The totalitarian state

Comments about your favorite candidate, the newest PROPOSED law, and the FEMA camp near your hometown should go here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by Firestarter » Sun Aug 21, 2016 2:11 pm

editor wrote:What concerns me about your post is how many "crimes" of Trump you've cited which aren't legitimate crimes at all. You've taken a hatchet piece from the Atlantic, which deals in mostly innuendo and emotion, and used it as your basis to tell us this is why we should hate Trump. I'm not buying it. If that's the best the Atlantic can do, when Hillary has committed real crimes for which she should be in prison, they should turn in their journalistic credentials.
editor wrote:I appreciate your posts here, Firestarter, so please don't take this as a personal attack. But I hope you'll see this Atlantic article for what it is-- a bunch of tripe
I think this Atlantic article is pretty good. Everything in the article has references that are reliable. This is based on law suits, and most of this is founded on more than one person that was damaged by Trump's actions.
editor wrote:
Trump’s companies went bankrupt...
Trump has many companies. Some of them went bankrupt. Big deal. Anyone who hasn't failed, hasn't lived. The measure of success is how you handle failure. Do you give up, or do you brush yourself off and try again? The U.S.A. went bankrupt in 1933 and is still in receivership. Maybe Trump's experience with bankruptcy will be an advantage.
It is quite simply impossible to go bankrupt several times for billions of dollars and tell everybody at the same time you're a billionaire. Trump never "bought" any of his property: he loaned and borrowed and borrowed more. This is creative accounting and lying. Trump is completely enslaved by his financiers and now they got Trump in the race to get crooked Hillary Clinton on the throne of the American presidency.
I think the only reason that they don't want Trump for president, is that they're afraid that he will someday find out he's been set up from the start. The real elite (that's not wannabee Trump) is succesful in everything they do because the whole economy is rigged. If Trump finds out that all of his financial disasters were just to make him a complete puppet (even after he succeeds in making Hillary president, he will still have the same debts)... if he's president he'll probably try to take revenge.
editor wrote:
Trump bought property for one price, and then sold it for a higher price...
Seriously? This is a bad thing? Again, an emotional appeal to incite envy.
Here you are even "quoting" something I have never written, you must be a lawyer...
editor wrote:
In the 1970s Trump ran some housing sites where blacks were discriminated against. In 1981 he bought another building in New York on Central Park South, where he used every trick in the book to chase the tenants away so he could tear it down and build luxury condos. He had the heat turned off, refused to make repairs and had ads in the newspaper offering to house homeless people.
From what I've read, those 1970s housing sites were his father's, but I could be wrong. In any case, how many of us can say we've never discriminated over the past forty years? As for chasing tenants out of a building, allegations of the "slumlord" type are always emotional appeals made by people who have never been landlords. Last I knew, New York has rent control.

Do you know what rent control is? A board of bureaucrats tells the owners of buildings they can't raise their rents, no matter how high their expenses rise. The building owner is not free to succeed or fail based on his own business sense. Instead he is held hostage by people who extort his resources as long as he can keep his head above water, and then decry him as a crook and a failure when he can no longer subsidize them. This applies to both bureaucrat and tenant.

