Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Feds to sue banks over fraudFollow

#77 Sep 06 2011 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Can I borrow your Delorean?
Yes, but you need to fill it up. The lybians aren't falling for the pinball parts thing anymore.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#78 Sep 06 2011 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
catwho wrote:

Bout **** time.

Edited, Sep 2nd 2011 9:00am by catwho


You realize that the FED really owns these banks, right? /facepalm

Screenshot


The image seems broken. It's not moving.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#79 Sep 06 2011 at 7:58 AM Rating: Default
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
These banks are traded on the stock exchange. While the FED could do plenty to squash any one of them, they don't own them.


This is a tricky situation so I'll explain what I meant. There are 2 theories that could apply to almost every single one of these banks. Either A) the bank has a controlling interest by those that work/are connected to the FED or B) By "own", I mean control those that actually own the banks because to go against the FED(stronger than the mafia) is suicide. The FED owns so many banks and runs them as dummy corporations with these bank CEO's working for their interests. I wish the FED was just an extension of the government, but it's much worse than that. I'll tell you another thing. Every time the the government bails out a corporation, that company is controlled by the FED at the highest levels if it wasn't already. There lies the problem and the reason why bailouts don't work.

Quote:
Yes, the loss of value of the dollar should create inflation in oil much more than any other commodity even when we know that the emerging markets are screaming for energy, too. Makes total sense.


Good this means you won't ***** at the gas prices, but at the FED that just screwed you.
...cuz sometimes you feel like a nut.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#80 Sep 06 2011 at 10:26 AM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
Loobes,

I've been saying gold will continue to increase in value if Obama is re-electected and decrease if not. I'll wait until Oct 2012 to make the decision to unload what i've got or not.

I told all you idiots to invest in gold when Obama was elected. Just like I told you to invest in gold when the Dems took control of congress during W's second term. Gold was around 750$ when I started buying it back in 05. By the end of next year, when I expect to unload it, it will be easily over 2k an o. And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.

#81 Sep 06 2011 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Loobes,

And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.

...all the better to tax you with.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#82 Sep 06 2011 at 10:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Elinda wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Loobes,

And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.

...all the better to tax you with.

He's a conservative, he doesn't have to pay taxes. Only people who do work pay taxes.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#83 Sep 06 2011 at 11:07 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
I told all you idiots to invest in gold when
Glenn Beck told you to.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#84 Sep 06 2011 at 6:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
670 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Gold was around 750$ when I started buying it back in 05. By the end of next year, when I expect to unload it, it will be easily over 2k an o. And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.



So is there no connection between gold going up and people buying gold because somebody told them to? This just strikes me as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Buy gold because its gonna go up, everybody wants to buy gold, demand increases, so the price rises.
#85 Sep 06 2011 at 6:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
xantav wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Gold was around 750$ when I started buying it back in 05. By the end of next year, when I expect to unload it, it will be easily over 2k an o. And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.



So is there no connection between gold going up and people buying gold because somebody told them to? This just strikes me as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Buy gold because its gonna go up, everybody wants to buy gold, demand increases, so the price rises.


Of course there's a connection. That's why most sane people recognize that gold is a bubble right now. But it'll stay a bubble until other elements of the economy start to recover. The trick is knowing when to bail on gold so that you gain money on it. Most people will lose money. Certainly, most people buying gold right now will.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Sep 06 2011 at 7:04 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Gold was around 750$ when I started buying it back in 05. By the end of next year, when I expect to unload it, it will be easily over 2k an o. And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.



I easily get a bonus every Christmas that is over 2k, and I didn't have to shell out $750 six years ago to do so.

So, uh, no.
#87 Sep 06 2011 at 10:01 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
gbaji wrote:



Of course there's a connection. That's why most sane people recognize that gold is a bubble right now. But it'll stay a bubble until other elements of the economy start to recover. The trick is knowing when to bail on gold so that you gain money on it. Most people will lose money. Certainly, most people buying gold right now will.


