Google and look.....for instance the Keating 5....
Posted By: sam on 2008-10-01
In Reply to: What's reputable for facts? - Everything in politics is smeared to enhance
one of those was also Senator John Glenn of Ohio, a Democrat. Did we see HIS name prominently in the letter? People love John Glenn and NO ONE ever mentions HE was one of the Keating 5. In fact, all the other 4 were Democrats. John Glenn and John McCain were the only 2 that the senate ethics committee said were NOT centrally involved and cleared of impropriety. Both ran for re-election the next year and both were re-elected. And John McCain has apologized for any involvement, said it was poor judgment, and mentioned that again at the Saddleback interview. At least he admits when he is wrong and takes responsibility. Yet another reason I like him.
THAT is what I mean about getting the WHOLE story.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
For instance?
Exactly what are you referring to?
Please site an actual instance where anyone...sm
was banned from WEARING a religious symbol such as a cross, star of David or any other religious symbol to school.
I will state an instance, Tali Hatuel and her daughters. TI
I don't know how to post a link in this forum, no link is here.
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/72
Keating Five
History, it is said, is written by the victors. Or alternatively by John McCain, who has proclaimed that his role in the 1989 Keating Five corruption and racketeering scandal -- which led to the Lincoln Savings and Loan (S&L) bailout, part of the larger United States S&L crisis of the late 1980's and 1990's -- is his "asterisk." Excuse me? His asterisk? This writer begs to differ.
But apparently the American corporate media agrees, judging by its all but collective failure to report on McCain's primary role in the one incident in American history where the exact same catalyst, government deregulation, led to a comparable financial shipwreck, albeit not on the same gargantuan scale as the present, historic economic collapse.
This is not to say that the S&L crisis was not big. To the contrary, the immensity of the Lincoln Savings and Loan collapse, indeed of the entire S&L sector--and John McCain's role in it--is impossible to overstate. At this point, a bit of historical context is in order.
It all began when Charles Keating's American Continental Corporation purchased Lincoln in 1984. In the span of five years, with Keating as chairman -- and with the S&L industry newly deregulated -- Lincoln's assets ballooned from 1.1 billion to 5.5 billion. Much of this booty was the result of using customers' federally insured deposits to engage in high risk, highly speculative real estate and junk bond dealings.
By 1986, Lincoln had $135 million in undisclosed losses, and they had surpassed the newly imposed cautionary 10 percent "direct investment" limit of institutional assets by $600 million dollars. It doesn't take a financial wizard to recognize that this did not bode well for Lincoln's individual depositors -- or for the government's insurance fund, the Federal Depositor Insurance Corporation (FDIC). In 1989, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB), growing increasingly alarmed by Lincoln's use of FDIC-insured funds for commercial real estate deals, initiated a probe into Lincoln's free-wheeling investment practices.
Once Keating got wind of the investigation, he decided to capitalize on his political investments, his estimated $1.3 million in campaign contributions to various U. S. Senators. And John McCain, the deregulator's deregulator, was the recipient of the most cash, $112,000 -- which may not seem like much by today's standards, but it was a bundle back in the 1980's.
And that doesn't include the other fringe benefits afforded to McCain, like private jet rides to Keating's opulent Bahamas estate, myriad fund raisers for McCain's House and Senate campaigns, or Cindy McCain's (and her father's) involvement with Keating in a "sweetheart" shopping mall deal in Arizona. As the Feds closed in, Keating decided to call in his markers.
Keating orchestrated at least two April 1987 meetings between several San Francisco FHLBB board members, including its chairman Edwin Gray, and five U. S. Senators -- The Keating Five -- including the good John McCain. In spite of this blatant obstruction of justice, the San Francisco regulators found Lincoln guilty of unsound lending practices and recommended its seizure. The Keating Five exerted pressure and the takeover was delayed for 2 years. Gray was replaced. Meanwhile, Lincoln's customers were steered into extremely risky, uninsured investments, junk bonds held by Keating's American Continental Corporation, which ultimately went belly-up in April 1989. Lincoln was finally seized by the FHLBB that same month.
Meanwhile, more than 21,000 mostly elderly depositors lost their life's savings in the sordid affair, to the tune of $285 million, prompting an approximate $2 billion federal government bail-out. Keating was found guilty of fraud and racketeering and served 50 months of a 12-year prison sentence. McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing and chided for "poor judgment" by the Senate Ethics Committee.
In the two decades since this disgraceful affair, McCain has maintained that he did not knowingly do anything wrong. All the money and graft did not influence his actions.