Oh, and... running ads in the newspaper offering to house homeless people is a BAD thing?
You're missing that this is based on numerous people. Running ads in the newspapers to offer these houses to the homeless to chase the tenants away, and housing homeless people to chase more people away. And after succeeding in having the building empty, destroying it and of course no more housing for homeless or affordable housing for the poor.
Maybe you have missed the obvious point that I'm from a poor family, while you are inclined to think that you are born better than the poor (maybe you should for once try to learn something from the lessons of Jesus Christ, instead of simply calling yourself a "Christian").
editor wrote:
Trump was fined...
Do you think government bureaucracy always fines people for real offences, and not just because the victims have deep pockets?
Of course I do agree that the courts are as corrupt as politrics...
editor wrote:You've got to admit that alleging someone was fined $450,000 for breaking rules in buying nine luxury cars, is nothing short of trying to incite envy. Rules for buying cars? Seriously?
Unfortunately I didn't write this down properly... Trump gave 9 luxury cars to Robert LiButti, that at the same time "lost" a lot of money on the tables in the casinos ofTrump. Is this money laundring or do you have a better name for it? Some people claim that LiButti is a mobster (so only a small criminal when compared to Kissinger, Soros, or the Clintons).
editor wrote:A bureaucracy once tried to fine me $10,000. They said they had "determined" that while I had NOT violated the law, in their opinion I had violated the "spirit of the law". I spent more than a year fighting them off, and ended up revoking an occupational license which was the basis of their control over me. They probably spent more than $100,000 in man-hours trying to collect $10,000 from me, which they never got, all for a "crime" which wasn't a crime because even by their own admission I had not violated any law.
editor wrote:A few weeks ago I found out that an officer in a homeowners association is telling people who have bought land from me that I spent five years in a federal prison for embezzlement. I've never been to federal prison and never been charged, let alone convicted of embezzlement. People tell stories all the time, and I've got a pretty thick skin. This is different. This idiot has been telling lies to my buyers, trying to get them to cancel the deals. So far, unsuccessfully, as far as I know. But how many prospective buyers has he been able to run off? I have no idea. One of these buyers has given me a sworn affidavit as to what this officer told him. If I can get just one more affidavit, I'm going to sue this man, and I'll probably end up owning his house, his car, and everything he has in the bank. That's what slander and libel laws are for.
You cannot seriously on the one hand tell over and over again that the legal system is wrong, and than finish this with: "That's what slander and libel laws are for". Laws and courts are to protect the rich, big criminals against petty thieves.
Furthermore I think that you've got the wrong man to complain about how bad you have been treated: I've been tortured, locked up for 6 months (without breaking any law) and I have survived numerous assassination attempts...
editor wrote:
Trump University...
In my opinion, if any court grants a judgement against Trump based on the fact that they paid for instruction at Trump University, and then didn't make all the money they thought they would, then every college and university in American should be subject to the same standard.

How many college graduates do you suppose are out there right now, paying off exorbitant student loans with their meagre burger-flipping stipend? If Trump University graduates have cause to sue, then what about all the graduates of these other colleges?
I will repeat my quote, because what you say, has similarities to what I've already written.
Firestarter wrote:I think these “students” had no right to complain, they should’ve known before enlisting that they could have better watched some Donald Duck cartoons, than listen to lessons about becoming “rich” quick the Donald Trump way. Right here on this forum you can get the lessons for free and it only takes a few minutes to learn.
editor wrote:Hillary can't provide enough strength to measure up even to Obama. Trump is strong and confident.

Most of America sees this, and I think an honest poll would reflect something like an 80% advantage to Trump. That's just my opinion.
Clearly we disagree on Trump - but maybe you understand the average American better than I do. In my opinion Donald Trump makes even Ronald Reagan look like Einstein.
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by editor » Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:42 am

Firestarter,

Thank you for giving me the perfect material with which to better make my point.

I've already said I don't have a dog in the race. You've got the wrong guy if you think I'm going to defend Trump, or try to convince you what a great president he'll be. Better than Hillary? Honestly I don't know. But I'll admit it's hard for me to imagine anyone worse than Hillary.

The piece you quoted from the Atlantic looked like a hatchet job to me, and it still does. I call 'em like I see 'em. All my life I've known people who say about anyone who has money, that he must have stolen it from somebody. It's called the "Politics of Envy". I didn't read the original Atlantic article, but your quotes were dripping with envy, and I simply called you out on it. Nothing personal, truly.

You were right, I suppose, in pointing out that I attributed a quote to you that you didn't really say. In fact I was using the quote as a formatting tool, as much as anything. But I don't think I was misleading in my use. To me, these two statements add up to the same meaning:
(You really said this:) In 2005 Trump bought a mansion in Palm Beach, for $41 million, and then “sold” it three years later for $100 million. Trump paid $7.9 million for a house which was on the books for $60 million. He bought Albemarle for $6.5 million that was listed for $100 million.
(This was my quote:) Trump bought property for one price, and then sold it for a higher price...
I forgive you for attacking me personally by calling me a lawyer (you've seen enough of my posts here to know I would be insulted). The mainstream media has been teaching us for years that personal attacks are the first and best refuge of a weak argument. I tend to not be intimidated by them which, incidentally, is one of the key attributes that so many people appreciate about Trump.
Maybe you have missed the obvious point that I'm from a poor family, while you are inclined to think that you are born better than the poor (maybe you should for once try to learn something from the lessons of Jesus Christ, instead of simply calling yourself a "Christian").
You know little or nothing about me or my financial background, and yet you throw out another personal attack. First you insinuate that I must think I'm better than the poor, thereby attempting to incite shame in me and envy in other readers. Then you try to shame me for an imagined slight against the poor. I know nothing about you either, except that your status as one of the poor is far from obvious.

