
Three reasons stated in bill were:1. Terrorists in IRAQ
2. WMD in IRAQ
3.
 
Now they all play stupid to play to the welfare/state/federal/ union workers who believe every word they and hollywood state.
 
WATCH FAHERHYPE 9/11... Its amazing what a dis justice skum of the earth Michael Moore did to this country.. Those who want to believe will find a way...

executivejock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
I am almost positive this is the bill that was passed by the dems.. They wanted to show that they were strong on defense.
I love the whole BUSH lied.. Or Cheenys oil.. 10000's of troops will die as we march into bagdad... Iraq's leader is a liar (Kerry), they will not have elections in January.. He is after all the owner of Haliburton.. Remember we should have sent over 20000 Joe's pizza workers to feed and take care of the troops.. Since that contract was bought.. I mean these people who believe this crap go from one statement to the next... 
We tried the sit back and try to be delicate (Kerry) in the 90's.. As the FBI, CIA and other intel was being crushed... During these years we allowed terrorists to breed... They attacked World Trade Center twice, scoped out half of America, bombed Kobar Towers (my eglin dorm mates died)... The bombed numerous american embassies in multiple countries... The US cole.. The list is long and there is a pattern.. At the same time Saddam paid 25k to terrorists who would plant nails in back packs and blow up women and children in Isreal busses. Then he lets in his pal Zakarie after he was injured in Afganistan..
http://www.christophercoutu.com/Vision/VISION.html
I made this up over the past few years...  Sorry for spelling it is late and I get passionate on this issue..
One good thing is that these terrorists are so extreme they are attacking their allies in Turkey, Syria, Palastine, Iraq and Saudi.. I think this is the best thing that could have happened.. Dont worry about IRAQ's according to their leaders who I saw on interviews they state they have never fought one another in a thousand years..

Mario's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

ATTENTION
THE TRUE POINT OF AN ARGUMENT IS TO GET THE OTHER PERSON TO SEE YOUR SIDE THROUGH THOUGHT PROVOKING COMMENTS.  MOST OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS TOPIC ARE TAKING SHOTS AT EACH OTHER. THIS ONLY PUTS PEOPLE ON DEFENSE AND MAKES THIER MIND CLOSE UP EVEN MORE.
ME BEING A DEMOCRAT WOULD TRY TO POINT OUT THAT IN TRUE ECONOMIC THEORY THE TAXES SHOULD HAVE DECREASED.  BUT MAYBE THEY COULD HAVE BEEN SPENT ON SOMETHING SUCH AS EDUCATION THAT WOULD MAKE OUR CONTRY STRONGER IN THE FUTURE RATHER THAN GOING INTO IRAQ.  TO ME, SURE ITS WITH HINDSITE, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH SMARTER. 
THEN A REBUPLICAN WILL TELL ME THAT CLINTON SAID THE SAME THING AND BLAIR AND RUSSIA ETC.  MY RESPONSE WOULD BE THAT AFTER 9-11 THINGS CHANGED.  WE NO LONGER HAD SUDAM AS OUR #1 MAN BUT NOW BIN LADEN.  WE STILL DO NOT KNOW WHERE HE IS, BUT WE ENDED UP WITH A GUY WHO DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING THAT WE ACCUSED HIM OF.
THEN THE OLD "WE ARE SAFER W/O SUDAM" LINE.  NOW THIS IS TRUE, BUT NOT REALLY THE POINT.  IF WE WERE TO GO AFTER EVERYPERSON THAT WOULD MAKE US SAFER I THINK THAT KIM JONG YIEL*(I KNOW THAT I AM MISPELLING THESE NAMES) WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER TARGET.  JUST BASED ON THE FACT THAT HE TELLS US WITH NO FEAR THAT HE HAS WMD'S.  SO REALLY THIS LINE DOES NOT WORK.
BOTTOM LINE BUSH, IMO, WILL NOT BE REMEMBERED FOR GREATNESS.  WITH IRAQ AND SOCIAL SECURITY GOING POORLY, WHICH ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT HE WILL BE KNOW FOR THE BEST, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HE WILL NOT BE ANOTHER REAGAN FOR THE REPUBLICANS.
NOW I FIND IT HARD TO REASONABLY ARGUE WITH MOST PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM....JUST READ MOST THE COMMENTS ABOVE, TOTALY BASHING AND NOT REALLY CONCERED WITH ISSUES JUST TALKING POINTS FROM DEMS AND REPLYING WITH TALKING POINTS OF REPS. IN THE END THAT IS WHAT IS MISSING IN POLOTICS.  BOTH PARTIES HAVE DISCOVERED THAT TALKING POINTS AND BASHING WORK SO WELL THAT THEY STOPED ACTUALLY TALKING.  I AM NOT TRYING TO BASH BUSH BUT CAN HE COMPARE INTULLECTUALY WITH PAST PRESIDENTS LIKE CLINTON, REAGAN, CARTER, OR EVEN HIS FATHER.  WETHER YOU WERE A DEM OR REP YOU STILL HAD RESPECT FOR THEM.  WHERE DID THAT GO?  WHERE DID THE UNITY AFTER 9-11 GO?
IF I WERE TO SEE A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE WHERE THEY WERE FREE TO ACTUALLY DEBATE, LIKE A COLLEGE OR H.S., I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD SEE THAT OUR PRESIDENTS BEGAN TO BE GREATER LIKE THEY WERE IN THE PAST.  POLITICS ARE BAD FOR AMERICA BUT THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS RIGHT NOW THAT WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT.