I'm not so sure this time. The US government has never been this broke in our history. If only are problems could be solved with a quick fix, I'd agree with you. This time however a collapse will happen one of two ways. Either A) the FED prints more money and thus your money becomes useless by hyperinflation or B) our debt collectors buy our debt. Now I serious doubt any country has the means to buy 14 trillion in REAL assets so it's only logically to conclude option 1 is more likely. All printing money will do is stall for time. It will cause more problems than it's worth because most of America is on a fixed income. If inflation goes too high, you'll kill people literally.

Edit
Option 3 is a long shot because it all depends if Ron Paul can win office. If our defense budget was cut in half or more, the currency could possibly bounce back in theory. This would call for most of the troops and contractors being pulled out of the Middle East though. So like I said, it's a long shot, but it's the only shot we have left. Don't believe those liars running for office. Social security, Medicare, etc is a drop in the bucket compared to nation building costs. I think paying off half the debt would be possibly in 4 years in theory if they follow Paul's plan.

Edited, Sep 6th 2011 11:07pm by ShadowedgeFFXI
#88 Sep 06 2011 at 10:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
The US government has never been this broke in our history.


Linky.

Just for the graph. The U.S. Govt. had a higher level of debt as a percentage of GDP shortly after WWII. It's the private sector that's in deeper than it's even been before. Smiley: smile
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#89 Sep 07 2011 at 12:23 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
someproteinguy wrote:


Linky.

Just for the graph. The U.S. Govt. had a higher level of debt as a percentage of GDP shortly after WWII. It's the private sector that's in deeper than it's even been before. Smiley: smile


There are some differences now. The biggest difference is when Nixon separated us away from the gold standard. Rapid inflation happened ever since and our economy has never been as secure. #2 You realize that the bailouts to the private sector are paid out by the FED. I'm interested in your thoughts on this matter. We need to learn all we can from each other.
#90 Sep 07 2011 at 5:21 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
Of course there's a connection. That's why most sane people recognize that gold is a bubble right now. But it'll stay a bubble until other elements of the economy start to recover. The trick is knowing when to bail on gold so that you gain money on it. Most people will lose money. Certainly, most people buying gold right now will.


I'm actually kind of impressed you understand that.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#91 Sep 07 2011 at 7:18 AM Rating: Good
someproteinguy wrote:
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
The US government has never been this broke in our history.


Linky.

Just for the graph. The U.S. Govt. had a higher level of debt as a percentage of GDP shortly after WWII. It's the private sector that's in deeper than it's even been before. Smiley: smile
Well, it's a good thing that Eisenhower cut taxes for the rich to help move things along.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#92 Sep 07 2011 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
EDIT: Sometimes I forget that there are more pages to a thread.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 11:29am by Eske
#93 Sep 07 2011 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Eske Esquire wrote:
EDIT: Sometimes I forget that there are more pages to a thread.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 11:29am by Eske

____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#94varusword75, Posted: Sep 07 2011 at 10:32 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lagaga,
#95 Sep 07 2011 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
blind as anne frank.
Your fabulous fact checking skills.

On related news, Kevin Smith continues to be a horrible comic writer.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 12:37pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#96 Sep 07 2011 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:

First of all, this isn't a "fake news" show.
It's not a news show at all. It's just another tinfoil-hat talk show, a second rate one at that. The jock that accused the federal gov of being behind the Oklahoma City bombing can't even get syndicated air time anymore.

Quote:

The point is politics and the banking industry is corrupt.
You mean there are politicians and bankers that are dishonest? I don't believe it.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#97 Sep 07 2011 at 11:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:


Linky.

Just for the graph. The U.S. Govt. had a higher level of debt as a percentage of GDP shortly after WWII. It's the private sector that's in deeper than it's even been before. Smiley: smile


There are some differences now. The biggest difference is when Nixon separated us away from the gold standard. Rapid inflation happened ever since and our economy has never been as secure. #2 You realize that the bailouts to the private sector are paid out by the FED. I'm interested in your thoughts on this matter. We need to learn all we can from each other.