Not so, according to Keating who is quoted in the 2003 book, Philosophical Dimensions of Public Policy. When asked if his political donations amounted to quid pro quo, Keating reportedly said "I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so."
No such candor from John McCain. To let the senator from Arizona tell it, he was only helping Keating because he was one of the largest employers in his state. Besides that, Keating's accountants vouched for Lincoln's financial viability. Even Alan Greenspan authored a favorable report commissioned by Keating, McCain routinely deflects. How could anyone blame him for not knowing that Keating was looting Lincoln? (This is kind of like the Bush Administration's circular defense of the massive "intelligence failure" with regard to Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.)
At any rate, that is McCain's story, and he has been sticking to it for almost two decades now. Not that he has had to talk much about it in recent years. He has been too busy straight-talking about ethics and campaign finance reforms, not unlike the burglar who repents and becomes an anti-theft crusader. And lo and behold, so far it has worked. In perhaps the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy, it would seem that McCain has succeeded in making The Keating Five mess his self-proclaimed asterisk. And who can blame him for trying to sanitize this most shameful chapter of his political career? But the so-called Fourth Estate's silence is another story altogether.
It is nothing less that mind-boggling that most of the media establishment, America's supposed "watchdog" is ignoring this crucial chapter of the McCain story. Really, when you think about it, it is obscene; and an objective history will judge them harshly. Particularly when one considers that this is the same media that acted as drum majors in the run-up to the Iraq War, and were enthusiastically embedded with the military in the delusional days of "shock and awe." Or were they in bed with the Bush Administration?
This is the very same media that obsessed over Bill Clinton's sexual peccadilloes and savaged AL Gore for inconsequential things like visiting a Buddhist temple or kissing his wife too passionately after his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Committee...and who barely made a sound when the Supreme Court basically overturned an American Presidential election. And it is the same media that was basically complicit in the swiftboating of the decorated Vietnam veteran, John Kerry.
The same press corps that has rendered the Democrats spineless and, for the last eight years, afraid to act as a true opposition party (and too fainthearted to raise the Keating Five in this election cycle) lest they too be savaged by the Republicans who, with a wink and a nod, constantly rail against the "liberal media" who have now apparently taken a vow of silence about John McCain's "asterisk."
In a clear-eyed, reasonable, straight-talking society, the Keating Five would be the lead of any John McCain biography, second only to the Hanoi Hilton. Some might even argue that the monumental racketeering scandal should take a back seat to nothing in the story of this man who would be president -- particularly at a time when this nation's economic infrastructure is literally crumbling. Count this writer in that number.
Two words... KEATING FIVE!! nm
x
The Keating Scandal
Over the weekend, John McCain's top adviser announced their plan to stop engaging in a debate over the economy and "turn the page" to more direct, personal attacks on Barack Obama.
In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to change the subject from the central question of this election. Perhaps because the policies McCain supported these past eight years and wants to continue are pretty hard to defend.
But it's not just McCain's role in the current crisis that they're avoiding. The backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption that helped create the current crisis are looking more and more like the other major financial crisis of our time.
During the savings and loan crisis of the late ྌs and early ྖs, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.
Sound familiar?
In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain.
The point of the film and the web site is that John McCain still hasn't learned his lesson.
And this time, McCain's bankrupt economic philosophy has put our economy at the brink of collapse and put millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes.
Watch the video to see why John McCain's failed philosophy and poor judgment is a recipe for deepening the crisis:
http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
It's no wonder John McCain would rather spend the last month of this election smearing Barack's character instead of talking about the top priority issue for voters.
It's long (13 minutes) but information every voter should know.
Why don't you ever mention the other 4 in the Keating 5 were....
Democrats? Three of whom were much more than "rebuked." The Keating 5 was a small part of the article. The lead with the pic of the "indicted" guy has been refuted...and Obama also has an "indicted" friend..Rezko. But you did not bring that up either.
Let's talk about McCain and the Keating Five or his
Let's talk about how he left his wife who waited for him while he was in prison for five years. Then he dumped her because she was disfigured in an accident. Now he has Cindy who makes life wonderful with $100 mil a year. He needs to be president to bring something to the table for HER because his war vet thing is nice but not really as prestigious as PRES and as PRES he could do a lot for rich people like wifey.
And he's related to Charles Keating!
nm
Like JOHN MCCAIN - Keating 5 Scandal
I guess JM is a crook, too
http://www.mahalo.com/Keating_5_Scandal
Keating 5 cost taxpayers $125 billion.
x
McCain has spoke ad nauseam about Keating 5
Get over it already!
