In article <Xns98E9BE8E433A5freddybear@194.177.96.26>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.2054e5159202badf989e52@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <Xns98E95E54AD9freddybear@194.177.96.26>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

Because a lot of stupid liberals are paying real money for their
phony "carbon credits".

If "stupid" consumers are willing to buy something then freeper
free- marketeers like you are supposed to think that's a good
thing.

Sorry, q, but free-marketers like myself even object whens stupid
liberals like you are defrauded.

But fraud is your first name and you certainly don't object when
stockholders are defrauded by CEOs who are shaking down the whole
organization.

Your "free market" principles apparently only apply to
the non-existent "fraud" of actually doing things responsible for the
environment, as opposed to doing nothing or actively harming it.

I think that if you want to do something, good for you. I DON'T
believe that there is a crisis of Gorian proportions.

Nobody cares what you believe frauddy-boy. We can't afford your
overly complacent stupidity, mixed with conveniently wishful thinking
that you attempt to substitute for reality.

Gore is an totalitarian

Ummm hummmm.....Whereas Bush, who ran against Gore and actually
tortures people, starts trillion dollar wars under false pretenses,
holds people in prison without due process, illegally wiretaps, issues
signing statements refusing to follow laws and has been actively
funnelling government money to mercenary organizations and theocratic
church groups is apparently some kind of freedom fighter.

alarmist who wants to accumulate political power,

Only the power conferred by the fact that he is right on the issue and
you are wrong. You can't stand the fact that someone who actually
knows what he's talking about might be given the opportunity to do
something about it.

and you're just the
sucker who is willing to help him do it.

To the extent that the facts back him up, which they do

, and, as long
as the technology and economics are sound, which they are

, then I will
support some of his solutions.

q, do a search on "Trent Loot" or "Porkbusters" under my name
to see how much I love it when repigs hog out.

Who gives a ***** that you admitted that a couple repugs were
corrupt. You still support plenty of corrupt repugs right now.

And you support a lot of corrupt democretins.

No, I've supported no corruption, and it's you retard-o-cons who
have been in power.

I've supported no corruption either, q.

Sure you do, f. You think Lee Raymond deserves all the money he was
able to con from stockholders and squeeze out of the federal
government. You turn a blind eye to the rampant and all to evidence
corruption of many corporations, who buy the government policies that
favor their interests, the public interest be damned.

But you associated me with the
corruption in the Republican party, in spite of the fact that I'm not
a Republican,

Sure and neither is your hero Georgie Bush. You're both a bunch of
girl scouts who sit around the fire and try on new lip gloss.

so you get to eat the corruption in the Democratic party.
You can start with William "Freezer" Jefferson.

Absolute chump change, making you a ludicrous chump to even bring it
up. It is quintessentially republican of you, proving that you're
lying about that affiliation as well, that you literally ignore
trillions of dollars of corruption from repugs and try to find some
symbolic ***** about Jefferson having some money pocket change.
Even compared to people like the dukester, Jefferson was a small fish.

It's kind of hard to argue that democrats were
"corrupt" when they had no power to abuse.

Silly q, Democrats had their share, and now they have more of a
share.

No much, which is why nobody bought the ***** that they could be as
bad as the party in power. The amount of influence they had was minor
and consequently, there would be little reason to bribe them to do
much of anything.

Just because they were the minority in Congress doesn't mean they
were powerless.

They didn't have enough power to matter, which is why the "culture of
corruption" label stuck to republicans and bounced right off
democrats.

And you
totally dodged the issue of CEO compensation, which has become a
fixed market and a clear racket that is ripping off
shareholders.

CEO compensation? Why on earth should I care about that? I'm not
buying into your greed

It's not me who is being greedy, it's it's Mr. $600 million golden
parachute, fat *****, Lee Raymond.

Yes, quibbler, it's you. You're a greedy little liberal

Your such a mindless, dishonesty coward. You know that you can't
justify that type of shakedown, so you try to pretend that I'm the
greedy one, when he's the ***** walking off with money that he
couldn't possibly have earned.

who wants to
spend something he didn't earn - somebody else's money.

I'm talking about not spending it, you stupid *****. You're
the one advocating that Exxon has to spend that out of the stockholder
equity to pay for vastly inflated charges and services not rendered.

and envy pity-party.

It's about the stock holders getting ripped off, not about "envy".

Why don't you let the stockholders worry about whether they got
ripped off?

