Holly, Just the opposite is true.
In the same vein, I'll do a "Holly"; and ask that you point out where you think anything I have written in this thread, (or any other thread for that matter) is, "spreading bullshit". Just like most Moonbats, when confronted with the truth, all you can do is attack the messenger. Get specific Holly. Show where anything that I have written is incorrect, misleading or prevaricate. My "touche' " comment was just acknowledging that Mark's assessment of Nicaraguan corporations was correct. It does not change the fact that twenty-five years ago, Ortega attempted to, and to a degree did successfully nationalize was nationalizing ALL Nicaraguan corporations. I waste my time with you, "No Mo". On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Hollywood <[email protected]>wrote: > > KIT, > > Touche' must be French for "damn, caught spreading bullshit again." > > On Jun 9, 9:48 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Touche' > > > > On Jun 9, 8:03 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Since there are NO corporations in Central America they are "Sociedad > > > Anonomas" or Anonymous Societies. The intention is exactly as written. > No > > > one knows who has what with one unless the S.A. releases the > information.... > > > Your statement is precluded by law and its very intent. I own some > twenty > > > S.A. s, there is NO WAY you can find them through me or me through them > > > unless I sign to release that information. Stocks and ownership are > > > transacted in a "Book of Acts" (ACTAS) this book is held privately and > is > > > the only source for actual info on who has what, if anything. These > > > Books are NOT subject to subpoena here in CR, or in Nicaragua as they > are > > > considered "private". > > > > > Your statement that Ortega siezed "Nicaraguan Corporations" is correct > as > > > there is no other type in Nicragua. As to who owned them or had the > > > majority interest... there is NO WAY you or anyone else can claim he > siezed > > > "Nica" owned businesses unless you have a copy of the last page in the > book > > > and look at signatures. Transactions are NOT registered otherwise. > > > > > Try again... I have yet to spin though your sources are severely > lacking in > > > accuracy. > > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > And this is the reason that twenty five years ago, Ortega went in and > > > > seized these Nicaraguan businesses that you claim he loved? I didn't > think > > > > anyone could legitimately argue that Ortega could be considered the > same > > > > brand of Lenninist/Marxist/Communist that he was twenty five years > ago, but > > > > damned if you haven't made that attempt!!! (LOL!!) > > > > > > Come on Mark, you're resembling a top!!! (Spinning!!!) > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Lip service to get the "Perros de mi espalda" (to make the dogs stop > > > >> barking. His policies are not changed, nor are his positions. > Further, in a > > > >> coalition, multi-party system that opens voting and running to > everylittle > > > >> group in the land 40% is considered a mandate.... check the Angela > Merckel > > > >> election in Germany.... csu/cdu and the defeat of the spd and > schroeder. Now > > > >> THAT was close, yet the world called it a mandate for change. > > > > > >> Ortega was always a proponant of NICARAGUAN business... not those > > > >> completely owned foreign concerns with a Nica titular head as is > normal for > > > >> US industry. > > > > > >> Do try again. > > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Keith In Tampa < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > >>> Once again Mark......Spin. > > > > > >>> Ortega has been defeated three or four times in elections, and only > won > > > >>> the election this past time with a very narrow margin, and my no > means a > > > >>> majority. My recollection without googling the election was that > Ortega and > > > >>> his faction of Sandanistas had less than forty percent of the vote. > > > > > >>> More importantly, Ortega has totally renounced his heavy handed > > > >>> Marxist/Leninist/Communist platforms from the late 1970s and early > 1980s, > > > >>> now purportedly being a strong proponent of business. > > > > > >>> My, how times have changed.....Ortega has now adopted the Reagan > policies > > > >>> that he fought so hard against. > > > > > >>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >>>> Nicaragua says it has spent 9.7 million ......... all from the > OAS. > > > >>>> Ortegas politics and policies still have not changed... As far as > a supposed > > > >>>> split by the Ortega faction of the government.... he did not > split, he > > > >>>> followed through then as he does now with his policies of an > extreme > > > >>>> socialist bend.... so what !!!!!!!!!!!! He was just as elected and > Nicaragua > > > >>>> is just as sovereign as the US despite their supposed "regional > protection > > > >>>> plans" to which no one is a signatory accept the US. Unilateral > policies did > > > >>>> not work then (another post wwii loss) and they do not work now. > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Keith In Tampa < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > >>>>> Mark, > > > > > >>>>> As stated, I openly admit that our foreign policy has been > > > >>>>> inconsistent, and we have made some mistakes. I concede that. > Where I > > > >>>>> differ, and where I believe you are overlooking a major point, > was that > > > >>>>> Ortega's brand of Sandanistas were communist, at the height of > the cold war, > > > >>>>> when the Truman Doctrine was in place, and when Ronald Reagan > vowed to end > > > >>>>> it, as well as "The Evil Empire". Ortega caused a split within > the > > > >>>>> Sandanistas, of which the United States was funding and agreeable > to > > > >>>>> supporting in the overthrow of Somoza. Many tend to forget this > chapter. > > > > > >>>>> The United States as committed over 500 million dollars to the > removal > > > >>>>> of landmines within the region, so once again, (and I say this > with > > > >>>>> humor!!!) you are "slightly spinning" when you suggest that the > OAS and all > > > >>>>> American Nation-States are funding the removal of these > landmines!! > > > > > >>>>> To lay all of the blame at Ronald Reagan's feet is misplaced, > unfair, > > > >>>>> and not at all a true and accurate reflection of history!! > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Mark <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> Marxist/Leninist huh ?? So what.... How about Democratically > elected > > > >>>>>> President of what was a peaceful nation prior to US > "intervention" ?? > > > > > >>>>>> A nation that had the same right as yours to speak with anyone > they so > > > >>>>>> cose. > > > > > >>>>>> No spin yet. > > > > > >>>>>> As to the landmines.... HOW MANY YEARS and inadvertant innocent > deaths > > > >>>>>> later ?? How many ICJ crimes against humanity convictions and > fines later ?? > > > >>>>>> and still six thousand to go.. > > > > > >>>>>> Oh, they don't count. Reagan withdrew from that courts > oversight just > > > >>>>>> as he was convicted.... > > > > > >>>>>> still no spin.... > > > > > >>>>>> Were there political differences between the parties in > Nicaragua ?? > > > >>>>>> Then and now, absolutely... How does that vary from those in > your nation ?? > > > > > >>>>>> 135,000 land mines that all say "made in USA". I can guarantee > you > > > >>>>>> that the Sandanistas did not pay for those.. Plus, with no > spin... those > > > >>>>>> laid by the sandanistas were in the border area with Honduras > blocking the > > > >>>>>> ingress of US backed rebels (Contras) the locations were mapped > and removal > > > >>>>>> accomplished easily. As to funding for the removal...that is > from the OAS, > > > >>>>>> NOT the USA, though the USA did contribute to the fund just as > did every > > > >>>>>> other American nation. The un mapped and therefore the most > dangerous mines > > > >>>>>> and still looked for were laid by the USA backed Contras..... > Please try to > > > >>>>>> get it right... > > > > > >>>>>> still no spin........ > > > > > >>>>>> Over 40,000 were killed in the Contra-Sandanista conflict.... > there > > > >>>>>> was no "Contra" without US backing at Reagans personal behest. > > > > > >>>>>> As to the heroin produced in Afghanistan today.... you tell me > where > > > >>>>>> they got the seed... another failed longterm plan that has > backfired.... > > > >>>>>> Yes, I blame Reagan and his team for every junky in the US that > bangs a load > > > >>>>>> of Afghan white and all the crime that results and all the > medical bills > > > >>>>>> that result.... He planted it. > > > > > >>>>>> As far as my intense dislike for Reagan.... it is equal with my > > > >>>>>> dislike for another USA hero Felix Rodriguez, that personally > led the > > > >>>>>> Contras.... I am German.... I was assigned as an observer in > Nicaragua > > > >>>>>> during the conflict... I saw with my own eyes and was informed > by Felix the > > > >>>>>> Ferret personally as to what was USA policy. > > > > > >>>>>> As to Carters policy.....try again. > > > >>>>>> The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan Interview with Zbigniew > > > >>>>>> Brzezinski, > > > >>>>>> President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser > > > > > >>>>>> Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998 > > > >>>>>> Posted at globalresearch.ca <http://www.globalresearch.ca/> 15 > > > >>>>>> October 2001 > > > > > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > > > > > >>>>>> Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated > in his > > > >>>>>> memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence > services began to > > > >>>>>> aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet > intervention. > > > >>>>>> In this period you were the national security adviser to > President Carter. > > > >>>>>> You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct? > > > > > >>>>>> Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, > CIA aid > > > >>>>>> to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the > Soviet army > > > >>>>>> invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly > guarded until > > > >>>>>> now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that > President > > > >>>>>> Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the > opponents of the > > > >>>>>> pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to > the > > > >>>>>> president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this > aid was going > > > >>>>>> to induce a Soviet military intervention. > > > > > >>>>>> Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert > action. But > > > >>>>>> perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and > looked to > > > >>>>>> provoke it? > > > > > >>>>>> B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to > intervene, but > > > >>>>>> we knowingly increased the probability that they would. > > > > > >>>>>> Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting > that > > > >>>>>> they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the > United States in > > > >>>>>> Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a > basis of > > > >>>>>> truth. You don't regret anything today? > > > > > >>>>>> B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It > had > > > >>>>>> the effect of > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
