OT: Military Officer Refuses Order from Obama

[partypup]

[quote=IONEGARM][quote=partypup]
That’s funny, because until last week I thought the allegation of market manipulation by big banks was the conspiracy theory that took the cake.
…
Maybe it’s about time for you to invest in some tin foil. Truth is about to become stranger than fiction as more secrets are revealed. Oh yeah, that tends to happen when empires crumble…LOL.[/quote]

Its not news that people who are market makers can front run orders..[/quote]

Really? Because it seems to be taking the media by surprise. If it’s not news, then why is Bloomberg reporting it as “doomsday” software? Why are the other major media outlets like Reuters picking up a story that is *yawn* such old news and reporting the software’s unusual capability if it’s merely a program to front run orders? Curious.

[quote=IONEGARM]And that still has nothing to do with the hairbrained, obviously false allegations people come up with so that they don’t have to admit to themselves that Obama is their president. They dont want it to be true so it isnt. If it wasnt this it’d be something else. Wacky people are just like that.[/quote]

Sorry you can’t connect the dots. I’m not going to think for you. But I want to get this straight: We have “hairbrained” (think you mean “harebrained”, BTW), “obviously false allegations” being raised by “wacky people”. Is that your position? And yet, the case is not being dismissed, but is instead being heard on its merits. Gee…I wonder if the hairbrained (sp) military cases go to the Special Wacky and Patently False Military Claims Court? LOL! You’re killing me. Your argument would have been so much stronger if the court had decided not to hear the case. You do realize that, don’t you? Have you ever been to court, BTW? It doesn’t sound like it.

Hey, did you know that the judicial system has a neat little system for dealing with harebrained cases? They’re dismissed without being heard. It’s called summary judgment. But that didn’t happen here. So sit back and wait for a decision and keep the barbs and snipes to yourself. Because until the court hands down a decision, your defense of the proferred b.c. is just as “wacky” as the plaintiff’s allegations – no matter how loudly you bleat or how many times you call your opponents “wacky”.

[partypup]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]
History is clear that partisans demand unquestioning “respect for the office” of President only when it is their President.[/quote]

Be careful here. There are exceptions. I signed every petition that came my way calling for Bush’s impeachment, and I have my doubts about Obama’s eligibility. As far as I’m concerned, we haven’t had a “legitimate”president since Clinton.

[partypup]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]
History is clear that partisans demand unquestioning “respect for the office” of President only when it is their President.[/quote]

Be careful here. There are exceptions. I signed every petition that came my way calling for Bush’s impeachment, and I have my doubts about Obama’s eligibility. As far as I’m concerned, we haven’t had a “legitimate”president since Clinton.

[partypup]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]
History is clear that partisans demand unquestioning “respect for the office” of President only when it is their President.[/quote]

Be careful here. There are exceptions. I signed every petition that came my way calling for Bush’s impeachment, and I have my doubts about Obama’s eligibility. As far as I’m concerned, we haven’t had a “legitimate”president since Clinton.

[partypup]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]
History is clear that partisans demand unquestioning “respect for the office” of President only when it is their President.[/quote]

Be careful here. There are exceptions. I signed every petition that came my way calling for Bush’s impeachment, and I have my doubts about Obama’s eligibility. As far as I’m concerned, we haven’t had a “legitimate”president since Clinton.

[partypup]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]
History is clear that partisans demand unquestioning “respect for the office” of President only when it is their President.[/quote]

Be careful here. There are exceptions. I signed every petition that came my way calling for Bush’s impeachment, and I have my doubts about Obama’s eligibility. As far as I’m concerned, we haven’t had a “legitimate”president since Clinton.

[Anonymous]

Questions:

If any of us were to run for President, how would we prove we were born in the US?

Is anyone in this discussion able to provide more proof than a birth certificate?

If all of our past Presidents were required to produce more official proof than a state-issued birth certificate, could they have done so?

[Anonymous]

Questions:

If any of us were to run for President, how would we prove we were born in the US?

Is anyone in this discussion able to provide more proof than a birth certificate?

If all of our past Presidents were required to produce more official proof than a state-issued birth certificate, could they have done so?

[Anonymous]

Questions:

If any of us were to run for President, how would we prove we were born in the US?

Is anyone in this discussion able to provide more proof than a birth certificate?

If all of our past Presidents were required to produce more official proof than a state-issued birth certificate, could they have done so?

[Anonymous]

Questions:

If any of us were to run for President, how would we prove we were born in the US?