stanwbrown's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

Juiced6 wrote:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
There you go - a nice video of Powell in Feb 2001 and Rice in July 2001 saying Iraq has no WMD or is capable of making them.
Bush did not lie?  His own team said Iraq did not have them in 2001 - that was after Clinton.
 
Now Tony Blair has said the Downing Street Memo is an authentic memo - I think if democrats get control of congress in 2006 - Bush is looking at impeachment.
I also would like to know how McCain is a traitor? 

 
You're delusional....

stanwbrown's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

Mario wrote:
ATTENTION
THE TRUE POINT OF AN ARGUMENT IS TO GET THE OTHER PERSON TO SEE YOUR SIDE THROUGH THOUGHT PROVOKING COMMENTS.  MOST OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS TOPIC ARE TAKING SHOTS AT EACH OTHER. THIS ONLY PUTS PEOPLE ON DEFENSE AND MAKES THIER MIND CLOSE UP EVEN MORE.
 

Attention, writing your post in all caps does nothing to give it substance, improve your grammar or correct your spelling. The vacant nature of your line of reasoning shines through AND the all caps thing (which amounts to shouting) simply serves to annoy others.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Put Trader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-08

Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?

From where I sit it is possilbe to be mistaken about something rather than lying about something.

For example.  Suppose you have a college degree, and you asked me, "Putnam, do I have a college degree?"

Suppose I were to respond, "Based on the intellect being displayed in
your writings I conclude that you do not have a college degree."

Did I lie, or did I make a mistake?

executivejock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

Ahh is a crazy topic, but fun.. I am down in DC and I see first hand politics is a joke. There is a lot of talk on the hill...
As for BUSH I am amazed that people dont look at him as a man who said what he was going to do and has committed every second of his day to accomplish the mission.
As a military member who served in IRAQ this is the way it should be.. FLIP FLOP is BS. Integrity, character, vision and doing what is right (although it may not be popular) impresses me.
Deep down I like Bill Clinton.. I think he did his best and meant well. Unfortunatly the shi. hit the fan as Reno was trying to protect his butt. The market crumbled with corruption. Maybe Bush has nothing to do with reform, but obviously SEC/Attorney General Spitzer (under the president) kicked some butt.
As for the military aspect there was no reform during the 90s. The fact that no bombs have went off in America is AMAZING!! Thank you patriot act, thank you Homeland security, thank you Rumsfield/Cheeny/Powel/BUSH and thank you allies & reforming countries (Pakistan, Saudi, Lybia, Iraq, Palistine, Lebannon and Yugoslavia).
I look back and wonder what did happen during the CLINTON years that was such a big deal?
Has anyone seen Fahernhype 9/11..?

