Chicago Thugs and Global Warming

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,898
60,271
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
"1. A small bank in Chicago called SHOREBANK almost went bankrupt in 2007-2008. However, because the bank’s executives were well connected with members of the Obama Administration, a private rescue bailout was arranged.

2. ShoreBank survived and invested in many “green” businesses such as solar panel manufacturing. In fact, the bank was mentioned in one of Obama’s speeches during his election campaign because it subjected new business borrowers to “eco-litmus” tests.


3. Prior to becoming President, Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, a liberal charity. In 1972, the foundation was taken over by radical environmentalists and social justice extremists. This JOYCE FOUNDATION completely funded, with a few partners, something called the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE, known as CXX. It will be the exchange where so-called “Environmental Carbon Credits” are traded.

4. ShoreBank.has now been designated to be the “banking arm” of the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CXX).In addition, Goldman Sachs has been contracted to run the investment trading floor of the exchange.


a. One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton.
b. Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama’s late mother. Obama’s mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for the Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner.

c. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years.
d. Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter.

e. The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama’s White House transition team.
f. When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he “funneled” thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, the terrorist.

g. Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc. a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.
h. Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.

i. Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for “green” projects. Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.


5. Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM). Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs

6. Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a money-generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress and into law.

If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 TRILLION dollars each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 billion dollars to split between its owners, all Obama cronies."
OBAMA —- The Changeling The Story Behind The Story
 
Last edited:
Agent Provocateur? Or maybe PC simply doesn't have a life. Of course, these questions belie the theory she may be so keyed into hate for Obama her reality is distorted.
 
Last edited:
Chicago... Vote early and vote often. We have more politicians in jail then your state does.
 
Agent Provocateur? Or maybe PC simply doesn't have a life. Of course, these questions belie the theory she may be so keyed into hate for Obama her reality is distorted.

Once again my post brings out the mindless lib!

Every time your response is not to the post, but to the poster, I know that I'm on the right track.

Not one error in an extensive post which reveals both the motive for the global warming scam and the connectons necessary to pull it off...

and you find references to the poster dispositive.

Now, help me with this, so that I can address you correctly: are you a fool, or merely a lock-step apologist for the libs?

Well, shill or lemming?
 
Last edited:
Chicago... Vote early and vote often. We have more politicians in jail then your state does.

Of course, not only Chicago...I think it was Jack Valenti who said, "When I die, I want to be buried in Texas, so that I can remain politically active."
 
Blah, blah, blah, ... radical environmentalists and social justice extremists ... roommate ... a friend of Obama’s late mother. ... worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner.... friend of Jimmy Carter.
... sat on the board ... The brother of... sat on the board ... friend ... sits on the board... partner... cronies."
How a CON$ervative can condemn anyone as "radical" and "extreme" is beyond ridiculous. :rofl:

So, if guilt by association is now the rule, would that make the Bush family Nazis and terrorists because of their associations with the Bin Laden family and the Walker family??????
Somehow I doubt you will apply the same rule to anyone else but Dems!
 
Last edited:
Blah, blah, blah, ... radical environmentalists and social justice extremists ... roommate ... a friend of Obama’s late mother. ... worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner.... friend of Jimmy Carter.
... sat on the board ... The brother of... sat on the board ... friend ... sits on the board... partner... cronies."
How a CON$ervative can condemn anyone as "radical" and "extreme" is beyond ridiculous. :rofl:

So, if guilt by association is now the rule, would that make the Bush family Nazis and terrorists because of their associations with the Bin Laden family and the Walker family??????
Somehow I doubt you will apply the same rule to anyone else but Dems!

Hey, VisitTheClinic!
Where you been hidin' out?

Now, be honest...who typed that for you?

Did it make you mad that I showed the filthy lucre as the basis for 'global scamming'?

Actually, I would love to see your expose, linking all the righties who were behind...what...the 9/11 attack that kille 3000 of my brothers and sisters...isn't that your premise?

Tell ya' what...I think you're all hat and no cattle, as President Bush might say: I dare you to try.

Double dog dare!

And, sorry I couldn't work Rush into this post.
 
Agent Provocateur? Or maybe PC simply doesn't have a life. Of course, these questions belie the theory she may be so keyed into hate for Obama her reality is distorted.

Once again my post brings out the mindless lib!

Every time your response is not to the post, but to the poster, I know that I'm on the right track.

Not one error in an extensive post which reveals both the motive for the global warming scam and the connectons necessary to pull it off...

and you find references to the poster dispositive.

Now, help me with this, so that I can address you correctly: are you a fool, or merely a lock-step apologist for the libs?

Well, shill or lemming?

Look who's talking about lockstep. You'll post anything about Obama as long as it's a hatchet job. Even I agreed with Bush once in a while. Apparently the modern con credo is to be all for what Americans want, unless Obama is for it too, then it's "socialism". We saw it in the umemployment benefits debate and we're seeing it here. Sorry if that's "attacking the poster" instead of the post, but is there REALLY a difference?
 
