richardhutnik said:
Yes, ever place should be occupied, and watched, and maybe if people were awake, such crimes could be reduced. But stay asleep, it is a problem. How one occupies is key. Well, I could point out how you ignored the problems with robo-signings (outside of dismiss the entire issue because of one video by RT), because there are deeper issues here. According to what you want to argue, no matter the problem, one is only supposed to protest in front of government buildings, and petititoning government in general: Feel there is a labor dispute? Protest government. Feel there is a problem with organized crime, with known mob bosses? Protest government. See people dumping toxic chemicals illegally? Protest government. See there are poor and they need help? Don't do like the Salvation Army does, protest government. Have problems with drunk drivers? Don't state protest in public about this, protest government. Have a problem with corporate lobbyists having too much influence? Don't protest at K-Street, protest the government.
In short, you are advocating a view that EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM is addresed through government action. Very likely the way we have now, which is to hire a lobbyist to petition government, and raise funds to donate to a political campaign. Are you really a conservative, or even have remotely libertarian leanings? If so, then how can you advocate a view that every single problem in society is addressed through government action? Which ends up being absurd, because consumer actions against the major banks, to move the money, did cause them to waive the monthly fee.
Well, I guess since you consider the source of information THE main, if not only, criterion for its accuracy, I guess then we need to through some other sources and ask if you find them too leftist for you. After all, supposedly information becomes instantly invalid because of who says it: And since you have problems with the above issue, how about then Forbes, or is that too leftist for you also? http://www.forbes.com/sites/billsinger/2011/05/24/wall-street-fraud-hidden-in-the-shadows/
And do you find Zero Hedge to leftist for you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge
How about Fox Business, which has an entire section dedicated to Wall Street fraud on their website. Are they too leftist for you? http://www.foxbusiness.com/topics/wall-street-fraud.htm
How about Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernake? Are they too leftist for you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=731G71Sahok
How about RedState.com? Is that too leftist for you? Hey, you know it is ok to have problem with MF Global. After all a Democrat is behind it:
At least have the decency to be a partisan hack like redstate.com and call Wall Street fraud for Democrats only. If you refuse to even look at, and consider this a valid case, then you are willfully blind, for very likely reasons of wanting to defend an ideology at all costs. This does happen. But to continue to engage in such a manner means you have little credibility in what you say, because you have made yourself a tool of entitites who seek to do harm. Well, I hope at least these entities send you cookies from time to time. A feeling of smugness from believing you are right, does little to actually change things. Well, at least one doesn't come bloated with fat from smugness, although there is other forms of bloating that are there.
|
A) I ignored robo signings because "In the fall of 2010, major U.S. lenders such as JP Morgan Chase,[7] Ally Financial f/k/a GMAC, and Bank of America[8] suspended judicial and non-judicial foreclosures across the United States over the potentially fraudulent practice of robo-signing."
B) We aren't talking about some shadow orginzation that there isn't full info about. Like the mob. We are talking about a subsection of a group of people who are breaking regulations.... that could eaisly be spotted by regulators and aren't... and then not all of them are punished by the government? Yes?
That's like saying because some people in a neighberhood are selling drugs in plain view of the police we should demonize the entire neighberhood and protest the entire neighberhood.
Though in order.
Labor violations? If everyone knows they're going on and are unpunished? Yeah I'm blaming the government. Well them and the individual companies I can point out as doing it. If Nike is using child labor I'm not blasting Addias and Converse as well.
Toxic Waste & The Mob? Same as above. I mean what? I should protest Italian Americans?
Poor starving and need help? It's not under the jurisdiction of the government, it's not a law and order system. Though I WOULD like to see the implementaion of a negative income tax to replace all the welfare programs we have because it'd be more effective.
How do you protest drunk drivers? It's not like there is a drunk driver's assosiation.
Finally, well yeah. Politicians are the ones taking the bribes. So they're the root cause. When you bribe ALL of Walstreet for bribes, your lumping in a lot of people who DON'T lobby the government. A lot of companies pay their full corporate tax rate, and these groups are being targeted with all the rest, outside of some popular leftist lobbying groups anwyay.
C) I'm not a libretarian so much as someone who thinks we NEED the government to be libretarian focused because of the situation and size of the US and the US government sucks. I can't really see anyone else handling "regulatory framework" though. If we were in New Zealand for example, I'd be for a host of things I'm against in the US.
D) That forbes article agrees with me? It's complaining largely about government ineffectiviness, and consumers not doing due diligence.
E) Zero Hedge? Depends on your definition of leftist. People are writing under the name of a fictional character who's goal in like was to blow up modern consumerist society while sabotaging it from the inside and outside. Really it'd suggest anarchist leanings more then anything.
I would consider it the same as every other rumor mill. There are about 100 lines of BS for every actual moment of truth.
F) I'm not saying Wallstreet Fraud isn't happening? I'm saying it wouldn't be happening if government bothered to regulate it, rather then think up new regulations for things that regulations already exist for.
G) It sounds like Alan Greenspan is agreeing with me... what's he saying? "We need more enforcement of existing laws." Well that and higher holdings requirements. Which has already passed.
H) No, Redstate is just as bad as Huffington Post.
Aside from which.... when did I say people shouldn't be mad about MF Global? I'm saying the situation is working how it should. They're going out of buisness, and chances are the executives WILL do some jail time here because it's one big case that's in everyones view.
I mean, what's the alternative here?