The corrupt ACORN bunch are still at it and Obama is backing them every inch of the way. They are his push into office don't ya know?
You call Keating, Ayers, ACORN et all serious debate?
I don't. How about the economy, the wars, the exploding national debt, unemployment, homelessness. That's the issues I'd like to see discussed and your proposed solutions, not who can sling the most mud. Get it?
Name calling? Point out 1 instance of "nasty name calling" in response to your posts
Your childlike accusations are patently false - but you are indeed welcome to your own opinion. I just don't have to agree.
Google
Do a Google search with the word "failure" and check out the first listing.
Please google it....
There are statistics too numerous to count to draw from. Poverty in this country seems to be a well-documented and studied statistic. The same goes for worldwide standard of living statistics.
Wikipedia is only as good as its sources which generally are provided and in this sense it is no different than any information source. That's my feeling, anyway.
Sorry but I can google as well as you.
Big Hillary backer, raised $100,000 for her, married to a rich guy, lives in New York and London. blah, blah, blah. I don't base my vote on who is endorsing who. I have a mind of my own. Babs raised $9 million for Obama in a night. She must be pretty powerful too!
You can....google it. nm
nm
google it...here let me help you....sm
get started.
Actually, this one shows Joe Kennedy manipulated the media big time....called in favors....etc., etc., etc.,
http://www.ytedk.com/jfk.htm#president
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy
I don't need to google
I live in the same town as them. They don't pay for anything. Cheapest people you could ever meet.
Google
I didn't hear about this, but today I was googling bacterial vaginosis, STDs and all kinds of icky things. Hope they don't think there is an outbreak of gonorrhea in my house.
please google
Helen Thomas and "ignored" and see the precedent set by smirky.
Google it......
There is PLENTY of information on it and a DEFINITE variation in a homosexuality gene. They even have like five different theories on why this gene mutated as such.
Then you should just google...(sm)
"Hannity's revolution." That way you'll have plenty sources to choose from.
Google can be
as truthful as the media. Come out of your closet. ;-)
google search
The simple minded are so easily entertained.
Do a Google search...
apparently the liberal media shielded you well. If Bill Clinton was fair game, he had no one to blame but himself. The saddest thing of all is that he never learned from his mistakes.
Yep, it helps...off to Google...
however, I know I can find as many or more for the other side. Have you read them as well? I will if you will....
You can do google searches...
on any of the key words. There are no more sanctions against Iraq. That was many moons ago, started under the clinton administration and did not work...millions died..you notice Saddam did not...he got fat. You do the math.
The last thing I want to get started is the abounding conspiracy theories about how the big bad US has been after middle eastern oil since the 1940's. So I will do as you say and not get you started. My opinion, of course. No offense intended.
Iran was not a problem until the Jimmy Carter debacle. 'Nuff said about what has happened in that country since Carter.
As to Bush Administration covert operations...what about the Carter administration covert operations that overthrew the Shah and led to what we have today....Admadinejad. Hostages held for two years...need I go on? And the Clinton covert operations right in THIS country...
What I find troubling about Obama is he is being advised on foreign policy by possibly the WORST foreign policy advisor in the history of this country...Madeline Albright. That alone should be troubling to ANYONE who remembers Ms. Albright.
It's called Google. If you want to know...
information is there. I also have a dear friend who spent most of her life there.
LOL. Expert? Because I can google....
I am just interested in both sides of the story. Obviously you are not. And I am not a man...but think what you will.
I can't believe there are so many people out there who are so party driven they don't care about the truth and ignore what is right in front of them. Amazes me every day. And those are the very ones who, if socialism IS ushered in, will be saying: "How did this happen??"
Google Joe the plumber 40,000 and
nm
Wonder how much Google is getting paid
Now that Google is tracking your search of symptoms put in by those who think they might have flu, they will send that info to the government and let them know where flu outbreaks may be? Now, of course, there will be those that think that is wonderful but those of us who do understand our privacy should be a freedom in this country, we know this is an out and out invasion of our privacy. Google has no privacy safeguards in place, so if Google is giving the government information on things we google, as they already have, you still think your government is wonderful and looking out for you? Google should be ashamed.......they are selling us out. There will be more and more companies invading our privacy as the government invades more of our private lives and these companies do their bidding....... 
Do a Google search
for what the winning Pick 3 lottery numbers were on November 5th.
I bet you had to do some scramling on Google
to get those verses, didn't you? I'm sure you don't own a Bible. However, if you do, you don't read it. Oh, so transparent.
"You shall know them by their fruits." I'm a fruit inspector. What are you? A scavanger after rotten fruit? Yeah, I thought so. I can smell it from here.