Your comment was, I think, in response to my explanation about rent control. It seems I'm supposed to feel ashamed because I pointed out that rent control is a coercive theft of a building owner's property, thereby implying that even if some of the allegations against Trump in this regard are true, I might nevertheless sympathize with him. I'm not ashamed.
You cannot seriously on the one hand tell over and over again that the legal system is wrong, and than finish this with: "That's what slander and libel laws are for". Laws and courts are to protect the rich, big criminals against petty thieves.
The Lawful Path's intended purpose is to try and wake people up to the truth, and occasionally help point them in the direction of solutions. At times this might involve accessing the courts. While I'll be the first to agree that the courts are corrupt, and that it can be difficult and sometimes impossible to find justice there, the only alternative in many cases would be violence and vigilantism, which I do not advocate.

Slander and libel laws have been around since we had genuine Article III courts. Dismissing those laws because you mistrust the courts is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Suggesting that my endorsement or use of those laws in an effort to protect myself is somehow hypocritical, leaves me wondering if you view the world as a place where all remedies are impossible?
Furthermore I think that you've got the wrong man to complain about how bad you have been treated: I've been tortured, locked up for 6 months (without breaking any law) and I have survived numerous assassination attempts...
I cited an example of a real life situation that happened to me, because it related an example of an instance of which I have personal knowledge, in which a bureaucracy levied a frivolous fine, and then went to an uneconomical degree of expense to unsuccessfully try to collect it. This was in response to several examples you related about various fines which have allegedly been levied against Trump. I fail to see how my story was construed by you as a complaint about how bad I've been treated. Honestly, wasn't this just another personal attack? The idea is that if I acknowledge guilt because you've been treated worse than me, then your (otherwise weak) argument must also carry more weight, right?

Firestarter, I want you to understand-- I'm not attacking you, I'm discussing tactics. I'm trying to point out that the socialist-progressive left repeatedly commits real crimes. When those crimes are pointed out, they respond with personal attacks and appeals to envy. They've been using the same shtick for many years, and it has served them well. Recognizing the tactic is the first step in preventing one's self from being abused by it.

I'm not saying the capitalist right doesn't also commit crimes. Of course they do, and they have their own tactics, but that's another story. All I'm saying is if you're going to point out Trump's crimes, use real crimes, not appeals to envy.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by Firestarter » Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:02 pm

You’re insinuating that I should feel guilty over personally attacking you.
editor wrote:I forgive you for attacking me personally by calling me a lawyer (you've seen enough of my posts here to know I would be insulted).
I don’t think this was disproportionate after you attacked my credibility. Your defence of Donald Trump is somewhat bizarre - the story of Atlantic is based on real facts, from law suits in which Donald Trump was involved.

editor wrote:Your comment was, I think, in response to my explanation about rent control. It seems I'm supposed to feel ashamed because I pointed out that rent control is a coercive theft of a building owner's property, thereby implying that even if some of the allegations against Trump in this regard are true, I might nevertheless sympathize with him. I'm not ashamed.
I have read your defense of Trump and what you basically did, is say that Donald Trump is the victim of a corrupt legal system, but when Trump uses the laws: it's "lawful". Let's make one thing clear: if there was justice the Clintons and Donald Trump would be imprisoned for life (instead of the poor based on the 3 strikes or coerced psychiatric treatment laws).
Most of your comments in this thread are really in defense of the totalitarian state. You are of course entitled to your own opinion; your defense for paper money and money lending was totally against my beliefs but interesting nonetheless. I've also read that you're against minimum wages... maybe someday I will write something in reply to this.
editor wrote:All I'm saying is if you're going to point out Trump's crimes, use real crimes, not appeals to envy.
Part of post removed to “new” thread on the paedophile friends of Prince Andrew and Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1485
Keywords: “Jeffrey Edward Epstein, sexually abused, under-age girls, prison, work release, Virginia Roberts, lawyer Alan Dershowitz, private plane, newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell, Clinton Foundation, island Little St. James in the Virgin Islands, Chauntae Davies, Katie Johnson, rape, witness Tiffany Doe