Agent Provocateur? Or maybe PC simply doesn't have a life. Of course, these questions belie the theory she may be so keyed into hate for Obama her reality is distorted.

Once again my post brings out the mindless lib!

Every time your response is not to the post, but to the poster, I know that I'm on the right track.

Not one error in an extensive post which reveals both the motive for the global warming scam and the connectons necessary to pull it off...

and you find references to the poster dispositive.

Now, help me with this, so that I can address you correctly: are you a fool, or merely a lock-step apologist for the libs?

Well, shill or lemming?

Look who's talking about lockstep. You'll post anything about Obama as long as it's a hatchet job. Even I agreed with Bush once in a while. Apparently the modern con credo is to be all for what Americans want, unless Obama is for it too, then it's "socialism". We saw it in the umemployment benefits debate and we're seeing it here. Sorry if that's "attacking the poster" instead of the post, but is there REALLY a difference?

Until I got to your last line, I had my response ready...

Ya' beat me to it!

But don't be sorry, I don't mind the criticism, I just like to point out that the OP must be a paragon of rectitude since none of you guys can find a weak point...

Not even the conclusion?
Can any of you see a scenario which would explain the linkages to prominent dems and libs that didn't lead to stealing money?
I'm trying to help ya'...
 

Is there a point to this post?

Secret message? Need a code ring to fathom it?

C'mon, you can be more articulate..


there is a point. thanks for spamming.

btw, it does not become your post or your idea by just putting 1,2,3, and a,b,c, between the text blocks of pre-existing blog entries.

you apparently manage to fool yourself, but that's about it.
 
Agent Provocateur? Or maybe PC simply doesn't have a life. Of course, these questions belie the theory she may be so keyed into hate for Obama her reality is distorted.

Once again my post brings out the mindless lib!

Every time your response is not to the post, but to the poster, I know that I'm on the right track.

Not one error in an extensive post which reveals both the motive for the global warming scam and the connectons necessary to pull it off...

and you find references to the poster dispositive.

Now, help me with this, so that I can address you correctly: are you a fool, or merely a lock-step apologist for the libs?

Well, shill or lemming?

Neither. I simply wonder what motivates you? Why do you hate Obama? Hate Democrats? Hate liberals?
In my experience the self righteous usually have a dark side, something in their past affected their thinking. Your posts reflect a self righteous, arrogant, captious and humorless person.
 

Is there a point to this post?

Secret message? Need a code ring to fathom it?

C'mon, you can be more articulate..
The message is you must be a woman without a man.

July 22, 2008
RUSH: when men are around, women get smarter and that when men leave, women get stupid? I mean, we could look at this data any way you want, folks, is what I'm trying to say here. So women who get divorced get dumber 'cause there's no smart guy around to keep 'em in line politically. Married women are obviously smarter. Married women are obviously more conservative. Single, divorced, widowed, separated women, no man around, the brain goes south.
 
Agent Provocateur? Or maybe PC simply doesn't have a life. Of course, these questions belie the theory she may be so keyed into hate for Obama her reality is distorted.

Once again my post brings out the mindless lib!

Every time your response is not to the post, but to the poster, I know that I'm on the right track.

Not one error in an extensive post which reveals both the motive for the global warming scam and the connectons necessary to pull it off...

and you find references to the poster dispositive.

Now, help me with this, so that I can address you correctly: are you a fool, or merely a lock-step apologist for the libs?

Well, shill or lemming?

Neither. I simply wonder what motivates you? Why do you hate Obama? Hate Democrats? Hate liberals?
In my experience the self righteous usually have a dark side, something in their past affected their thinking. Your posts reflect a self righteous, arrogant, captious and humorless person.

Now, Wry-Bread, you used to be so perceptive...

"...what motivates you?"

It's right up there under name! "Fighting Thugs and Libs"

"In my experience the self righteous usually have a dark side,..."
Tsk, tsk...quite the self serving statement, and often known as 'begging the question.'

But let me give a judgement right back: I have never hidden my perspective, and always support same with passages from readings, complete with footnote-pages.

You on the other hand, stoop to personal attack and invective without comparable support of your perspective...and you regularly imagine that you are either interested in or know about my actual life. Neither are true, of course, but the fantasy serves you instead of an actual argument. Transparent.

That being said, this post of yours is more coherent than yesterday's.

And, I'll cop to 'arrogant,' but certainly not to 'humorless.'
 
Agent Provocateur? Or maybe PC simply doesn't have a life. Of course, these questions belie the theory she may be so keyed into hate for Obama her reality is distorted.

Once again my post brings out the mindless lib!

Every time your response is not to the post, but to the poster, I know that I'm on the right track.