And Google also has 896,000 entries on conservatives and
Excuse me while I take leave to invent some "facts" based on that.
The top result on google for miserable.
First it was 'Failure', and now it's 'Miserable' search google for it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=miserable&btnG=Google+Search
Google has an official explaining for it.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/googlebombing-failure.html
Sorry, but it is slang for toilet. Google it. nm
z
You really need to google Federal Reserve
Sorry you're that drawn in by Fox news or think everyone else is, but you probably need to understand that just because posters may be more educated than you on some things, i.e., the Federal Reserve, doesn't mean you can't educate yourself. Now, granted, it will take more than 5 seconds of scant reading because this institution goes back a long ways, but more than likely you will hear those words "Federal Reserve" mentioned time and time again. They are the reason we are in this mess.
You will probably hear a LOT of economists preaching this....they should know; this is what our economy leans on instead of our own two feet. You need to understand who has been running the show behind the scenes for decades.....it ain't rep or dem; it's the Federal Reserve and it should never have happened!!!!
Google McCain robocalls (NM)
xx
There are all sorts of articles; just google
x
Just google the phrase, JTBB.......sm
There's lots there.
Nothing personal, but I don't feel like being derided by anyone today for my opinions.
In fact, I'm thinking of taking a break from this board, as I doubt I would really be missed, anyway.
Please do google search on Bob Nardelli
and you'll see whose fault it is that Crysler has to close all of thier plants. You can search Bob Nardelli-Home Depot and Bob Nardelli-General Electric.
All you have to do is google his support speech.....
XX
This is what you say Google Contextual Advertising.
Yes, we used the word "Muslim" a lot on politics board recently, so Google started delivering Ads related to "Muslim".
Here is an explanation of Contextual Advertising from Wikipedia:
"A contextual advertising system scans the text of a website for keywords and returns advertisements to the webpage based on what the user is viewing. The advertisements may be displayed on the webpage or as pop-up ads. For example, if the user is viewing a website pertaining to sports and that website uses contextual advertising, the user may see advertisements for sports-related companies, such as memorabilia dealers or ticket sellers. Contextual advertising is also used by search engines to display advertisements on their search results pages based on the keywords in the user's query."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextual_advertising
This is what you say Google Contextual Advertising.
Yes, we used the word "Muslim" a lot on politics board recently, so Google started delivering Ads related to "Muslim".
Here is an explanation of Contextual Advertising from Wikipedia:
"A contextual advertising system scans the text of a website for keywords and returns advertisements to the webpage based on what the user is viewing. The advertisements may be displayed on the webpage or as pop-up ads. For example, if the user is viewing a website pertaining to sports and that website uses contextual advertising, the user may see advertisements for sports-related companies, such as memorabilia dealers or ticket sellers. Contextual advertising is also used by search engines to display advertisements on their search results pages based on the keywords in the user's query."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextual_advertising
Google has 637,000 entries on Jews and communism. sm
But I guess you read the one history book that didn't have that in it. Unbelievable.
Be sure to Google *I LUV BUSH.* His goons are watching.
Wiretaps said to sift all overseas contacts
Vast US effort seen on eavesdropping
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | December 23, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The National Security Agency, in carrying out President Bush's order to intercept the international phone calls and e-mails of Americans suspected of links to Al Qaeda, has probably been using computers to monitor all other Americans' international communications as well, according to specialists familiar with the workings of the NSA.
The Bush administration and the NSA have declined to provide details about the program the president authorized in 2001, but specialists said the agency serves as a vast data collection and sorting operation. It captures reams of data from satellites, fiberoptic lines, and Internet switching stations, and then uses a computer to check for names, numbers, and words that have been identified as suspicious.
''The whole idea of the NSA is intercepting huge streams of communications, taking in 2 million pieces of communications an hour, said James Bamford, the author of two books on the NSA, who was the first to reveal the inner workings of the secret agency.
''They have a capacity to listen to every overseas phone call, said Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, which has obtained documents about the NSA using Freedom of Information Act requests.
The NSA's system of monitoring e-mails and phone calls to check for search terms has been used for decades overseas, where the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply, declassified records have shown.
But since Bush's order in 2001, Bamford and other specialists said, the same process has probably been used to sort through international messages to and from the United States, though humans have never seen the vast majority of the data.
''The collection of this data by automated means creates new privacy risks, said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a watchdog group that has studied computer-filtered surveillance technology through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.
Among the risks, he said, is that the spy agency's computers will collect personal information that has no bearing on national security, and that intelligence agents programming those computers will be tempted to abuse their power to eavesdrop for personal or political gain.