You started off by telling me that it was your business to police
carbon credits, which financially speaking, amount to almost nothing
in the US right now. Yet, when it involves trillions of dollars of
corporate waste, you want to shove it under the rug.

Explain why a highly qualified CEO couldn't run these same
companies for only a few million/year, as opposed to $200 million
plus a few hundred million more in annual stock options?

Because they don't come that cheap.

They most certainly do. However, the prices have been bid up in the
US in the last few decades. Even if CEOs were willing to work for $2
million, if they know that the last guy was paid $50 million they're
going to ask for at least that. The market has failed here, yet
again, and has produced a run away pricing scheme. I know you don't
support minimum wage either, but since that's already the law, whether
you like it or not, there is precedent for a maximum wage as well.

Since you're too dumb to know the answer, I'll tell you. The price
of CEOs has been artificially bid up.

Why do *you* care?

Because they are ripping off every investor and are forced to do all
kinds of corrupt deals to keep the cash flowing in, among other
things.

The best argument they can make is that they
need to pay their CEOs enough so that they are not subject to
bribery from competitors.

No, quibbler, that's not the best argument. The best argument is that
they pay them more because they're *worth* more.

You obviously don't know the first thing about this. It's been
established that CEOs elsewhere around the world have similar
responsibilities and are not being paid nearly as inflated salaries.

You don't pay a guy with five PhDs 600 million per year and yet these
guys, who often have an MBA are supposed to make ten times more than
some of the highest paid movie stars. Then, as you've already shown,
you worship them when they make decisions that the manager in training
at Kentucky Fred Chicken could have made for $6.50/ hour.

However, it's not clear that paying them these huge
amounts makes them less subject to such factors and there are other
methods of safeguarding company loyalty.

So. Fucking. What?

The fact that you don't appreciate the significance merely
demonstrates that you know nothing about the issue and are merely
being an intractable child. It's clear that you haven't thought about
this issue at all, and are merely knee jerk defending egregious graft
at the top.

Face it, Fred. Even you
know that these people are being paid far in excess of what a
competitive market woudld reasonably bear.

That's funny, q, the market is bearing it just fine

Only in your oblivious world Fred. Until it collapses around your
ears, you will have your fingers in them, singing "la la la la la
...."

except for you and
the rest of the populist envy brigade making a fuss over it for
political purposes.

We're talking about trillions in waste that could be properly
reinvested into corporate infrastructure so that US business had a
chance against leaner foreign rivals.

Instead, we often get stuck
with the tab to bail these corporations out when they start to go
under. It doesn't matter to me because I can go elsewhere in the
world and earn a good living. It's unskilled retards like you who are
going to have the tough time of it.

It's not a trivial matter
when a CEO might rake in close to $1 billion in a single year. If
there were a maximum wage of $5 million per CEO, including all
forms of compensation by any means, then most Boards of Directors
would breath a sigh of relief, since it would mean that they would
finally no longer be hostage to ridiculous inflation of
compensation by upper management.

How about if we put a cap on *your* income, at, say, 20K per year?
Surely you could do your job for that much?

Try learning some math and not intentionally being a moron for once.
Questioning the legitimacy of someone making 50,000 times more than
this 20K per year figure leads idiots like you to demand that I have
to work for less.

The fact is that almost every real job does have
effective salary caps that are orders of magnitude below anything that
CEOs are demanding. I'm not saying that these people don't do a
competent job. Lots of people do very highly skilled and competent
jobs every day and get paid far less. You know these CEOs are running
a racket solely because they think that nobody can stop them.

You
also know that, if we passed a maximum wage law tomorrow that most
CEOs would stay in their jobs, or, even if they didn't, that things
would continue one with hardly a blip. You obsess about defending the
ultra-rich because you are a brainwashed lemming with low self esteem.

Yet you're going to call Al Gore a pig for using a couple
thousand bucks of electricity, while human man-pig Lee Raymond
literally burns that amount of cash in his fireplace to roast
marshmallows.

Raymond doesn't pretend that he's Saving the World

He wouldn't pretend if he tried, though they often do spend large
advertising budgets trying to pretend that they give a ***** about the
environment.

by wasting his
fortune on eco-scams.

No, he's busy wasting the fortunes of stockholders and doesn't give a
***** if he destroys the global life support system known as the
environment. The fat ***** knows he'll be dead in a few years
anyway, so he just doesn't care.

Are you admitting that you were wrong and want to apologize for it?

Open up fred. Let's see if there's still spooge on your tongue.