I think Epstein should be an important topic in this year’s presidential election.
We can rule out that the Clintons and Donald Trump didn’t know that Jeffrey Epstein was a pimp for underage prostitutes.
The connection between the Clintons, Donald Trump and (Prince Andrew of) the British Royal family also puts the “independence” of the USA in doubt.

Paula Jones filed a law suit against Bill Clinton for sexually harassing her in 1991. Bill Clinton paid her an out of court settlement of 850,000 dollar and an additional 90,000 dollar for perjury (that sounds like a lot of money, but most of it went to the attorneys): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 111498.htm

Juanita Broaddrick claims she was raped by Bill Clinton in 1978 when she was 35 years old: http://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/bi ... broaddrick
There have been at least 14 women that claim they were sexually harassed by Bill Clinton: http://www.dailywire.com/news/1344/how- ... stigiacomo
Last edited by Firestarter on Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by editor » Mon Aug 29, 2016 5:35 pm

I don’t think this was disproportionate after you attacked my credibility. Your defence of Donald Trump is somewhat bizarre - the story of Atlantic is based on real facts, from law suits in which Donald Trump was involved.
Firestarter, I have never attacked your credibility. I merely denounced the tactics of inciting envy to discredit a man's character. My comments addressed some of the points of the article you posted and demonstrated how, in my view, those comments had no purpose other than to incite envy.

It is common for people to take personal offence at such a rebuke, where none is intended. I'm sorry you took my comments as a personal attack; it was not. However, I do not regret or withdraw my comments. I only regret that you seem to have gotten no benefit from the lesson in effective tactics I hoped to impart.

I will note that none of my comments defended Donald Trump. I simply brought to light the politics of envy being used to slander him. The allegations of statutory rape, if they can be proven, would rise to the standard of actual crimes which my comments demanded.
Most of your comments in this thread are really in defense of the totalitarian state.
That couldn't be further from the truth. I will also note that I have never defended paper money. I do, however, defend honest lending practices. Would you really prefer a world in which no one was allowed to lend or borrow money? The ability to borrow against future production is a blessing for many people. Without it they could never rise above poverty. Likewise the ability to loan money at interest is a legitimate way of putting assets to use to help them multiply. This is in no way a defence of the current fractional reserve system, which is criminal in the extreme.

Yes, I am against minimum wage laws, and other laws which interfere with the terms of private contracts between free consenting adults. I can't help pointing out that a prohibition against lending or borrowing would be another example of the totalitarian state interfering in private contract. If you are in favor of such laws, then it is you who argues on behalf of the totalitarian state. I look forward to picking apart your defence of them someday. It will not be personal then, either.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by Firestarter » Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:08 pm

editor wrote:Yes, I am against minimum wage laws, and other laws which interfere with the terms of private contracts between free consenting adults. I can't help pointing out that a prohibition against lending or borrowing would be another example of the totalitarian state interfering in private contract. If you are in favor of such laws, then it is you who argues on behalf of the totalitarian state.
Can you explain why you've disabled my possibility to upload pictures to the forum?
I will explain again, see my quote from June 14.
Firestarter wrote:When people finally earn enough to pay their rent the subsidy stops and their additional earnings go for a large part to the owners of the housing. Of course if the rents would decrease, we get the wonder of deflation. If the amount of money remains the same, people can buy more and more (with the same amount of money). Everybody tries to make as much money as they possibly can, when we realise that deflation breaks the dictatorship of the elite... poor people can rise above slavery.
One of the main topics in this thread is greed. Greed is really the basis of the totalitarian state and slavery. Without greed nobody would have the ambition to be on top of the pyramid, while nobody would help the slave drivers. It’s really difficult to keep people that aren’t greedy in slavery. When you understand that greed is relative: everybody wants to have more than others, you will understand that greed automatically leads to discrimination (somebody wants more than everybody else).
Quite literally you have been defending “greed”. Your defence of paper money, money lending and Donald Trump are really in defence of greed. I call greed the basis of all evil. Of course some people participate in crimes against humanity because of fear (to be punished), but this is evil of a lesser nature.

