|The Mothership |
Tavis needs to get angry more often, I would love to see him fuck Bill up.
DAT PREVIEW IMAGE, seriously, Bill in full derp mode, and the other guys in full THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU! mode.
You guys missed the fallout from this where Bill claimed a smug victory.
I saw this live as i was flipping through channels and was literally cheering at the television
|Jet Bin Fever |
CUT THEIR MICS! CUT THEIR MICS!!!
Preview image sums up Fox News' relationship with the intelligent viewing public for years now.
Bill got lots of swished high fives that day for putting two uppity darkies in their place.
|Spit Spingola |
I've seen this before but the preview image is gold.
Why not arrest the bankers?
They didn't break any laws.
OHHH! You can't say something like that because there was no investigation and no evidence.
So how do you make a claim to arrest someone without evidence? And further how do know the bankers have committed a crime and are worthy of arrest without evidence?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for OWS and like Dr. West, but from this clip--and this clip alone--I'm seeing some BS logic at work.
Ah yes those golden banking years before the FDIC...
Just so we are clear, I'm not suggesting the banks are without blame (I despise the banking system as it is). What I am saying is that the logic presented in the video clip is faulty.
Smiley asks why not arrest bankers?
O'Reilly responds the bankers didn't break an laws.
West, on behalf of Smiley, argues O'Reilly is not in a position to make such a statement because no investigation was made to affirm the statement that no bankers broke any laws.
If we agree with West that no investigation has taken place and that no evidence is available exonerating the bankers, then we also do not have evidence suggesting the bankers are in violation of the law (because no investigation establishing evidence of guilt or innocence has taken place).
I think the banks are guilty of fraud in some sense, but from West's argument that does not follow.
[Assuming you read my post before posting]
There hasn't been an investigation on whether or not you ate 12 babies. I am not in a position to say whether you have or not, since no investigation has taken place.
Banking isn't really any different from any other big money sector...successful business is dirty business (here is a secret, all your favorite companies like Google and Apple don't always play nice with the competition or their clients).
Where there has been evidence of fraud, investigations have been performed, lawsuits have been filed and in many cases (which I cite above, I can easily cite more) settled. I am not sure where anyone gets off saying that there have been no investigations.
People this is a very simple issue: if you agree with bill o'reilly then you are a splotchy, jowly, awful person.
gmol: didn't see your post that appeared before my last. Was responding because other comments seemed to go off in another direction suggesting a position I do not support.
With the state of American discourse, does anyone seriously think this country has a positive future?
I do not.
|Void 71 |
How could they break laws that didn't exist? What little Wall Street regulation existed prior to 1980 was erased under Reagan, Bush and Clinton. The argument shouldn't be that the bankers BREAK the law. It should be that they have the power to ERASE the law and prevent new regulation from taking effect.
Did I miss the part where banks broke some laws? I hate to agree with Bill ever, on anything, but...
They really didn't. There's no evidence any crimes were committed, that I know of. You don't just randomly start investigating people in case they might have broken a law somewhere at some time...
Banking regulation is weak, the environment was conducive to banks behaving poorly, and maybe they made bad and destructive business decisions.
But none of that is illegal.
Dude, you fail to see the real point here. Does it fucking matter if they technically broke any laws? Laws they paid senators to write in their favor, laws that have supported their every action from the get go?
Remember 1800's America? Yeah, back then, it was legal to own slaves. Laws supporting owning slaves were written by slave-owners. Killing your slave for not sucking your **** was legal as it was your property. Slaveowners didn't "break any laws" then, either.
But then, Lincoln said, "Alright, fuck it." And then hundreds of thousands of slave-owners, their supporters, and sadly, innocents that had no idea they were fighting and dying for atrocious acts of evil and the benefit of the few, died.
And the same ought to be done today.
I don't give a damn if the bankers are legally in the right or the wrong. We need to follow Iceland's example, and declare war on the bankers.
Oh, and before anyone counters my argument with, "Oh, haha, you're going to MISS your bankers!" No, I won't: Japan has a federal postal service that functions as a bank as well, and we can do the same. And no, I don't understand economics. I just fucking hate rich white people.
Well, I'm glad we all took 8th grade social studies and now know that the sole reason of the American Civil War was dick-sucking slaves.
No crimes were committed because there are so few laws to break.
Laws were broken, at low levels.
Much fraud was committed on mortgage applications. Don't know if you can make it the fault of the highest management. I myself can, because I believe the reason a CEO gets paid so much is because EVERYTHING that goes wrong on his watch should be his responsibility.
How many trillions in fraud are we talking in total?
We won't know, but at least bankers aren't impeding traffic.
|Abstract Fainter |
WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!
| Register or login To Post a Comment|