Put Trader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-08

executivejock wrote:but obviously SEC/Attorney General Spitzer (under the president) kicked some butt.

Elliott Spitzer is the Attorney General?  I could have sworn the
AG is Alberto Gonzales and before him it was John Ashcroft.

Starka's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-30

ClerkBoy, there are Attorneys General for each of the 50 States, and there is an Attorney General for the Federal Government.  Mr. Spitzer is the AG for New York (the State and not the City), and Mr. Gonzales is the US Attorney General.
You were just a little confused there ClerkBoy (as usual).  Fortunately, one of us was here to clear things up for you (as usual)!

executivejock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

I meant the NY State Attorney General.. I suppose the top dog is BUSH.. So if you work for the govn you are under him.. I suspect Gonzales is over Spitzer? Clerkboy what is that suppose to mean..?  I am still young enough to not know everything like your self. :)

Put Trader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-08

executivejock wrote:I meant the NY State Attorney General.. I
suppose the top dog is BUSH.. So if you work for the govn you are under
him.. I suspect Gonzales is over Spitzer? Clerkboy what is that suppose to mean..?  I am still young enough to not know everything like your self. :)

Nope, Spitzer is accountable to the people of the great state of New
York--he's an elected official.  Governor Spitzer some day?

Clerkboy is a term of endearment used by Starka--linked to envy of my Manhattan lifestyle.

executivejock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

Okay.. Thanks for clearing that up... Spitzer is elected? I know CT attorney General is picked.. No wonder all of our elected officials are on their way to jail.
 

menotellname's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

Put Trader wrote:Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?
Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.
Next...

Cruiser's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

I make it a point to just agree with my clients when they start talking politics.  However I think I am one of the few liberals among my immediate peers.
 
 
Annoy a conservative, think for yourself!
 
 
 
 

stanwbrown's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

Cruiser wrote:
I make it a point to just agree with my clients when they start talking politics.  However I think I am one of the few liberals among my immediate peers.
 
 
Annoy a conservative, think for yourself!
 
 
 
 

 
 
Annoy a liberal, use facts....

stanwbrown's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

menotellname wrote:
Put Trader wrote:Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?
Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.
Next...

 
You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.
To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

stanwbrown wrote:Cruiser wrote:
I make it a point to just agree with my clients when they start talking politics.  However I think I am one of the few liberals among my immediate peers.
 
 
Annoy a conservative, think for yourself!
 
 
 
 

 
 
Annoy a liberal, use twisted facts....

stanwbrown's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

Juiced6 wrote:stanwbrown wrote:Cruiser wrote:
I make it a point to just agree with my clients when they start talking politics.  However I think I am one of the few liberals among my immediate peers.
 
 
Annoy a conservative, think for yourself!
 
 
 
 

 
 
Annoy a liberal, use twisted facts....

 
Yeah, that would piss them off by stealing their routine

annuity guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-03-27

Annoy a conservative. Kill yourself.

menotellname's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

stanwbrown wrote:menotellname wrote:
Put Trader wrote:Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?
Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.
Next...

 
You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.
To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

 
Stan,
You are wrong.
Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.
Main Entry: omis·sion Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-Function: nounEtymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted
 

Roger Thornhill's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-07-06

annuity guy wrote:
Brokers are Republicans, planners are Dummycraps.
Republicans seek their own success, Dummycraps try to legislate success.

I agree. 

Roger Thornhill's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-07-06

executivejock wrote:
Has anyone seen Fahernhype 9/11..?

I bought several copies, and give extras to people that need some remedial education. 
Fortunately, I live in a red state, so there aren't that many that need help.

Soothsayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-24

babbling looney wrote:
Repulican here.  Located in a blue state, but the county that I live in always votes 80% + republican.  I don't talk polictics with my clients, however.   Just to be on the safe side.
Here is an interesting test you might want to take.  I ended up right near Mitlon Friedman
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
 

Looney--
Thanks for the link.  I enjoyed it.  I am about as much of a centrist as is possible.  I am slightly to the right economically, just slightly to the left socially.

stanwbrown's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

menotellname wrote:stanwbrown wrote:menotellname wrote:
Put Trader wrote:Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?
Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.
Next...

