CORPORATE ELITE « The Burning Platform

45 Comments

King-shat says:

You know me sooooo well, don’t you Admin?

Like or Dislike: 2 0

31st October 2011 at 10:20 pm
brann says:

actually,i know some people who would think this is a real ad.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 8 0

31st October 2011 at 10:28 pm
DavosSherman says:

Move the fuck over King-shat, Ebenezer Llpoh Scrooge comes first. Unless you can top his work sick slave mandate or his clear the streets to get shot in the head it’s okay rules.

“As an employer [Corporate Elitist], I hire employees for one reason and one reason only – to help the company [read: ME] make money.”

“My [corporate elite] company averages less than 1.5% absenteeism, and always has. That is three days per year per person, and includes long-term illnesses.”

Like or Dislike: 3 0

31st October 2011 at 10:30 pm
DavosSherman says:

Llpoh’s 6 thumb down “Scott Olsen Deserved this” rant:

“The courts have ruled time and again that states have the right to regulate time and location of protests. Despite what is said around here, all public spaces are not open areas for unlimited protest. Live with. It – it is a fucking fact. So if a state/government regulates time and place, and issues and order to vacate – totally legal, mind you – and protesters refuse, and in fact approach police intent on enforcing the orders ggiven them – said protesters are taking a significant risk. Peaceful or not, they are in violation of established law, and shit is going to happen to some of them.

I would not take such a risk at this time. These protesters at the front line have decided to take such a risk. Their choice. But some of them will be hurt and perhaps killed.

But make no mistake – governments have a lot of legal latitude to restrict time and place of protest. And they will use it whether people like it or not.”

Like or Dislike: 0 1

31st October 2011 at 10:43 pm
Game Over says:

Has America Become an Oligarchy?
by Thomas Schulz – Spiegel

The Occupy Wall Street movement is just one example of the sudden outbreak of tension between America’s super-rich and the “other 99 percent.” Experts now say the US has entered a second Gilded Age, but one in which hedge fund managers have replaced oil barons — and are killing the American dream.

At first, the outraged members of the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York were mainly met with ridicule. They didn’t seem to stand a chance and were judged incapable of going up against their adversaries, Wall Street’s bankers and financial managers, either intellectually or in terms of economic knowledge.

“We are the 99 percent,” is the continuing chant of the protestors, who are now in their seventh week of marching through the streets of Manhattan. And, surprisingly, they have hit upon the crux of America’s problems with precisely this sentence. Indeed, they have given shape to a development in the country that has been growing more acute for decades, one that numerous academics and experts have tried to analyze elsewhere in lengthy books and essays. It’s a development so profound and revolutionary that it has shaken the world’s most powerful nation to its core.

Inequality in America is greater than it has been in almost a century. Those fortunate enough to belong to the 1 percent, made up of the super-rich, stand on one side of the divide; the remaining 99 percent on the other. Even for a country that has always accepted opposite extremes as part of its identity, the chasm has simply grown too vast.

Those who succeed in the US are congratulated rather than berated. Resenting other people’s wealth is viewed as supporting class struggle, which is something very frowned upon.= Still, statistics indicate that the growing disparity is genuinely overwhelming. In fact, the 400 wealthiest Americans now own more than the “lower” 150 million Americans put together.

Nearly two-thirds of net private assets are concentrated in the hands of 5 percent of Americans. In comparison, the upper 5 percent of Germany hold less than half of net assets. In 2009 alone, at the same time as the US was being convulsed by mass layoffs, the number of millionaires in the country skyrocketed. Indeed, if you look at the reports it compiles on every country in the world, even the CIA has concluded that wealth disparity is greater in the US than in Tunisia or Egypt.

A New ‘Gilded Age’
In a book published in 2010, American political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson discuss how this “hyperconcentration of economic gains at the top” also existed in the United States in the early 20th century, when industrial magnates — such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and J. P. Morgan — dominated the upper stratum of society and held the country firmly in their grip for years.

Writer Mark Twain coined the phrase “the Gilded Age” to describe that period of rapid growth, a time when the dazzling exterior of American life actually concealed mass unemployment, poverty and a society ripped in two.

Economists and political scientists believe the US has entered a new Gilded Age, a period of systematic inequality dominated by a new class of super-rich. The only difference is that, this time around, the super-rich are hedge fund managers and financial magnates instead of oil and rail barons.

