Re: PotBSurri

by **Stephanie** Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:59 pm

Ziggy,

Did you notice how McGraw flat out refused to debate Greear?

by ziggy Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:33 pm

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

Did you notice how McGraw flat out refused to debate Greear?

Yes. And did you notice how much $$$$$ the Chamber of Commerce put into their anti-McGraw campaign? Apparently the Chamber thought that winning that election was more important than anything else. And since it's all just about winning an election, McGraw plays it smart on his terms while the Chamber plays it dumb on theirs.

by **Stephanie** Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:37 pm

Yes, I suppose it is very smart knowing enough not to have to answer questions about your shady dealings with state funds, or huge pay offs to political contributors. Pretty slick on his part.

by sodbuster Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:44 pm

Just wondering Steph, do you know (or care) where Greear's money came from?

by ziggy Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:48 pm

Stephanie wrote:Yes, I suppose it is very smart knowing enough not to have to answer questions about your shady dealings with state funds, or huge pay offs to political contributors. Pretty slick on his part.

Well, he won, didn't he? And the Chamber obviously thought that winning was all that mattered. So the Chamber set the pace, and McGraw was able to keep up. Next time maybe the Chamber should try something else- like running a really good candidate.

by **Stephanie** Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:51 pm

You mean the kind of candidate who only tells people what they want to hear?

by ziggy Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:04 pm

Stephanie wrote:You mean the kind of candidate who only tells people what they want to hear?

Maybe. What I want to hear is, among other things, convincing evidence that the AG candidate will enforce the states consumer protection laws. Greer just didn't convince me that he would. And the big $$$ campaign he got from the crooks' political allies over at the C of C further convinced me that he wouldn't.

by **Stephanie** Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:10 pm

The crook is McGraw. He treats settlement monies like his own personal slush fund. He parcels out money as he sees fit, rewarding contributors and building a lasting legacy to the almighty McGraw by funding buildings and organizations that will hang nice brass plaques in their foyers, to match his brass balls, I suppose.

by ziggy Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:19 pm

I do not recall having seen even one building, highway, library, nor any other publicly owned structure with McGraw's name on it other than the doors to his office. Have you?

Hell, even the governor of Illinois got arrested and charged with being crooked. And THOSE guys out there know their crooked stuff! So if McGraw is so crooked, why will not even one federal or state prosecuting official even charge him for his crookedness? .

by Aaron Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:46 pm

ziggy wrote:I do not recall having seen even one building, highway, library, nor any other publicly owned structure with McGraw's name on it other than the doors to his office. Have you?

He puts his on trinkets. And into lawyers pockets.

ziggy wrote:Hell, even the governor of Illinois got arrested and charged with being crooked. And THOSE guys out there know their crooked stuff! So if McGraw is so crooked, why will not even one federal or state prosecuting official even charge him for his crookedness? .

Because this is West Virginia and McGraw’s on the side that decides who gets charged where and why.

Blagojevich was at perhaps on the same side in Illinois but with Obama winning the Presidency and the governor hovering around 13% approval rating, he became expendable, thus the AG was allowed to charge him.

Personally, I think it's because his asking price for Jarret was too high and that's the reason the Obama team gave the go ahead to charge the governor, but that's just me.

by **Stephanie** Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:46 am

ziggy wrote:I do not recall having seen even one building, highway, library, nor any other publicly owned structure with McGraw's name on it other than the doors to his office. Have you?

Hell, even the governor of Illinois got arrested and charged with being crooked. And THOSE guys out there know their crooked stuff! So if McGraw is so crooked, why will not even one federal or state prosecuting official even charge him for his crookedness? .

Thre's a nice little brass plaque (as I recall it is brass) with McGraw's name on it in the UC School of Pharmacy. So yes, at least that one.

Who is to say they are not investigating McGraw right now? We know the government is looking for some cash from the AG's office. Seems to me the feds might just be investigating him.

What WV state agent or agency to you suppose is going to investigate AG McGraw? I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

by ziggy Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:55 am

Who is to say they are not investigating McGraw right now? Seems to me the feds might just be investigating him.

Bring 'em on.

If they got somethin', let 'em show it.

If they got nothin', let 'em show that too.

by **Stephanie** Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:06 am

ziggy wrote:
Who is to say they are not investigating McGraw right now? Seems to me the feds might just be investigating him.

Bring 'em on.

If they got somethin', let 'em show it.

If they got nothin', let 'em show that too.

I don't know if they are or they aren't. One would hope at this point they would be. If they are, why should they tip their hand before their investigation is complete?

by ziggy Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:31 am

Back in 1996 ole' Ben Suarez said the same thing- that the Feds were investigating Darrell, for allegedly pissin' in the street or some similar petty b.s. But he was just blowin' smoke, and Darrell blew him away.

Who was Ben Suarez? He was the guy who bilked thousands of West Virginians out of big bucks by selling phony jewelry for high dollars. McGraw busted him- and it cost him a bundle. So he spent a few hundred thousand dollars tryin' to beat McGraw in that election. Hell, he even tried to bring the wrath of red blooded patriots down on McGraw because one of his Consumer Potection Division attorneys had been a Vietnam war protester who served time for refusing to be drafted in the 1960s/70s.