Is anyone in this discussion able to provide more proof than a birth certificate?

If all of our past Presidents were required to produce more official proof than a state-issued birth certificate, could they have done so?

[Anonymous]

Questions:

If any of us were to run for President, how would we prove we were born in the US?

Is anyone in this discussion able to provide more proof than a birth certificate?

If all of our past Presidents were required to produce more official proof than a state-issued birth certificate, could they have done so?

[IONEGARM]

[quote=partypup]
Really? Because it seems to be taking the media by surprise. If it’s not news, then why is Bloomberg reporting it as “doomsday” software? Why are the other major media outlets like Reuters picking up a story that is *yawn* such old news and reporting the software’s unusual capability if it’s merely a program to front run orders? Curious.[/quote]

The reason is news is because market making software was stolen and COULD BE used to front run orders if someone wanted use it maliciously. Where the tin foil hat crowd goes off is that they immediately assume it was being used by GS for that purpose.

[quote=partypup]
Sorry you can’t connect the dots. I’m not going to think for you. But I want to get this straight: We have “hairbrained” (think you mean “harebrained”, BTW), “obviously false allegations” being raised by “wacky people”. Is that your position? And yet, the case is not being dismissed, but is instead being heard on its merits. Gee…I wonder if the hairbrained (sp) military cases go to the Special Wacky and Patently False Military Claims Court? LOL! You’re killing me. Your argument would have been so much stronger if the court had decided not to hear the case. You do realize that, don’t you? Have you ever been to court, BTW? It doesn’t sound like it.

Hey, did you know that the judicial system has a neat little system for dealing with harebrained cases? They’re dismissed without being heard. It’s called summary judgment. But that didn’t happen here. So sit back and wait for a decision and keep the barbs and snipes to yourself. Because until the court hands down a decision, your defense of the proferred b.c. is just as “wacky” as the plaintiff’s allegations – no matter how loudly you bleat or how many times you call your opponents “wacky”.[/quote]

Its just a silly case of people wanting something that isnt there and grasping at straws. If you read the links provided its pretty clear the judge is saying one thing while the plaintiff lawyer is claiming another.

The judge is getting through the technical aspects of what is wrong with the filing before even considering the merits of the case. You take that to mean the judge gave the case some legitimacy where in fact it means the judge just says “You dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s wrong, get back to me when you do it right”. So when in fact the plaintiff does do that it will then get dismissed and the whackjobs will complain its a conspiracy and find another million reasons why they can call whoever is currently president not their president. It happens with every president its just funny to see how it manifests itself every cycle.

[IONEGARM]

[quote=partypup]
Really? Because it seems to be taking the media by surprise. If it’s not news, then why is Bloomberg reporting it as “doomsday” software? Why are the other major media outlets like Reuters picking up a story that is *yawn* such old news and reporting the software’s unusual capability if it’s merely a program to front run orders? Curious.[/quote]

The reason is news is because market making software was stolen and COULD BE used to front run orders if someone wanted use it maliciously. Where the tin foil hat crowd goes off is that they immediately assume it was being used by GS for that purpose.

[quote=partypup]
Sorry you can’t connect the dots. I’m not going to think for you. But I want to get this straight: We have “hairbrained” (think you mean “harebrained”, BTW), “obviously false allegations” being raised by “wacky people”. Is that your position? And yet, the case is not being dismissed, but is instead being heard on its merits. Gee…I wonder if the hairbrained (sp) military cases go to the Special Wacky and Patently False Military Claims Court? LOL! You’re killing me. Your argument would have been so much stronger if the court had decided not to hear the case. You do realize that, don’t you? Have you ever been to court, BTW? It doesn’t sound like it.

Hey, did you know that the judicial system has a neat little system for dealing with harebrained cases? They’re dismissed without being heard. It’s called summary judgment. But that didn’t happen here. So sit back and wait for a decision and keep the barbs and snipes to yourself. Because until the court hands down a decision, your defense of the proferred b.c. is just as “wacky” as the plaintiff’s allegations – no matter how loudly you bleat or how many times you call your opponents “wacky”.[/quote]

Its just a silly case of people wanting something that isnt there and grasping at straws. If you read the links provided its pretty clear the judge is saying one thing while the plaintiff lawyer is claiming another.

The judge is getting through the technical aspects of what is wrong with the filing before even considering the merits of the case. You take that to mean the judge gave the case some legitimacy where in fact it means the judge just says “You dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s wrong, get back to me when you do it right”. So when in fact the plaintiff does do that it will then get dismissed and the whackjobs will complain its a conspiracy and find another million reasons why they can call whoever is currently president not their president. It happens with every president its just funny to see how it manifests itself every cycle.