The connection between both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and Goldman Sachs is interesting on its own.

First the connection with crooked Hillary Clinton.
Clinton has been paid (read: bribed) $675,000 in 2013 by Goldman Sachs for 3 speeches. Bill Clinton received $1,550,000 for speaking on meetings of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Goldman Sachs gave $169,850 to Clinton’s presidential campaign and super PAC.
There is even a stronger connection from Marc Mezvinsky, who married Chelsea the daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton in 2010, and has worked at Goldman Sachs for eight years. Bennett Grau (also of Goldman Sachs) set up the Eaglevale hedge fund together with Mezvinsky and Mark Mallon (of Goldman Sachs) with help from Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein: https://www.rt.com/usa/344657-clinton-g ... chs-money/
Eaglevale lost 90% of its investments because of unsuccessful bets in Greece and had to shut down. Ironically it was Goldman Sachs that played a big part in bankrupting Greece, by lending 2.8 billion euro that had to be paid back almost double to 5.1 billion euro: http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/05/g ... t-country/
There are even many Goldman Sachs employees in important positions in the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton administration: https://prof77.wordpress.com/politics/a ... ena-kagan/

Then the connection between Donald Duck Trump and Goldman Sachs.
According to the following story Trump is indebted to Goldman Sachs for at least $650 million. Probably Americans will be more worried that Trump is also indebted to the Bank of China: http://therightscoop.com/beholden-to-no ... man-sachs/
Donald Trump has gotten together some of the big shots from Goldman Sachs to help him get money, to prevent him from going bankrupt before the elections: https://www.mintpressnews.com/american- ... ng/219341/
The most important name on his financial team is John Paulson (of Goldman Sachs), who made over $5 billion by betting against his own clients, while participating in crashing the American mortgage markets. After making billions of dollars Goldman Sachs paid $550 million to settle fraud charges with the SEC and had the Frenchman Fabrice Tourre convicted for this multibillion crime. This scheme bankrupted the Dutch ABN AMRO bank and Royal Bank of Scotland, and because somebody had to pay, it were the Dutch and British taxpayers that paid for the losses: http://www.gregpalast.com/the-frog-who- ... ce-crisis/
Another interesting name is that of Steven Mnuchin, who made his fortune at Goldman Sachs, before becoming CEO at Soros Fund Management. In 2009, Mnuchin got together with a group of investors that included George Soros and John Paulson to buy the IndyMac Bank that had been closed in 2008. After they renamed it OneWest Bank it was sold a few years later with a profit of billions. George Soros was also involved in the bankruptcy fraud with the General Motors Building with Trump and publicly supports Hillary. Even Mnuchin in the past has donated heavily to Hillary Clinton’s election campaigns: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-w ... -chairman/
The most interesting on Steve Bannon from Goldman Sachs is that his Bannon and Co. was bought by Rothschild bank Société Générale: http://fortune.com/2016/08/17/donald-tr ... n-goldman/

If you think that it’s wrong that the Democrat-Republicans follow orders from Goldman Sachs, you better not vote for Clinton or Trump.
Last edited by Firestarter on Sat Sep 03, 2016 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by editor » Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:54 pm