But even when no personal information intercepted by the NSA's computers make it to human eyes and ears, Rotenberg said, the mere fact that spy computers are monitoring the calls and e-mails may also violate the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether automated surveillance of phone calls and e-mails, without a warrant, is constitutional.
The closest comparisons, legal specialists said, are cases challenging the use of dogs and infrared detectors to look for drugs without a warrant. The Supreme Court approved the use of drug-sniffing dogs to examine luggage in an airport, but said police could not use infrared scanners to check houses for heat patterns that could signal an illegal drug operation.
''This is very much a developing field, and a lot of the law is not clear, said Harvard Law School professor Bill Stuntz.
President Bush and his aides have refused to answer questions about the domestic spying program, other than to insist that it was legal. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week said the program only targeted messages ''where we have a reasonable basis to conclude that one of the parties is affiliated with Al Qaeda.
And some legal scholars have maintained that a computer cannot violate other Americans' Fourth Amendment rights simply by sorting through their messages, as long as no human being ever looks at them.
Alane Kochems, a lawyer and a national security analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said, ''I don't think your privacy is violated when you have a computer doing it as opposed to a human. It isn't a sentient being. It's a machine running a program.
But Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin said that Fourth Amendment privacy rights can still be violated without human contact if the NSA stores copies of everyone's messages, raising the possibility that a human could access them later. The administration has not revealed how long the NSA stores messages, and the agency has refused to comment on the program.
Balkin added that as technology becomes ever more sophisticated, any legal distinction between human agents and their tools is losing meaning. Under the theory that only human beings can invade people's privacy, he said, the police ''could simply use robots to do their dirty work.
In 1978, following revelations that President Nixon had used the NSA to spy on his domestic enemies, Congress enacted a law making it illegal to wiretap a US citizen without permission from a secret national security court. The court requires the government to show evidence that the target is a suspected spy or terrorist.
Under the 1978 law, NSA officials have had to obtain a warrant from the secret court before putting an American's information into their computers' search terms.
The restrictions largely limited NSA to collecting messages from overseas communications networks, but some Americans' messages were intercepted before the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Occasionally, the interception was deliberate. In April 2000, the NSA's then-director, General Michael Hayden, told Congress that since 1978 ''there have been no more than a very few instances of NSA seeking [court] authorization to target a US person in the United States.
More often, the interception was accidental. Because American international calls travel through foreign networks, some of which are monitored by the NSA, the agency's computers have sifted through some American international messages all along.
''Long before 9/11, the NSA gathered from the ether mountains of [overseas] phone calls and e-mail messages on a daily basis, said Columbia Law School professor Deborah Livingston. ''If you have such an extensive foreign operation, you'll gather a large amount of phone traffic and e-mails involving Americans. That's something we've lived with for a long time.
But Bush's order cleared the way for the NSA computers to sift through Americans' phone calls and e-mails.
According to a New York Times report last week, Bush authorized the NSA's human analysts to look at the international messages of up to 500 Americans at a time, with a changing list of targets.
Hayden, now the deputy director of national intelligence, told reporters this week that under Bush's order, a ''shift supervisor instead of a judge signs off on deciding whether or not to search for an American's messages.
The general conceded that without the burden of obtaining warrants, the NSA has used ''a quicker trigger and ''a subtly softer trigger when deciding to track someone.
Bamford said that Hayden's ''subtly softer trigger probably means that the NSA is monitoring a wider circle of contacts around suspects than what a judge would approve. ![src=http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif]()
![src=http://nytbglobe.112.2o7.net/b/ss/nytbglobe/1/G.5-PD-S/s81786612597656?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=23/11/2005%2019%3A16%3A32%205%20300&pageName=News%20%7C%20Nation%20%7C%20Washington%20%7C%20Wiretaps%20said%20to%20sift%20all%20overseas%20contacts&ch=News&events=event2&c1=News%20%7C%20Nation&c5=News%20%7C%20Nation%20%7C%20Washington%20%7C%20Wiretaps%20said%20to%20sift%20all%20overseas%20contacts%20%7C%20PF&c6=Article%20Page%20%7C%20Globe%20Story&g=http%3A//www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/23/wiretaps_said_to_sift_all_overseas_contacts%3Fmode%3DPF&r=http%3A//www.huffingtonpost.com/&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=1024&bh=590&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]]()
You know, people pay to have this words on top of Google list
It doesn't happen by divine intervention...
Sorry, the correct spelling is Tuskegee, so you can Google it.
xx
|