[IONEGARM]

[quote=partypup]
Really? Because it seems to be taking the media by surprise. If it’s not news, then why is Bloomberg reporting it as “doomsday” software? Why are the other major media outlets like Reuters picking up a story that is *yawn* such old news and reporting the software’s unusual capability if it’s merely a program to front run orders? Curious.[/quote]

The reason is news is because market making software was stolen and COULD BE used to front run orders if someone wanted use it maliciously. Where the tin foil hat crowd goes off is that they immediately assume it was being used by GS for that purpose.

[quote=partypup]
Sorry you can’t connect the dots. I’m not going to think for you. But I want to get this straight: We have “hairbrained” (think you mean “harebrained”, BTW), “obviously false allegations” being raised by “wacky people”. Is that your position? And yet, the case is not being dismissed, but is instead being heard on its merits. Gee…I wonder if the hairbrained (sp) military cases go to the Special Wacky and Patently False Military Claims Court? LOL! You’re killing me. Your argument would have been so much stronger if the court had decided not to hear the case. You do realize that, don’t you? Have you ever been to court, BTW? It doesn’t sound like it.

Hey, did you know that the judicial system has a neat little system for dealing with harebrained cases? They’re dismissed without being heard. It’s called summary judgment. But that didn’t happen here. So sit back and wait for a decision and keep the barbs and snipes to yourself. Because until the court hands down a decision, your defense of the proferred b.c. is just as “wacky” as the plaintiff’s allegations – no matter how loudly you bleat or how many times you call your opponents “wacky”.[/quote]

Its just a silly case of people wanting something that isnt there and grasping at straws. If you read the links provided its pretty clear the judge is saying one thing while the plaintiff lawyer is claiming another.

The judge is getting through the technical aspects of what is wrong with the filing before even considering the merits of the case. You take that to mean the judge gave the case some legitimacy where in fact it means the judge just says “You dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s wrong, get back to me when you do it right”. So when in fact the plaintiff does do that it will then get dismissed and the whackjobs will complain its a conspiracy and find another million reasons why they can call whoever is currently president not their president. It happens with every president its just funny to see how it manifests itself every cycle.

[IONEGARM]

[quote=partypup]
Really? Because it seems to be taking the media by surprise. If it’s not news, then why is Bloomberg reporting it as “doomsday” software? Why are the other major media outlets like Reuters picking up a story that is *yawn* such old news and reporting the software’s unusual capability if it’s merely a program to front run orders? Curious.[/quote]

The reason is news is because market making software was stolen and COULD BE used to front run orders if someone wanted use it maliciously. Where the tin foil hat crowd goes off is that they immediately assume it was being used by GS for that purpose.

[quote=partypup]
Sorry you can’t connect the dots. I’m not going to think for you. But I want to get this straight: We have “hairbrained” (think you mean “harebrained”, BTW), “obviously false allegations” being raised by “wacky people”. Is that your position? And yet, the case is not being dismissed, but is instead being heard on its merits. Gee…I wonder if the hairbrained (sp) military cases go to the Special Wacky and Patently False Military Claims Court? LOL! You’re killing me. Your argument would have been so much stronger if the court had decided not to hear the case. You do realize that, don’t you? Have you ever been to court, BTW? It doesn’t sound like it.

Hey, did you know that the judicial system has a neat little system for dealing with harebrained cases? They’re dismissed without being heard. It’s called summary judgment. But that didn’t happen here. So sit back and wait for a decision and keep the barbs and snipes to yourself. Because until the court hands down a decision, your defense of the proferred b.c. is just as “wacky” as the plaintiff’s allegations – no matter how loudly you bleat or how many times you call your opponents “wacky”.[/quote]

Its just a silly case of people wanting something that isnt there and grasping at straws. If you read the links provided its pretty clear the judge is saying one thing while the plaintiff lawyer is claiming another.

The judge is getting through the technical aspects of what is wrong with the filing before even considering the merits of the case. You take that to mean the judge gave the case some legitimacy where in fact it means the judge just says “You dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s wrong, get back to me when you do it right”. So when in fact the plaintiff does do that it will then get dismissed and the whackjobs will complain its a conspiracy and find another million reasons why they can call whoever is currently president not their president. It happens with every president its just funny to see how it manifests itself every cycle.

[Author]

Posts