 
You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.
To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

 
Stan,
You are wrong.
Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.
Main Entry: omis·sion Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-Function: nounEtymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted
 

 
What a twisted world you live in if being mistaken is the same as lying. Your view of what happens in a courtroom is even more twsited still. "Ignorance of the law" and being dependent on information that proves to be faulty are as different as night and day.

stanwbrown's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

menotellname wrote:stanwbrown wrote:menotellname wrote:
Put Trader wrote:Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?
Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.
Next...

 
You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.
To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

 
Stan,
You are wrong.
Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.
Main Entry: omis·sion Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-Function: nounEtymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted
 

 
On further consideration of your "logic", I'm confident you employed the same thought process with clients of yours that owned common stock, preferreds or bonds from GlobalCrossing, Enron, Sunbeam, or any number of other companies that hid internal fraud from you, and you wrote said clients large checks, right?
After all, it didn't matter that you relied on information generally available to you and the public at large, you ommitted "material facts", and so your clients are due large settlements from you.
 
In fact, if you have any clients with negative returns, or returns below a given index, whether there was fraud involved at the companies they owned in their accounts or not, I assume you've called them all and offered them checks to cover their losses, right?

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

stanwbrown wrote:Cruiser wrote:

I make it a point to just agree with my clients when they start
talking politics.  However I think I am one of the few liberals
among my immediate peers.

Annoy a conservative, think for yourself!

Annoy a liberal, use facts....

That's 100% correct!  The way to get to a liberal is to use
facts.  Statistics and hard data are the worst enemy of the
liberal.  Every position they have is based on knee-jerk
emotion.  Nothing they believe is based on fact.

I love discussing politics with liberals and watching them get all
frustrated when you keep countering everything they say with
facts.  Typically, they become angry and then sink to
name-calling.  Racist, fascist, homophobe, etc.

The problem is that liberals DON'T think for themselves.  It's
amazing that every single position they take they take AFTER it has
been publicized the by the liberal leadership.

Take gay marriage for example.  All of a sudden they all start
saying, "why do heterosexuals feel threatened by gay marriage." 
They are repeating talking points, nothing more.  They never said
anything like that years ago, then all of a sudden they all say the
same thing at the same time. 

Logic is the enemy of the liberal.

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Roger Thornhill wrote:annuity guy wrote:
Brokers are Republicans, planners are Dummycraps.
Republicans seek their own success, Dummycraps try to legislate success.

I agree. 

Something I wanted to state earlier was that from my experience, it
seems that people who scratch and claw for their success tend to lean
Republican.  While those who kind of get lucky or fall
ass-backward into success tend to lean Democrat.

Take Brad Pitt for example.  Is he really that good of an
actor?  Or was he just born with a pretty face?  Same goes
for most of those Hollywood elites who make fistfulls of cash for doing
relatively little work.  They seem to think that because life is
one way for them, it's the same for all of us.

Did you see that "Live 8" bullsh*t?  Trying to raise awareness for Africa?

GIVE ME A BREAK!

Paul McCartney is worth $1 BILLION.  Why doesn't he donate his OWN
money to Africa, and quit insisting that the AMERICAN taxpayers waste
theirs?  Same goes for Bono--these are liberal elites who go on
stage and jump around for a couple of hours and make several hundred
thousand dollars for it.  Then they have the audacity to tell US
what we should do with OUR money.

Typical liberalism--do as they say, not as they do.

I'm sure those phony liberals are real concerned about the environment as they zip around in their private jets.

Fakes.  Phonies.  Frauds.  That's all liberals
are.  Look at the Clintons for example.  NOTHING about the
Clintons is genuine--right down to their sham of a marriage.

A book comes out discussing how Bill and Hillary lead separate
lives.  What do I see on TV this past weekend?  Bill Clinton
telling the press how he's going to spend some time with his wife over
the holiday.  Yeah, right after a critical book comes out he
finally decides to spend time with his "wife".  Aw, his mistress
has to spend the holiday alone!

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Put Trader wrote:Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?

No, it is not.

If you raise a child to believe that the earth is flat, and he says the earth is flat, is that child a liar?

