CheesalaIsGood

1. Let the British do whatever they want. If they want to help out then fine. SO be it. 2. I guess its ok to use matters of a personal nature used from confessions made in other folders against posters in this board. OK, fine. Its not like SOMEBODY I know went and dished about something personall on here that could easily be used aganst him. Just saying.

Yes, free thinking IS what americans DO try to promtoe. As long as it fits nice and snug within the boundaries of the "two party" philosophy. Anything else is perceived to be a threat. So you get responces like EGO, TIRADE, HYPOCRITE!!! Why were they so short on words? Because when exposed for what they are all they can do is stall, hem and haw. Stewart wasn't gonna just lay down and get ambushed on this show the way some folks have going on these types of shows. He knew full well all the stories floating around about how younger people are supposedly getting their news from the Daily Show and the "legit" press will always take offence to being undermined by a comedy show. Cutting through the bullshit has never been so much fiun. Kudos to Stewart.

article | Posted October 12, 2004 James Baker's Double Life A Special Investigation by Naomi Klein Print this article E-mail this article Write to the editors Take Action Now! Click here to read documents detailing James Baker's conflict of interest. Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute. hen President Bush appointed former Secretary of State James Baker III as his envoy on Iraq's debt on December 5, 2003, he called Baker's job "a noble mission." At the time, there was widespread concern about whether Baker's extensive business dealings in the Middle East would compromise that mission, which is to meet with heads of state and persuade them to forgive the debts owed to them by Iraq. Of particular concern was his relationship with merchant bank and defense contractor the Carlyle Group, where Baker is senior counselor and an equity partner with an estimated $180 million stake. Until now, there has been no concrete evidence that Baker's loyalties are split, or that his power as Special Presidential Envoy--an unpaid position--has been used to benefit any of his corporate clients or employers. But according to documents obtained by The Nation, that is precisely what has happened. Carlyle has sought to secure an extraordinary $1 billion investment from the Kuwaiti government, with Baker's influence as debt envoy being used as a crucial lever. The secret deal involves a complex transaction to transfer ownership of as much as $57 billion in unpaid Iraqi debts. The debts, now owed to the government of Kuwait, would be assigned to a foundation created and controlled by a consortium in which the key players are the Carlyle Group, the Albright Group (headed by another former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright) and several other well-connected firms. Under the deal, the government of Kuwait would also give the consortium $2 billion up front to invest in a private equity fund devised by the consortium, with half of it going to Carlyle. The Nation has obtained a copy of the confidential sixty-five-page "Proposal to Assist the Government of Kuwait in Protecting and Realizing Claims Against Iraq," sent in January from the consortium to Kuwait's foreign ministry, as well as letters back and forth between the two parties. In a letter dated August 6, 2004, the consortium informed Kuwait's foreign ministry that the country's unpaid debts from Iraq "are in imminent jeopardy." World opinion is turning in favor of debt forgiveness, another letter warned, as evidenced by "President Bush's appointment...of former Secretary of State James Baker as his envoy to negotiate Iraqi debt relief." The consortium's proposal spells out the threat: Not only is Kuwait unlikely to see any of its $30 billion from Iraq in sovereign debt, but the $27 billion in war reparations that Iraq owes to Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion "may well be a casualty of this U.S. [debt relief] effort." In the face of this threat, the consortium offers its services. Its roster of former high-level US and European politicians have "personal rapport with the stakeholders in the anticipated negotiations" and are able to "reach key decision-makers in the United Nations and in key capitals," the proposal states. If Kuwait agrees to transfer the debts to the consortium's foundation, the consortium will use these personal connections to persuade world leaders that Iraq must "maximize" its debt payments to Kuwait, which would be able to collect the money after ten to fifteen years. And the more the consortium gets Iraq to pay during that period, the more Kuwait collects, with the consortium taking a 5 percent commission or more. The goal of maximizing Iraq's debt payments directly contradicts the US foreign policy aim of drastically reducing Iraq's debt burden. According to Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and a leading expert on government ethics and regulations, this means that Baker is in a "classic conflict of interest. Baker is on two sides of this transaction: He is supposed to be representing the interests of the United States, but he is also a senior counselor at Carlyle, and Carlyle wants to get paid to help Kuwait recover its debts from Iraq." After examining the documents, Clark called them "extraordinary." She said, "Carlyle and the other companies are exploiting Baker's current position to try to land a deal with Kuwait that would undermine the interests of the US government." The Nation also showed the documents to Jerome Levinson, an international lawyer and expert on political and corporate corruption at American University. He called it "one of the greatest cons of all time. The consortium is saying to the Kuwaiti government, 'Through us, you have the only chance to realize a substantial part of the debt. Why? Because of who we are and who we know.' It's influence peddling of the crassest kind." In the confidential documents, the consortium appears acutely aware of the sensitivity of Baker's position as Carlyle partner and debt envoy. Immediately after listing the powerful players associated with Carlyle--including former President George H.W. Bush, former British prime minister John Major and Baker himself--the document states: "The extent to which these individuals can play an instrumental role in fashioning strategies is now more limited...due to the recent appointment of Secretary Baker as the President's envoy on international debt, and the need to avoid an apparent conflict of interest." [Emphasis in original.] Yet it goes on to state that this will soon change: "We believe that with Secretary Baker's retirement from his temporary position [as debt envoy], that Carlyle and those leading individuals associated with Carlyle will then once again be free to play a more decisive role..." Chris Ullman, vice president and spokesperson for Carlyle, said that "neither the Carlyle Group nor James Baker wrote, edited or authorized this proposal to the Kuwait government." But he acknowledged that Carlyle knew a proposal was being made to the government of Kuwait and that Carlyle stood to land a $1 billion investment. "We were aware of that. But we played no role in procuring that investment." Asked if Carlyle was "willing to take the billion but not to try to get it," Ullman answered, "Correct." http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041101&s=klein ------------------------------------------------------------------- Same old story. Still, he should have plenty of money saved in time for the rapture.