I'm seeing an oligopoly and instances of corruption. The idea that people are conspiring or working together behind the scenes seems unverifiable and unnecessary. It's kind of like The Incredible Hulk putting on brass knuckles before punching someone.

But my lack of knowledge about things is a bit limitless, and I'm just shooting from the hip here. Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#98 Sep 07 2011 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
You're too apologetic Protein. Simply make up your mind and then inform us of the truth.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#99 Sep 07 2011 at 12:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
You're too apologetic Protein. Simply make up your mind and then inform us of the truth.


Simple it's not, I'm afraid you will find, for a mind-maker-upper to make up his mind.

<3 Dr. Seuss

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#100 Sep 07 2011 at 3:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Edit
Option 3 is a long shot because it all depends if Ron Paul can win office. If our defense budget was cut in half or more, the currency could possibly bounce back in theory. This would call for most of the troops and contractors being pulled out of the Middle East though. So like I said, it's a long shot, but it's the only shot we have left.


Ah... You're a Paulite. Explains a lot!


Quote:
Don't believe those liars running for office. Social security, Medicare, etc is a drop in the bucket compared to nation building costs. I think paying off half the debt would be possibly in 4 years in theory if they follow Paul's plan.


Sigh... Debate trick #5. When stating something that is completely false, always precede it with a statement about how those who say differently are liars.


Your statement is wrong. It's not just wrong, it's completely 180 degrees the wrong direction wrong. In 2010, the total defense budget was $689B. Social Security alone was $700B. Medicare was $520B. Medicaid was $272B. "Income Security" (welfare basically) was $437B.

The totals for social spending just in those areas adds up to $1929B. Total Defense spending is less than 1/3rd of what we spend on the social stuff. Oh... And that's only counting the non-discretionary spending. We also have Domestic Discretionary spending, which amounts to $614B. Now, to be fair, a small amount of that falls into the category you might call "defense" (domestic defense stuff, some research, maybe some national guard spending, etc). But an overwhelming amount of dollars in that domestic spending category also falls into social spending or infrastructure categories. I don't count that normally because some of that is worth doing and some of it isn't.

The point is that we only need to look at Social Security to see that you're wrong. The other stuff just makes you that much more wrong. Sadly, if history is any indicator, in a week you'll have conveniently forgotten this and still be insisting that defense is the number one expense our Federal government has.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 Sep 07 2011 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
gbaji wrote:


The point is that we only need to look at Social Security to see that you're wrong. The other stuff just makes you that much more wrong. Sadly, if history is any indicator, in a week you'll have conveniently forgotten this and still be insisting that defense is the number one expense our Federal government has.


Your numbers are wrong. The money set for contractors alone is over 600B and that's NOT including any of our defense projects. You expect me to believe your figures when we're policing most of the Middle East right now, either on or off the record. I'm interested what you have against Paul. He's supported by the military more than other candidate for a reason. You know the people that know the real deal. These sleazy media outlets don't have a clue. I don't think you understand what's it like to risk your life based on a lie. I was there day 1 in Iraq and I worked with the CIA/Green beret/Seals/British forces etc. I know how much this war costs, don't insult my intelligence. I was there and I know how much it costs to wage a war/police a country.

We spend at LEAST 60% of all our tax dollars on these wars. I don't care if the money goes to Black OP projects, contractors, or even rebuilding efforts. Don't even get me started with the drug trade in Afghanistan and our soldiers(my friends) who are forced to watch them. I had to babysit the oil wells in Iraq, not that it did us any good. The spin that the mainstream media claims is total b.s. I bet you can't even explain why these government contractors get paid up to 5x as much to do the same job as someone in the military. I don't mean to come off blunt, but you seriously have no clue. Please don't buy into that propaganda. Even if Social security costs as much as you claim, you realize there is supposed to be a 2.5 trillion surplus for it. In other words, it's NOT in the budget at all. Why... Because we the people already paid into for years and continue to do so.



Edited, Sep 7th 2011 4:43pm by ShadowedgeFFXI
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 70 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (70)