To lie you must be consciously aware that what you are saying is not true.  Lying is purposeful.  Intentional. 

For example, when Bill Clinton says he loves his wife--that is a
lie.  Or when he tells his wife that she is pretty--that is a
lie.  Or when Bill Clinton says that he isn't cheating on his
wife--that is a lie.

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Starka wrote:ClerkBoy, there are Attorneys General for each of
the 50 States, and there is an Attorney General for the Federal
Government.  Mr. Spitzer is the AG for New York (the State and not
the City), and Mr. Gonzales is the US Attorney General.
You were just a little confused there ClerkBoy (as usual). 
Fortunately, one of us was here to clear things up for you (as usual)!

Spitzer is the ONE AND ONLY Democrat that I would ever consider voting
for.  I really like the work that he has done.  Of course, if
he promises to raise taxes, like most Democrats do, he'd lose my vote.

And yes, Spitzer is a Democrat.

But I like a good watchdog. 

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Juiced6 wrote:http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
There you go - a nice video of Powell in Feb 2001 and Rice in July 2001 saying Iraq has no WMD or is capable of making them.

Bush did not lie?  His own team said Iraq did not have them in 2001 - that was after Clinton.

Now Tony Blair has said the Downing Street Memo is an authentic memo
- I think if democrats get control of congress in 2006 - Bush is
looking at impeachment.
I also would like to know how McCain is a traitor? 

Man, you deserve a slap upside the head!

First off, the quotes are OUT OF CONTEXT.  You have absolutely no
idea what Powell was talking about at all.  They show a tiny
snippet of what he says--with absolutely no background.  Same for
Rice.  The makers of the video took a few seconds of each person
saying something and twisted it into supporting their position.

Also, those two are advisors--one of several.  They aren't the president.

Dude, you are a SUCKER. 

If I recall, the "Downing Street Memo" is just minutes of a
meeting--not an actual memo!  First off, it's hearsay! 
Second, it's nothing more than someone else's opinion!  It's
second-hand.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#capability

You see how easy it is to smash these liberals to bits?  Facts,
logic, and cold, hard data are things they just can't deal with.

Read that Downing Street Memo.  It's a complete joke.

Roger Thornhill's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-07-06

Inq - I agree with a lot of what you say, but Spitzer is a Piker. He needs to go.
A broker finally put up his dukes, and sent Piker Spitzer slithering back into his hole, with 30....count 'em! ...THIRTY not guilty verdicts!
That's his one and only enforcement trial, and he got spanked. They interviewed the jurors, and they all said "Where's the evidence of wrongdoing?"
Spitzer would be worse than LBJ.

menotellname's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

stanwbrown wrote:menotellname wrote:stanwbrown wrote:menotellname wrote:
Put Trader wrote:Is it possible to lie about something that you don't know about?
Yes.  That is called an omission of a material fact.  Thus, why you and I have E & O insurance.
Next...

 
You may want to ask the people you send that E&O policy check to if they consider the intentional omission of a material fact an insured item. I think you'll find they don't since it's fraud.
To Put's point, you can't be lying if you leave out a "material fact" you're unaware of.

 
Stan,
You are wrong.
Try to claim that you are unaware or "ignorant" of a material fact in the court room after your client sues you and see what the judge says:  "Ignorance of the law (or of the product you are touting) (or of the faulty "intelligence" that you are claiming as personal knowledge)" is lying by omission.
Main Entry: omis·sion Pronunciation: O-'mi-sh&n, &-Function: nounEtymology: Middle English omissioun, from Late Latin omission-, omissio, from Latin omittere1 a : something neglected or left undone b : apathy toward or neglect of duty2 : the act of omitting : the state of being omitted
 

 
What a twisted world you live in if being mistaken is the same as lying. Your view of what happens in a courtroom is even more twsited still. "Ignorance of the law" and being dependent on information that proves to be faulty are as different as night and day.

You lose a lot of legal battles.  Don't you?  Or you misinterpret a lot of documents with difficult wording.  Right?
Ask any detective, attorney, or polygraph examiner...you might be surprised.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×