Not one error in an extensive post which reveals both the motive for the global warming scam and the connectons necessary to pull it off...

and you find references to the poster dispositive.

Now, help me with this, so that I can address you correctly: are you a fool, or merely a lock-step apologist for the libs?

Well, shill or lemming?

Neither. I simply wonder what motivates you? Why do you hate Obama? Hate Democrats? Hate liberals?
In my experience the self righteous usually have a dark side, something in their past affected their thinking. Your posts reflect a self righteous, arrogant, captious and humorless person.
According to her MessiahRushie, she's angry and hateful simply BECAUSE she's a woman. He says women are not curious, they are just angry.

September 24, 2007
RUSH: Like I have my iPhone or I have my computer. It's not enough for me to be able to use it. I want to know how it works so if something goes wrong I can fix it, or I can describe to the tech what it's doing wrong so he can fix it fast. Women don't care. It better come on when you turn it on, and if it doesn't, there will be hell to pay. There won't be any curiosity about why it doesn't work. There will just be anger.
 

Is there a point to this post?

Secret message? Need a code ring to fathom it?

C'mon, you can be more articulate..


there is a point. thanks for spamming.

btw, it does not become your post or your idea by just putting 1,2,3, and a,b,c, between the text blocks of pre-existing blog entries.

you apparently manage to fool yourself, but that's about it.

Ah, it was puzzling until you explained your misconceptions.

I found the blog more than passing interesting...and therefore offered it on the board.
a. it is not my blog
b. the provenance is found in the link, which, it seems, you either did not see, or did not read.
c. at your advancing age, the specs must need updating, as there are quotation marks at the start of the blog and at the end.
d. I reorganized it so that it would be easier to read, and only included the parts that would have import.
e. the style of my post is beyond your input.

So, it seems after criticism of me, you will now attempt criticism of the form...
clearly you are unable to find fault with the substance.
 

Is there a point to this post?

Secret message? Need a code ring to fathom it?

C'mon, you can be more articulate..
The message is you must be a woman without a man.

July 22, 2008
RUSH: when men are around, women get smarter and that when men leave, women get stupid? I mean, we could look at this data any way you want, folks, is what I'm trying to say here. So women who get divorced get dumber 'cause there's no smart guy around to keep 'em in line politically. Married women are obviously smarter. Married women are obviously more conservative. Single, divorced, widowed, separated women, no man around, the brain goes south.

Now, MedsInAMinute, is this some sort of proposal?

Why, I never expected.....

Meds, it's either Rush or Me!
 
Is there a point to this post?

Secret message? Need a code ring to fathom it?

C'mon, you can be more articulate..


there is a point. thanks for spamming.

btw, it does not become your post or your idea by just putting 1,2,3, and a,b,c, between the text blocks of pre-existing blog entries.

you apparently manage to fool yourself, but that's about it.

Ah, it was puzzling until you explained your misconceptions.

I found the blog more than passing interesting...and therefore offered it on the board.
a. it is not my blog
b. the provenance is found in the link, which, it seems, you either did not see, or did not read.
c. at your advancing age, the specs must need updating, as there are quotation marks at the start of the blog and at the end.
d. I reorganized it so that it would be easier to read, and only included the parts that would have import.
e. the style of my post is beyond your input.

So, it seems after criticism of me, you will now attempt criticism of the form...
clearly you are unable to find fault with the substance.

and that is why you dance around challenging posters to find fault with YOUR post, sure.

i repeat, you can fool yourself, but that's about it.

you can now abandon this thread and go "write" "your" next "well researched" post and then dance around as if you have finally accomplished something for real.
 
there is a point. thanks for spamming.

btw, it does not become your post or your idea by just putting 1,2,3, and a,b,c, between the text blocks of pre-existing blog entries.

you apparently manage to fool yourself, but that's about it.

Ah, it was puzzling until you explained your misconceptions.

I found the blog more than passing interesting...and therefore offered it on the board.
a. it is not my blog
b. the provenance is found in the link, which, it seems, you either did not see, or did not read.
c. at your advancing age, the specs must need updating, as there are quotation marks at the start of the blog and at the end.
d. I reorganized it so that it would be easier to read, and only included the parts that would have import.
e. the style of my post is beyond your input.

So, it seems after criticism of me, you will now attempt criticism of the form...
clearly you are unable to find fault with the substance.

and that is why you dance around challenging posters to find fault with YOUR post, sure.

i repeat, you can fool yourself, but that's about it.

you can now abandon this thread and go "write" "your" next "well researched" post and then dance around as if you have finally accomplished something for real.

STILL can't find any weaknesses?

Hint: look for spelling, grammar...

Or just do what you do best: lie on your back and kick your feet, go ahead...ball your little fists.

Poor baby...this has been such a trying couple of days.
 

Forum List

Back
Top