A Threat to the World Economy
The academics fear this change could have serious consequences for the country’s economic future. As they see it, this extreme inequality threatens to dramatically slow growth in the world’s largest economy. This is part of a development, they argue, that has been under way for years but remained largely hidden in the years of cheap credit, rising real estate prices and excessive consumption — when it seemed everyone was on the way up. And the problems only came to light with the arrival of the financial crisis.

Through the 1970s, income for Americans across all social classes rose nearly in lockstep, by an annual average of roughly 3 percent. Starting in the 1980s, however, this trend underwent a fundamental transformation. Granted, the economy continued to grow — but almost exclusively to the benefit of the country’s top earners. The major economic expansion under President Ronald Reagan benefited only a few, and the problem only grew worse under George W. Bush.

At least since the beginning of the millennium, it has no longer been a simple matter of two societal extremes drifting further apart. Instead, the development is also accelerating. In the years of economic growth between 2002 and 2007, 65 percent of the income gains went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Likewise, although the productivity of the US economy has increased considerably since the beginning of the millennium, most Americans haven’t benefited from it, with average annual incomes falling by more than 10 percent, to $49,909 (€35,184).

The Winner-Take-All Economy
Even for a country that loves extremes, this is a new and unprecedented development. Indeed, as Hacker and Pierson see it, the United States has developed into a “winner-take-all economy.” The political scientists analyzed statistics and studies concerning income development and other economic data from the last decades.

They conclude that: “A generation ago, the United States was a recognizable, if somewhat more unequal, member of the cluster of affluent democracies known as mixed economies, where fast growth was widely shared. No more. Since around 1980, we have drifted away from that mixed-economy cluster, and traveled a considerable distance toward another: the capitalist oligarchies, like Brazil, Mexico, and Russia, with their much greater concentration of economic bounty.”

This 1 percent of American society now controls more than half of the country’s stocks and securities. And while the middle class is once again grappling with a lost decade that failed to bring increases in income, the high earners in the financial industry have raked in sometimes breathtaking sums. For example, the average income for securities traders has steadily climbed to $360,000 a year.

Still, that’s nothing compared to the trend in executives’ salaries. In 1980, American CEOs earned 42 times more than the average employee. Today, that figure has skyrocketed to more than 300 times. Last year, 25 of the country’s highest-paid CEOs earned more than their companies paid in taxes.

By way of comparison, top executives at the 30 blue-chip companies making up Germany’s DAX stock market index rarely earn over 100 times the salaries of their low-level employees, and that figure is often around 30 or 40 times.

‘The Result of Policy Choices’
Hacker and Pierson are far from the only economists and political scientists to recognize a fundamental societal distortion. Larry Bartels, one of America’s leading political scientists, also believes America has entered a new Gilded Age. Bartels’ 2008 book on the subject, “Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age,” has drawn a great deal of attention and even been quoted by President Barack Obama.

“The really dramatic economic gains over the past 30 years have been concentrated among the extremely rich,” Bartels writes, “largely bypassing even the vast majority of ordinary rich people in the top 5 percent of income distribution.” He doesn’t see this fundamental shift in the distribution of wealth as having resulted from market forces or drastic events, such as the financial crisis. Instead, he believes they are “the result of policy choices.”

As Bartels explains, much as the economic giants of the Gilded Age developed such enormous influence that they could dictate basic political conditions, today’s Wall Street bosses and CEOs have successfully arranged extensive deregulation for their industries. Indeed, he argues that this is the only thing that can explain how hedge fund managers suddenly started making billions of dollars a year.

Former Citigroup CEO Sanford Weill, for example, kept a framed pen in his office as a symbol of his influence. It was the pen President Bill Clinton — at Weill’s instigation — used in 1999 to sign into law legislation repealing the provisions in the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that separated the transactions of investment and commercial banks.

At the same time, Bartels writes, the wealthy receive enormous tax breaks worth hundreds of billions of dollars. In the 1970s, capital gains tax was 40 percent, and the highest income tax bracket paid a rate of 70 percent. Under George W. Bush, these rates dropped to 15 percent and 35 percent, respectively. For example, it emerged a few weeks ago that legendary investor Warren Buffett earned $63 million last year but was only required to pay 17 percent in taxes.

Did Inequality Cause the Crisis?
In a medium-term, the consequences of this societal divide threaten the productivity of the entire economy. Granted, American economists in particular have long espoused the view that inequality is simply a necessary side effect of above-average growth. But that position is now being called into question.

