KIT, Good.
On Jun 10, 7:27 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