Ole' Ben Suarez had lots of money to lay out against McGraw. But what Ben Suarez did not have was a candidate worth his political salt to run against Darrell. And so TV stations made some money, and after the election Suarez sneaked back up to the Akron Ohio area, and he ain't set foot in WV since, as far as anyone knows.

So then the Chamber of Commerce guys tried their hand at it, too- three times so far. And for all the good it's done them they could just as well have been tryin' to make snowballs in July- 'cause they haven't found a good candidate to run against ole' Darrell, either. No self-respecting candidate for AG would want guys like Suarez and the C of C a-holes on their side anyway.

An so they just keep beating their heads against the wall and makein' TV station owners rich, but still are mad at the whole political world.

It's almost enough to make me feel sorry for the poor bastards. Crying or Very sad

by **Stephanie** Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:46 am

Do you realize those "Chamber of Commerce a-holes" are the folks that provide an awful lot of jobs to the citizens of this state?

Good grief, you'd think the Chamber of Commerce was comprised of mobsters and pedophiles the way you speak of them. Some of my friends are members of various Chambers of Commerce.

by Aaron Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:33 am

ziggy wrote:And the big $$$ campaign he got from the crooks' political allies over at the C of C

What crooks?

by ziggy Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:48 pm

What I said was that the C of C guys and gals are the political allies of crooks- of guys like Ben Suarez, and of the tobacco industry, and of crooked credit card companies, and of crooked home mortgage loan sharks, and of crooked oxycontin distributors, and of .......................... well, you get the picture.

The C of C doesn't give a damn about a few trinkets with McGraw's name on 'em. They just don't want him suing corporate crooks. That's their real beef. But somehow they don't want to talk about that.

by Aaron Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:59 pm

How is the tobacco industry crooked?

by SamCogar Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:14 pm

Now Steph, Ziggie is an expert on "How Not to Operate a Business", ....... so don't you be arguing with him about it.

by ziggy Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:01 pm

Aaron wrote:How is the tobacco industry crooked?

The tobacco industry has told the public repeatedly that tobacco products are not addictive, are not harmful to smokers' health, and that it does not target teenagers as customers.

But formerly internal tobacco industry documents, released to the public as a part of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement , show that they have known for decades that tobacco products injure and kill, that tobacco companies manufactured tobacco products in ways to deliberately make them more addictive, and that certain advertising was directed specifically at potential teenage customers.
------------------------------

"Studies of clinical data tend to confirm the relationship between heavy and prolonged tobacco smoking and incidence of cancer of the lung." (RJ Reynolds, 1953) "There are biologically active materials present in cigarette smoking. These are: • cancer causing • cancer promoting • poisonous • stimulating (A consulting firm, working for the US Liggett Company reviewed the results of seven year's research work. 1961)

"Very few customers are aware of the effects of nicotine, i.e. its addictive nature and that nicotine is a poison." (1979 B&W document)
"Nicotine is the addicting agent in cigarettes." (1982 B&W Tobacco Company document on getting smokers to switch brands.)

A 1992 memo form Imperial Tobacco's "Project 16" notes how many young people who begin smoking "in the 14-16 age range" doubt they will become addicted to cigarettes. The memo continues, "Once addiction does take place, it becomes necessary for the smoker to make peace with the accepted hazards....(from John Schwartz, Documents Indicate Strategy of Targeting Teen Smokers, Washington Post, February 5, 1998, pA3)

"We wanted to get into that market, (youth market) and used the promotional items, tee shirts, baseball caps, and one hot item were lighters, knowing full well the people were giving these away to was kids half the time." (Salesman for RJR) (Hilts.97)

"The desire to quit seems to come earlier now than before, even prior to the end of high school...attempts to quit are very painful, they thought they could quit easily, but they soon learn..."they have become SLAVES to their cigarettes. (Imperial Tobacco)

Marlboro dominates in the 17 and younger age category, capturing over 50 percent of the market." (1979 Philip Morris memo)

The report on Teenage Smokers (14-17) indicates that RJR continues to gradually decline and between the spring and fall 1979 periods, RJR's total share declined from 21.3 to 19.9. Hopefully, our various planned activities that will be implement this fall will aid in some way in reducing or correcting these trends." (RJR interoffice correspondence July 22, 1980)

"They got lips? We want them." (Reply of an RJ Reynolds representative when asked the age of the kids they were targeting.)

by Aaron Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:04 pm

Then if the federal government isn't going to ban the sale of such a harmful product, don't you think the state of WV should?

by ziggy Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:04 pm

David Goerlitz, the former Winston Man, asked RJ Reynolds executives, "Don't any of you smoke?" One executive answered, "Are you kidding" We reserve that right for the poor, the young, the black, and the stupid." (As quoted in a New York Times editorial by Bob Hebert, Nov. 1993)

by ziggy Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:10 pm

Aaron wrote:Then if the federal government isn't going to ban the sale of such a harmful product, don't you think the state of WV should?

Your question was about how cigarette companies are crooked. I showed that cigarette companies deliberately provided misinfirmation to their customers and potential customers, and then exploited for profit the very ignorance they had promoted and nurtured.

by Aaron Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:20 pm

And as a result of your 'proof', I ask you another question.

What say you!

by ziggy Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:28 pm

I say that the political reality is still such that the WV legislature is not likely to ban the sale of tobacco in the state.

Those addicts still want their fixes!

by Sponsored content