In fact, recent research indicates that the economies of countries experiencing periods of pronounced inequality often show considerably less growth and more instability. On the other hand, it also finds that economies grow faster when income is more evenly distributed.

In a study published in September, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) also concluded that: “The recent global economic crisis, with its roots in US financial markets, may have resulted, in part at least, from the increase in inequality” in the country.

An Evolutionary View of Economics
Cornell Univesity economist Robert Frank analyzes this development in his recently published book “The Darwin Economy.” In it, he concludes that financial realities are best described not by Adam Smith’s economic models but, rather, by Charles Darwin’s thoughts on competition.

Frank writes that, with its often extreme deregulation, today’s financial and economic system makes it impossible for individuals’ self-serving behavior to ultimately contribute to the prosperity of society as a whole, as Smith had envisioned it. Instead, it leads to an economy in which only the fittest survive — and the general public is left behind.

The question is: How long can the US withstand this internal tension?

Differences between rich and poor are tolerated as long as the rags-to-riches story of the dishwasher-turned-millionaire remains theoretically possible. But studies show that increasing inequality and political control concentrated in the hands of the wealthy elite have drastically reduced economic mobility and that the US has long since fallen far behind Europe on this issue. Indeed, only 4 percent of less-well-off Americans ever successfully make the leap into the upper-middle class.

“The major difference between this Gilded Age and the last one is the relative absence of protest,” historian Gary Gerstle told the online magazine Salon in October. “In the first Gilded Age, the streets were flooded with protest movements.”

Manhattan hasn’t yet quite reached that point.

Like or Dislike: 2 0

31st October 2011 at 11:08 pm
llpoh says:

Lickspittle – I thought it was a private war. Okey dokey. Bend over.

Like or Dislike: 3 0

31st October 2011 at 11:33 pm
Persnickety says:

For all practical purposes there are only three real forms of government in the modern world:

1) Dictatorship – seemingly an endangered species;

2) Oligarchy – this includes nearly all “democracies,” except a few that fit above or below; and

3) Quasi-anarchy – Somalia, to some extent Belgium at the moment (though definitely the nicest anarchy you’ll find), and arguably much of Latin America.

Sure, many countries have nominally democratic election processes and nominally representative governments, but try to show me one where the people in office really, truly represent the overall population, and not special interests, particularly the wealthy of the country. There is, however, a huge range of variation in how the oligarchies are run, from relatively fair with only modest theft by the rich, to nearly absolute theft by all who can. The US has progressed from the former to a sort of veneer of fairness with enormous theft underneath, and the veneer is being chipped away.

Like or Dislike: 3 0

31st October 2011 at 11:36 pm
DavosSherman says:

Like or Dislike: 4 0

31st October 2011 at 11:51 pm
DavosSherman says:

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 7 1

31st October 2011 at 11:54 pm
DavosSherman says:

I fucking love it. I’ve never heard the word “lickspittle”. So I “Googled” it.

ick·spit·tle/ˈlikˌspitl/
Noun:
A person who behaves obsequiously to those in power.

Llpoh considers himself “those in power”. Another word for “those in power” would be the ELITE.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 5 0

31st October 2011 at 11:57 pm
llpoh says:

Union lickspittle – the dictionary is your friend. Look up buttlicker too.

Like or Dislike: 3 3

31st October 2011 at 12:03 am
The Watchdog says:

One thing I’ve learned from observing this feud is that we are all doomed. If folks can get this riled up over blog comments, then a credit bust, oil peak, and fourth turning will bury us all.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 10 0

31st October 2011 at 12:06 am
DavosSherman says:

Watchdog, you’re probably right. But shit like making people work sick and saying that Olsen kid had it coming for being there just drives me batshit.

Basically I hate the 1% that think this way.

————————————-

So there you have it.

The elitist wannabe.

Who makes his workers take no more than 3 sick days per year.

Who thinks Scott Olsen deserved to get hit in the head for not obeying the orders to clear the streets. Scott wasn’t an obedient servant.

Who thinks it is fine for the cops to not help him after they shot him in the head.

Who thinks it is fine for the cops to toss a grenade at him and helping him.

lick·spit·tle/ˈlikˌspitl/
Noun:
A person who behaves obsequiously (Full of or exhibiting servile compliance; fawning) to those in power.