Can you explain why you've disabled my possibility to upload pictures to the forum?
I have not disabled any of your privileges yet.
Firestarter wrote:
When people finally earn enough to pay their rent the subsidy stops and their additional earnings go for a large part to the owners of the housing. Of course if the rents would decrease, we get the wonder of deflation. If the amount of money remains the same, people can buy more and more (with the same amount of money). Everybody tries to make as much money as they possibly can, when we realise that deflation breaks the dictatorship of the elite... poor people can rise above slavery.
Your quote makes no sense. Maybe if you had included a link to the original quote, so I could put it in context? In any case, where you say,
When people finally earn enough to pay their rent the subsidy stops and their additional earnings go for a large part to the owners of the housing.
Are you, what, defending subsidies? Saying that people should continue to get them, even when their income rises above the point where they need them? Suggesting the landlords are not entitled to their rent? This is envy-based whining.
If the amount of money remains the same, people can buy more and more (with the same amount of money).
What does this even mean? Taken at face value, it's patently false. If the money stays the same, then by the very definition of the word "same", the money's buying power does not change. On the other hand, if the amount of money in circulation within the economy increases, we get price inflation. This is really the same as saying each dollar is "smaller"-- it takes more of them to buy the same quantity of goods.
One of the main topics in this thread is greed. Greed is really the basis of the totalitarian state and slavery.
I disagree. While it is true that greed is a tool used by the elite to achieve their ends, it does not describe the motivation of the elite themselves who already have more wealth than they could ever spend. What does someone want, who otherwise has everything?
  • Security
  • Power
It’s really difficult to keep people that aren’t greedy in slavery.
I will agree with you on this one, but I think you don't understand the reason why this is true.

Most people think of anyone who works to accumulate wealth, and acts in his own self-interest as greedy. This is true of some, but not of others. So what's the difference?

There is nothing wrong with accumulating wealth, or acting in one's self-interest. Anyone who does not act in his own self-interest is a fool, and likewise if he expects any man around him to act counter to that man's own self-interest. We are all selfish, and if you think you're not, then you're fooling yourself.

So the word "greed" is a negative connotation for a man who acts in his own self-interest. Something I've just said is the only proper way for anyone to act. Does that mean I advocate greed? No. What's the difference?

The perspective of time.

If a man has a long view-- if his self-interested acts are carefully thought out to benefit him far into the future, then I would not view him as greedy, but smart. Such a man is much more likely to be fair in his dealings with the people around him, because he knows that a good reputation will propel him higher in the long run than a poor one.

On the other hand, a man who thinks only of instant gratification is much more likely to steal, swindle, or otherwise cheat his neighbor, without care of future consequences.

People who have a longterm view (who act in their own self-interest but toward larger future goals) are, therefore, harder to enslave.

If you want to read an explanation of this principle by someone who has already explained it much better than I ever could, please read Looking Out for #1, by Robert Ringer.
Quite literally you have been defending “greed”. Your defence of paper money, money lending and Donald Trump...
As you descend for a third time into personal libel, I will remind you that I have never defended paper money, and my comments with regard to Donald Trump were not made in his defence, other than to point out that most or all of your rhetoric against him was based on envy.

I challenge you now to find one place anywhere on this website where I have defended the use of paper money over honest money. If you can't produce an example, then please read this story, The Mailorder Bride, and decide for yourself whether you think your privileges on this forum will be restricted if you slander me again.

I am beginning to think you may be a troll, and that your complaints of being censured on so many other forums might speak more to a problem with you, rather than with them.

I appreciate your links to articles showing Trump's association with Goldman Sachs. News of this nature is much more valuable than the other stuff, which was really just trash journalism. I enjoy some of your posts, and I don't require that people agree with me, in order to express their opinions here. But I will not tolerate lies or slander. And if you post something that's meant to influence people against someone, based on envy rather than actual facts, don't be surprised if I call you out on it.

So, Firestarter, before you respond this time, may I suggest you take a deep breath, count to ten, and remember whose wagon you're riding on?

That's twice.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by Firestarter » Fri Sep 02, 2016 2:19 pm

Firestarter wrote:While the Clintons have flatly denied their long lasting friendship with Epstein, the previously mentioned recruiter and girlfriend of Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, was at the wedding of their daughter Chelsea Clinton in 2010 (the photograph won't upload to the forum...): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... dding.html
editor wrote:
Can you explain why you've disabled my possibility to upload pictures to the forum?
I have not disabled any of your privileges yet.
This is about the tenth time that I've uploaded the picture of Ghislaine Maxwell, that recruited child prostitutes for Jeffrey Epstein, at the wedding of Chelsea Clinton. Once again it won't...
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by editor » Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:52 pm

Attachments on this forum are limited to 256K, so if your photo is larger than that, it will not succeed.

