Remember kids, only some crime doesn't pay.
Also, if you are going to rob a bank, don't do it "armed".
On 10/19/2011 10:47 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2052589630476&set=a.1129608236518.2020004.1116581580&type=1&ref=nf
Breathtaking.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2052589630476&set=a.1129608236518.2020004.1116581580&type=1&ref=nf
>
>
>
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology
So here's what's concerning me: we keep making things that should be illegal
legal and then say it's ok.
Examples:
* current financial legislation. Sam's right: these guys are fraudulent.
Whatever the law is is a matter of legislation.
* Killing Americans without due process on foreign soil
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2052589630476&set=a.1129608236518.2020004.1116581580&type=1&ref=nf
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoff
ah see you didn't spell that out about the speaking fees. If true -- I
always have to tack that caveat on because of your sources -- but if
true, ya, that sounds pretty corrupt.
And don't get me wrong, I think corruption is there. But fraud is a
very specific word. More precise and more measured
I took issue with the word when she said it too. At least in the
technical, legal, sense, this has not been proven. Did malfeasance
occur? In my opinion, it's unquestionable. Was it fraud, hmm, some of
it maybe. The Goldman Sachs derivatives come to mind. Can you *really*
say that these particular
It's hard to get the government to investigate let alone indict their
own when they control everything as they did when this was going on.
But if that's proof of innocence why are you labeling unnamed bankers as guilty?
.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Not only have they
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> forgetting to pay your taxes?
Tax fraud. But in his case it was probably an honest mistake. The only
person I ever heard of that "forgot" to pay taxes.
Speaking fees to the firms that you gave money to in the form of TARP
funds weeks or months la
Hold on now.
Mo said there was fraud and most firms involved got away with it. I
was pointing out why they got away with it, they're g-men now. So now
you want me to get a conviction to prove her point?
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> there have definitely been hijinks. Maybe
Not only have they not been convicted, they haven't even been charged. We
have due process for a reason.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> So innocent if not convicted?
>
> Let's apply that to your comment:
>
> "It's not about money. It's about how you obtained the money, and if
forgetting to pay your taxes? Getting speaking fees? Um. I agree that
it smells bad but I don't think you actually have the makings of a
fraud case. Not in what you are saying here. Don't get the idea that
I'm defending these guys, mind you. Consider this peer review ;) you
have not backed up your
there have definitely been hijinks. Maybe rising to the standards of
the Bush administration. A lot of what has gone on would probably be
illegal if you could prove it in court, but the odds of finding a jury
that can parse the particulars are pretty slim.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Gruss G
Yes
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> but is that fraud, actually?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Sam wrote:
>>
>> I thought she was being rhetorical. I mean how can you accuse "most of
>> Wall Street ..." and not think that includes the top players?
>>
>> Summers was
that doesn't follow. Although where Cain is concerned, the tax plan
may qualify ;)
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Maureen wrote:
>
> And neither of those constitute fraud, or both would have been prosecuted by
> now. Herman Cain was head of the Kansas City Fed. Does that make the
> Hermanat
but is that fraud, actually?
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> I thought she was being rhetorical. I mean how can you accuse "most of
> Wall Street ..." and not think that includes the top players?
>
> Summers was getting huge speaking fees just before handing over our
> money to
So innocent if not convicted?
Let's apply that to your comment:
"It's not about money. It's about how you obtained the money, and if it was
obtained by fraud, then punishing those who are guilty. Which in the case
of most of the Wall Street firms involved in the financial meltdown, has not
hap
And neither of those constitute fraud, or both would have been prosecuted by
now. Herman Cain was head of the Kansas City Fed. Does that make the
Hermanator a crook too?
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Oo! I can! At least for Summers and Geithner:
>
> Summers was Se
All true but to be fair to bernake he appears to be doing what's needed from a
crisis perspective and is somewhat of a noob on the scene.
That said, I think your point stands: whether he was driving or reacting he's
still been hanging around an awful lot of crime scenes.
Said another way, the
I thought she was being rhetorical. I mean how can you accuse "most of
Wall Street ..." and not think that includes the top players?
Summers was getting huge speaking fees just before handing over our
money to same co's.
Gietner forgot to pay his taxes and was neck deep in the AIG scam.
Bernake h
Oo! I can! At least for Summers and Geithner:
Summers was SecTreas under Clinton. CFMA and all that. basically made former
illegal things legal. Also was accused of various financial conflicts of
interest at Harvard and forced to resign. Bad man, he.
Geithner was head of the NY fed. Nu
I don't recall calling anyone evil. Nor hearing OWS doing so, tho as
mentioned I'm not claiming particular knowledge of that topic. What I
am hearing though has to do with a level playing field, in which case
the important thing is that you have money, not where you got it.
"Money" in this paragra
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> data not facts. Also unless the alternative model is better at
> explaining the data than the existing theory then why accept it? In
> this case the GPS theory makes a lot of sense. Its suggesting that
> there was a methodological flaw. It
22 matches
Mail list logo