Llpoh, like Smokey, you are a POS!!!

Like or Dislike: 4 1

31st October 2011 at 12:14 am
llpoh says:

Davos – noun. Union lickspittle.

Like or Dislike: 1 2

31st October 2011 at 12:28 am
llpoh says:

Davos – you lying scum. I said neither of those things. Seriously.

Like or Dislike: 2 3

31st October 2011 at 12:56 am
DavosSherman says:

Neither of what things?

You came across hell bent that people should work sick. What’d I miss?

I’m vehemently opposed to that. I’d watch some morons come in sick so they could take a day when they needed to. I’d wind up catching their shit and giving it to my kids. I blame them and the company, people need personal days, they aren’t turbine engines.

You came across hell bent that Olsen was in the wrong place – that it was just too effing bad he got hit. That’s BS. Every American should be pissed at the cops. No one is. They’ll do it again and again, just like the banksters who got bailed out, again and again.

So you tell me, just what the fuck did I miss here?

Like or Dislike: 3 0

31st October 2011 at 1:02 am
llpoh says:

I said the guy took a big risk. He did.

I said people who take ten single days off a year aren’t sick. They aren’t. As a rule.

Did the guy deserve to get hit in head? Hell no. Was it avoidable9. Hell yes.

Like or Dislike: 3 3

31st October 2011 at 1:30 am
Yojimbo says:

DavosSherman and LLPOH

I have a riddle for you:

Why is capitalism like Newtonian Physics? (I bet LLPOH will get this one.)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 7 0

31st October 2011 at 7:38 am
Persnickety says:

It falls and hits you on the head while you’re trying to relax and enjoy life?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 7 0

31st October 2011 at 9:16 am
Yojimbo says:

A good answer, but not the one I was thinking of.

Like or Dislike: 2 0

31st October 2011 at 9:20 am
DavosSherman says:

YoJimbo: I only had one college course in physics so I’m sure I’ll have to defer to the (dig) educated elite.

Speaking of which: I do know that when I was 5 and my brother – who was babysitting took me up for touch and goes – not in mother’s plans of things babysitters should do. Neither was falling off the countertop and getting 5 stitches above the eye. But, going home I discovered what made lift, Newton’s Third Law: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

I stuck my hand out the window of the car going home and said: “Wow, I know what makes a wing fly.”

This got me a 1 hour lecture on the blackboard that stretched his wall. He was a Dowling College flight major who graduated suma cum laude, one of the first schools to teach aviation. He taught me about Bernoulli’s Law, which he and the FAA said made lift. I later was taught this and after that even taught it. One engineer/student told me I was fucking crazy, that the FAA was wrong. He got a 98% on his written because he refused to buy into the bullshit.

He was right. I recently read Flatow’s book “Present at the Future” which explains how what pilots are taught is bullshit. The 5 year old simple take on shit was right. Nasa’s websites now say it is Newton’s III law that makes planes fly.

Shocker. I saved a but-load of money NOT going to Dowling. Fuck you professor Smith, you taught Bernanke bullshit – just in a different field.

But, as usual I digress. I’d guess it is Newton’s First Law, which is something to the effect that every object in motion tends to stay in motion, I’ll cheat and try to slip in his second law which deals with mass and direction.

But please do tell me.

By the way, all this has led me to tinkering with wings and a few other things. I have a friend whose wife is a fucking doctor of aerodynamics, I was amazed to learn they know nothing of this revelation. Which brings me to why I hate school and could give a rats ass about grammar. When I had to tutor my wife who paid 1k per programming class I realized that those with good educations might have gotten screwed over and they may not know the truth.

Just saying. I’m not being a dick, I think it is criminal. I think there is something really flawed with our education system.

Like or Dislike: 2 0

31st October 2011 at 10:01 am
DavosSherman says:

PS YoJimbo, that dig I made was NOT directed at you, it was directed at someone who told me they were far more educated than I. Cheers

Like or Dislike: 3 0

31st October 2011 at 10:05 am
Stucky says:

Newton had some difficulties actually EXPLAINING gravitational forces … a type of “invisible” force that acted in empty space.

Adam Smith championed laissez-faire capitalism whereby if people acted according to their own best interests an “invisible hand” when generate the most good.

Close? Off base?

Like or Dislike: 3 0

31st October 2011 at 10:41 am
Colma Rising says:

It’s a great theory until it isn’t.