I suggest either scaling the photo down to a size that meets the maximum limit, or posting a link to where the photo appears on another site.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by Firestarter » Wed Sep 07, 2016 4:07 pm

The Chinese Indonesian James Riady was sent to the USA by his father (Mochtar) in 1977, where he met the governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton. Then Riady buys a stake in the largest bank of Arkansas, Worthen, from Jackson Stephens. Worthen was shut down, because of illegal loans and embezzlement.

From Los Angeles James Riady set up the Lippo bank with the help of Taiwanese banker John Huang. This bank lost a lot of money due to bad loans and was involved with money laundering: https://parapoliticaljournal.com/2015/1 ... -clintons/
From 1988 on Riady financed the campaigns of Bill Clinton with millions of dollars. That’s illegal because Riady isn’t a US citizen. The trusted aide of the Riadys, John Huang (also a foreigner), got an important spot in the Clinton administration. During the presidency of Bill Clinton Riady visited the White House more than 20 times. Joseph Giroir Jr.: boss of Hillary at the Rose law firm became an important lawyer for the Riady family. In 1998 the US senate started an investigation into this affair. James Riady and John Huang pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance regulations and the Lippo bank paid a settlement of 8.6 million dollar: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/12/news/mn-11506
In June 1994 the Riady bank paid Webster Hubbell (a former partner of Hillary at the Rose law firm) a 100,000 dollar “consulting fee”, right before Hubbell would go to prison for 21 months for refusing to testify against first lady Hillary Clinton (can anybody think of another reason, than he was paid to remain silent?). In 1995 Hubbell was hired to work for a Lippo Group affiliate: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/pol ... bbell.html

Also interesting to note is that the Riady family had strong connections with the dictatorial Suharto regime of Indonesia. To make the Indonesian coal mines of Mission Energy backed by Suharto and Mochtar Riady, a financial success: Bill Clinton simply had the possible place for coal mines in Utah declared a national monument, so now the USA had to import Indonesian coal, instead of mining their own. There is also the Entergy group based in Little Rock Arkansas, owned by the Lippo group of the Riady family, that signed a memorandum of understanding with the North China Power Corporation to deliver Indonesian coal (with no competition of the Utah coal fields): http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... oggle.html
Although Riady was formally not allowed to enter the USA again the Obama administration gave him a visa waiver so he could in 2009 on 2 occasions (Hillary Clinton denied any involvement).

So Riady and Huang pleaded guilty to violating the rules on campaign donations and had to pay 8.6 million dollar. But why didn’t the family Clinton get any kind of punishment?
Firestarter wrote:
Firestarter wrote:While the Clintons have flatly denied their long lasting friendship with Epstein, the previously mentioned recruiter and girlfriend of Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, was at the wedding of their daughter Chelsea Clinton in 2010 (the photograph won't upload to the forum...): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... dding.html
editor wrote:
Can you explain why you've disabled my possibility to upload pictures to the forum?
I have not disabled any of your privileges yet.
This is about the tenth time that I've uploaded the picture of Ghislaine Maxwell, that recruited child prostitutes for Jeffrey Epstein, at the wedding of Chelsea Clinton. Once again it won't...
Here's the picture.
Attachments
Ghislaine Maxwell - wedding Chelsea Clinton (2010).jpg
Photograph of Prince Andrew with Virgina Roberts in 2001
Ghislaine Maxwell - wedding Chelsea Clinton (2010).jpg (29.43 KiB) Viewed 9786 times
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by Firestarter » Thu Sep 08, 2016 1:03 pm

I’ve uploaded the wrong photograph of Prince Andrew far too intimate with the 17 year old prostitute Virgina Roberts in 2001 (with Ghislaine Maxwell in the background).
Now… finally the photograph of Ghislaine Maxwell at the wedding of Chelsea Clinton in 2010.
Attachments
Ghislaine Maxwell - wedding Chelsea Clinton (2010).jpg
Ghislaine Maxwell - wedding Chelsea Clinton (2010).jpg (8.96 KiB) Viewed 9774 times
Post Reply