Females rely on things like their looks, or how they dress to get by socially. They are just different. I understand why the question is asked though. Since men HAVE to rely on things like humor and personality cuz women respond differently to a persons characteristics. Usually a guy doesn't need a witty girl to keep his attention. A nice set of tits will do just fine.

Watching Carlson fake laugh at everything like he was toughing his way through it was classic. What a sham.

Survivor Series 1993 November 24, 1993 in Boston, MA Boston Gardens drawing 15,509 ($180,000) Shown live on PPV (0.82) 1. Billy Gunn pinned Brooklyn Brawler (7:46). 2. Marty Jannetty, Randy Savage, Razor Ramon, & The 1-2-3 Kid beat Irwin R. Schyster, Diesel, Rick Martel, & Adam Bomb (26:58) in an "elimination" match. Jannetty & The 1-2-3 Kid were the survivors. * Savage pinned Diesel (10:20). * Schyster pinned Savage (16:47). * Ramon pinned Schyster (20:32). * Razor Ramon was counted out (20:42). * Kid pinned Martel (25:49). * Jannetty pinned Bomb (26:58). 3. Bret, Owen, Bruce, & Keith Hart beat Shawn Michaels, The Red Knight, The Blue Knight, & The Black Knight (30:57) in an "elimination" match. Bret, Bruce, & Keith were the survivors. * Owen pinned The Black Knight (10:49). * Bret forced The Red Knight to submit (18:06). * Owen forced The Blue Knight to submit (23:55). * Michaels pinned Owen (27:26). * Michaels was counted out (30:57). 4. The Heavenly Bodies (Del Ray & Pritchard) beat The Rock-n-Roll Express (13:41) to win the SMW Tag Title when Pritchard pinned Gibson. 5. The Bushwhackers & Men on a Mission (Team Doink) beat Headshrinkers Samu & Fatu, Bastion Booger, & Bam Bam Bigelow (10:58) in an "elimination" match. The Bushwhackers & Men on a Mission were the survivors. * Williams pinned Samu (3:02). * Mabel pinned Booger (6:02). * Miller pinned Fatu (8:33). * The Bushwhackers and Men on a Mission all pinned Bigelow (10:58). 6. Lex Luger, The Undertaker, Rick & Scott Steiner (The All-Americans) beat Yokozuna, Crush, Ludwig Borga, & Quebecer Jacques (The Foreign Fanatics) (27:59) in an "elimination" match. Lex Luger was the survivor. * Borga pinned Rick (5:05). * Crush was counted out (11:36). * Luger pinned Jacques (14:04). * Yokozuna pinned Scott (16:57). * Yokozuna and The Undertaker were counted out (22:26). * Luger pinned Borga (28:02). Here you have a PPV where everything sucks top to bottom. I was really into the Bret/Lawler feud but he was bounced out cuz of some child rape case, and replaced with the returning HBK. Which was OK for a choice but not great considering how hot Bret's aborted feud was. What sucked the most was the hottest point of the night was Savages run in trying t get at Crush. It was the first televised event I had been to and it sucked. It was the ONLY PPV ever from the Boston Garden, one of the old school WWF strongholds and it sucked. It was Bobby Heenans last WWF PPV, and it sucked. SUCKED!