Like or Dislike: 4 0

31st October 2011 at 10:57 am
Yojimbo says:

All good answers. My answer involves the limitations of Newtonian Physics. I’m waiting for more responses…

Like or Dislike: 3 0

31st October 2011 at 11:06 am
DavosSherman says:

I’m clueless. Are we talking at near light speed? Are we talking on a quantum level?

At this point, I’ll fold, I haven’t read but maybe 3 books on this shit.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

31st October 2011 at 11:27 am
DavosSherman says:

“It’s a great theory until it isn’t.”

+1

I used to say that. Flatow’s book changed my views on that where the government had involvement.

I suppose after taking a nice deep breath it is easy to see how things take shape—or don’t.

I’ve really gotta be moving on. Take care everyone. Llpoh, I’ve re-read what you said, I think I see your point of view, or at least where you were coming from. Keep the shiny side up, it’s all that matters.

Like or Dislike: 2 0

31st October 2011 at 11:57 am
Stucky says:

What does that mean … “I’ve really gotta be moving on.”?

You leaving TBP??

Like or Dislike: 1 0

31st October 2011 at 12:08 pm
DavosSherman says:

Yuppers.

Love the great blogs but I have a few projects that I want to pursue .

Like or Dislike: 1 1

31st October 2011 at 12:37 pm
Persnickety says:

Davos – chillax, get refreshed, and come back in a few days.

Like or Dislike: 2 0

31st October 2011 at 12:42 pm
Persnickety says:

“Why is capitalism like Newtonian Physics?”

I’m curious to hear what Yojimbo intends, but guessing what it will be I’m going to disagree. Newtonian physics is a good enough model for almost anything a normal person would do without very high technology. It’s not quite right, but it’s very close outside of quantum and relativistic matters. As for capitalism, it’s a great idea in theory, but I don’t think it’s even close to how things work in most (all?) human societies. I want to believe in the Adam Smith / Libertarian view of human behavior, but I think Machiavelli and Mussolini are far closer to truth, especially with the types of people who tend to get into the “elite” realms.

Like or Dislike: 1 0

31st October 2011 at 12:45 pm
Stucky says:

Best wishes on whatever your project is.

But, goddammit, don’t tell me you can’t find a few minutes here and there during the week to stop by. I mean, how long does it take to type, “llpoh sucks ass”? Not that I think he does but you do and that only took me 4.25 seconds.

Like or Dislike: 4 0

31st October 2011 at 12:46 pm
Stucky says:

Newton thought and believed he was describing reality. Even had lots of cool math. But then along comes Einstein and quantum stuff that proved he was at least a little bit wrong. And the deeper you dive into quatum stuff — and I read a couple layman’s books on it before I decided to say fuckit — the more one wonders what the hell “reality” really is.

It seems the best we can do is explain “qualities” about reality, but qualities are not the thing itself. Like trying to describe the color red to a person blind from birth. You wind up explaining a lot of qualities or properties about redness, but the blind person will never ever experience the reality of red.

Yojimbo … spill the fuckin beans, will ya??!! I tire of waiting.

Like or Dislike: 3 0

31st October 2011 at 12:56 pm
Yojimbo says:

Persnickety wins the prize:

“Newtonian physics is a good enough model for almost anything a normal person would do without very high technology.”

My answer is that Newtonian Physics works only on a certain range of phenomena, those specifically “human-scaled”. Things that are very fast (speed of light) or very dense (black holes) or very big are outside that range, and therefore could not be explained by Newtonian Physics and resulted in Relativity Theory. Things that are very small (sub-molecular) also require a different theory (Quantum Physics).

In my opinion, Capitalism works the same way. On a human scale, with face-to-face interactions in a small business where the owner knows each employee individually and therefore is subject to social and moral sanctions from other people, capitalism works. If the owner is a jerk, it gets around and affects his business, ability to employee people, the wage he needs to pay, etc.

Capitalism does not work when the interactions are larger than the human scale, i.e. trans-national corporations with thousands of employees where the employee is nameless to the employer, and the management is faceless to the employee. Such corporations are not affected by social and moral sanctions, and are so large that like black holes, they deform the space around them, altering politics and the social fabric, like the fabric of space. The theory of capitalism falls apart, as we’ve seen, when corporations get too big to fail – the risk/reward structure no longer operates, and the rule of law, the fabric of society, shreds.

Capitalism also does not work when the interactions between people are incredibly intimate and close. No one would want to have to work out contracts for affection and love or friendship on a case by case, this for that, quid pro quo, basis.

As someone in the restaurant “industry” (what a terrible thing to call it), I am in favor of small-scale capitalism where the owner runs the business (or two or three), but keeps it on a scale where they know the employees, can interact with them, must interact with them, and whose decisions reflect back on them and are not immune to social criticism, the social contract, etc. Small-scale capitalism works as a way to create business and exchange labor for money.

But capitalism does not work when it becomes too large, as we have seen.

That’s my answer, and I was hoping that Smokey or LLPOH or Admin would weigh in.

So I think that is partly what our present crisis is about.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 7 0

31st October 2011 at 1:10 pm
Connovarn says:

Yojimbo – nice

Like or Dislike: 3 0

31st October 2011 at 1:24 pm
Persnickety says:

You’ve convinced me. Funny I managed to win the prize while preemptively disagreeing with what I thought you were saying!

Like or Dislike: 3 0

31st October 2011 at 1:28 pm
llpoh says:

Davos – I appreciate the last words. For me it was only a bit of fun. One or two areas of disagreement should not make perpetual enemies. Just look at the Admin – he is wrong
all the time but I still hold him in high regard. Hope you get some rec flying in.

Like or Dislike: 4 0

31st October 2011 at 4:16 pm
Administrator says:

I have the utmost respect for the corporate elite big dogs like llpoh.

Like or Dislike: 4 0

31st October 2011 at 4:28 pm
Stucky says:

llpoh

You are one gigantic motherfucking pussy.

You assrape Davos for three days straight — one of the best shit throwing fests EVER on TPB. You called him horrible things, denigrated his lineage, and ripped his heart of his chest and then shit on it for good measure.

And now you’re saying it was “only a bit of fun”???

That was fun. I’ll bet that’s what you said after you sucked some big black cock. You pussified faggot. Piece of shit. Despicable scum. Chickenshit scaredy cat.

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Let it be known you can motherfuck llpoh six ways to Sunday any time you want. He likes it. At the end of the day, it’s all just fun and we’ll all hold hands and get along.

You bring shame to your Big Dog status. Pussywhipped Dog is more like it.

Heh …. this IS fun!

Like or Dislike: 3 2

31st October 2011 at 4:38 pm
Administrator says:

Like or Dislike: 4 0

31st October 2011 at 4:54 pm
Stucky says:

The Shame of LLPOH

Like or Dislike: 4 1

31st October 2011 at 5:00 pm
llpoh says:

Stuck – you know me – bygones be bygones. I never really got fired up (I almost never used foul language in that battle. Davos has a lot of buttons to push, so I pushed them. A lot of times I was laughing so hard I couldn’t see to type.).

He has had good intent on this site, so no need to hold a grudge, and it seemed he finally offered an olive branch. Anyone who followed that battle would have seen me extend the branch several times during the fight – so it must be clear that I was always prepared to let the dust settle. Anyway, I clearly won that battle, so it pays to be magnanimous in victory.

You should see me when I am serious.

Like or Dislike: 4 0

31st October 2011 at 5:46 pm
Stucky says:

llpoh

lol Please send me your address. I’d like to send you the gift below.

Like or Dislike: 4 0

31st October 2011 at 5:54 pm
Colma Rising says:

Yeah, llpoh was being a teddy bear during this no holes barred, half-week tirade of vitriolic rhetoric.

If I know llpoh on tbp, he will watch and wait…

Like or Dislike: 3 0

31st October 2011 at 6:03 pm
llpoh says:

Like or Dislike: 1 0

31st October 2011 at 6:17 pm

The Burning Platform

SUBSCRIBE

45 Comments

Leave a comment

If you feel you have received some value from this site, donations will be gratefully accepted to help support my efforts to provide you with the truth about our unsustainable economic policies

Make Recurring Donation

To Donate by Check

Random Quote

Recent Comments

ADVERTISERS

Latest Posts

Site Info

Merchandise

FINANCIAL

EMERGENCY PREPARATION

Cost of War

The Gross National Debt

Cost of Peak Oil

Older Articles

Favorite Websites

Recommended Books

Archive Articles

Fourth Turning Library

Archive Articles

Blogroll

Favorite Websites

Fourth Turning Library

Merchandise

Recommended Books

Connect

Popular Tags