HMW... Thats is a SWEET election banner. Booyakashah! Much respect!

i think she should pay more money. Tax the rich. Tax them blind. Gawd it feels so good to say that.

So there is no problem with somebody exploiting their appointment as a way to make his bank account fatter? Baker is on two sides of this transaction: He is supposed to be representing the interests of the United States, but he is also a senior counselor at Carlyle, and Carlyle wants to get paid to help Kuwait recover its debts from Iraq." THIS IS a problem. Wake up. Conflict of Interest. War Profiteering. These guys are SUPPOSED to be working in the interests of you and me. Which it seems you don't care. You know Mike, if shit like this didn't happen no one would have a leg to stand on or even question that Bush and co. were disingenuous when they paint themselves as liberaters. Yet they do and say so much stupid shit and it only digs their hole even deeper. So please, feel free to respond with whatever it was that John Kerry did that pissed you off today.

I could care less. The man has bought into his own hype. If others opt to not recognize it, so be it. Um, only to people of a specific political idealogy. I won't mention which one. Again, Kerry went there for a reason. What points did he bring up? "Crossfire" was hurting America? Jesus, that's something I'd have been too embarrassed to say back in high school. Issues? Hardly. Stewart wants to be a "journalist" --- but he will always fall back on his "it's a big ol' joke show" whenever anybody asks him about it. He wants to be taken seriously, but falls back to "I tell jokes" whenever somebody actually does so. -=Mike Journalist eh? Yeah, I must being missing those "in depth" reports on The Daily Show. Did see plenty of parody and satire though. Yanno, on the COMEDY channel! So when he went on something OTHER than the comedy channel he got serious. He spoke to the crossfire guys seriously. When they exposed themselves for the jokes that they ARE, how they contribute NOTHING to the discourse, he let them have it. Good. If any of you can find it, look up Nader on Crossfire, something like a year ago when he crushes Novac and Carvell on the 2000 election. It's awesome.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~drtaylor/kerry/kerry.html Captions of John Kerrys stance on the issues^

Strom Thurmonds daughter is gay.

I posted a link on the 1st page Bob.

Said no go? He's pointing out that the highly partisan blather that the commentators spit out is retarded. Right to their faces, to the audience that's watching them. What better venue than showing up to the show when invited? Stewart wasn't doing the same thing that they do. I can't believe you're actually trying to defend political talking head shows. What service do they render to anyone except people who don't care to find out about issues by paying attention to the news? And what benefit does Stewart's show bring to the populace? A well-written show hosted by an egomaniac? -=Mike A COMEDY SHOW! One that makes people laugh! Better than a show that muddies the politcal discourse. Cuz the talking head shows aren't really funny HA HA. Embarrassing mostly.

DOA? The guy has a book, a TV show and has done several movies in the last couple of years? DOA? Please. The complaint was about CROSSFIRE! Show them the folly of their ways! They didn't listen and neither do you G.O.

The goal of maximizing Iraq's debt payments directly contradicts the US foreign policy aim of drastically reducing Iraq's debt burden. According to Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and a leading expert on government ethics and regulations, this means that Baker is in a "classic conflict of interest. Baker is on two sides of this transaction: He is supposed to be representing the interests of the United States, but he is also a senior counselor at Carlyle, and Carlyle wants to get paid to help Kuwait recover its debts from Iraq." After examining the documents, Clark called them "extraordinary." She said, "Carlyle and the other companies are exploiting Baker's current position to try to land a deal with Kuwait that would undermine the interests of the US government." undermine the interests of the US government. Money. Money. Money.

Exactly.

Hint: CONFLICT OF INTEREST! They've not even approached actually making a case here. It's laughable that you take the Carlyle bullshit seriously. -=Mike It's equally laughable that you lack the ethical barometer to see that this isn't kosher. Sorry streetmeat, this guy is an asshole not worth defending. I might as well lump Greatone in here too since he will no doubt add his "thoughts".

I can't stand Tucker Carlson or Paul Begala personally. I just am finding Stewart to be as obnoxious as them. -=Mike Does this mean you DON'T wear a bowtie? I'm so disappointed.

Hint: CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

You mean to say you guys didn't think it was funny? Hmmmm. Wonder why?

^ Whiners.

http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=2652831 Go there to ifilm they have it posted. Stewart schooled both those guys. He called Carlson a dick to his face and he took it like a bitch. He even laughed it off like it didn't happen. He went on sombody elses show and told them straight up it sucks. How often do you get to see that. The CNN dolts stepped in it on this one. Its all good though. This is what happens to the news stations now that they all wanna be part of the story rather just report it. Crossfires ad rates just went to shit. Thanks John. Thank you.

Best.Idea.Ever.