Show of Hands

Given your argument with koozi47 below, this link destroys any credibility you might have had. (That and the statement that "Glenn Beck is out there sometimes" - *sometimes*???)

Specifically, your article is full of flawed logic, incorrect history, straw men, and convenient omissions.

Whatever man. I'm not here for you to start making personal attacks. If you disagree then fine, but looking for other things to complain about while trying to have a conversation somewhere else is assign. If you have issues with my argument fine...

We are at an impasse. You should at the least point out the flaws you claim to have found. And I don't see how you've had time to read and analyze that article while carrying on 2 separate conversations with me. I call bs

I apologize if you feel attacked. I'll get to it if I have time, but I have a job and a baby, and I do prefer the other conversation. If you can't see that you've cited a source almost as bad as koozi's, then you've got real research issues.

Ok, she's sleeping. Here goes: Obama led the problem, but Clinton started it - before Obama was even in the Senate.

...
- the 186 members of the lawsuit are hardly a representative sample of all Americans who suffered in the housing crash.
- the rate of foreclosures, even according to the article's chart, accelerated under Bush and decelerated under Obama

- the article uses terms such as "redistribution of wealth" and "Social Engineering" (capitalized) as buzz words meant to bias the reader in a predetermined way without evidence
- same thing goes for phrases like "ACORN foot soldiers"

- in the meantime, Obama's policies had in 4 years created more jobs than Bush's, and the stock market has hit all-time highs; the claims that Obama is bad for the economy were patently and provably false even then

- in addition, the article says that Clinton and Obama pushed subprime mortgages as if the banks had nothing to do with it; in reality, the banks wanted to tap the new market because, getting back to the original question, they knew more than...

...the politicians did that these things were bad for the economy. Not only did they go ahead, they built a futures pyramid-gambling scheme on them, all for the sake of short-term profits. I would not argue that politicians of all stripes had...

...nothing to so with it, but this article is misleading, biased, and almost (but not 100%) worthless.

Honestly, my initial (over-)reaction to it was because I think you of all people can do better.

• the 186 sample was just an example being used to show typical politics
• The rates of acceleration & deceleration aren't a reflection of either prez's terms just natural progression of the problem
•you find a completely unbiased article on politics

• do you not agree ACORN is a bad organization?
• the banks were able to provide subprimes since 77' but didn't b/c it's bad business. The Clinton administration put pressure on the banks to use them.

. Americans bought homes at inflated prices, which were further driven up by unscrupulous lenders and speculators. Collapse was inevitable. <--- Vultures always come out. Still not the fault of all big banks

As for saying that the Obama presidency is a success, plz don't. That is preposterous. Even democrats don't like him. SoH poll had him at 30% approval this month.

The stock market is artificially inflated. As soon as the FED quits printing funny money the market will plummet again. Then we get to know the joys of inflation unbridled. My dollar is already worth a lot less than it was just 4 years ago.

How do you reconcile the job market with what you claim is a recovering economy. Foreign policy under him has suffered immensely. He has proven to be Bush on steroids. Spending us into the poor house

He allowed Mr. Holder to let black panthers go completely unpunished after blatantly intimidating voters on camera twice. There is a long list of issues with President Obama's judgement

Wow. Yeah, I didn't realize just how incredibly far apart we are. We've made our points, and I'll have to leave it that.

While traditional banking (aside from credit card) practices may not be unethical, all the gambling with other people's money - derivatives, futures, and other such imaginary and abstract instruments that are designed to do nothing but make rich...

...people richer are fundamentally unethical and amoral at best.

They're designed to make money for the bank, which btw is a for profit business

Yeah, but they're not making profit off of any real goods or services. They're purely inventions to manipulate money for its own sake. That doesn't do humanity any good and has no lasting true value.

Something does not have to be tangible to have monetary value.

I sell a stock I've never seen or touched and I make money it's tangible enough for me. That's no different than what the banks do, just less complicated.

I would also argue that the act of making money for themselves and their shareholders is in fact a service.

I might give you that making money is a service, but I'd say you're wrong about the rest of it. When you buy a stock, you're investing in a company directly. That money goes to real use, not imaginary multiplication and reshuffling. (And yes...

...I get that it doesn't have to be tangible - I did mention services as well.) The banks don't do the same thing. Futures and derivatives and hedges are nothing more than wagers - using other people's money to bet on money to make more money.

When they win the bets, they make money. But when they lose the bets, it's the people whose money they lost that actually lose. That's hardly ethical - and it sure as hell isn't a valuable service in my book. Legality does not equal ethical.

But, everyone knows how banks make their money and if you choose to use their services then you know what you are getting into. Now if they "bet" with our money and lose its covered by insurance. When has anyone one you've known gone to the bank...

for money and its not been there for them to withdraw? If that has happened then I could agree with you but it hasn't. Even then the incident of 1 bank doesn't tarnish them all.

OMG you're not really saying that insurance (much of which is government provided) makes it ok?!

Even if you are, that doesn't show them to be ethical, just subsidized and protected. Or that we need to be protected from...

...their irresponsible gambling schemes.

That's not what I said at all. I was just pointing out that there is a safety net

Do you have an example of ppl not being able to access their money?

I don't need one. Whether there is a safety net or not doesn't make the behavior acceptable. That thinking would also make bank robbery ok, just because I can still get my insured money afterward.

You are avoiding my question

Regardless of how you feel about their behavior, I find nothing wrong with it overall. That means we will never agree on this issue, sry but that's just how it is.

Ok, as long as you're saying outright that you have no problem with their behavior, then we are indeed at an impasse - since I believe gambling with someone else's money is wrong, even if it is insured.

those interest balances unless the interest rates are higher, than the main balance rate(credit card debt). They stand to make more from maintaining the same rate on each balance than raising it on select balances. Didn't even ask to lower a rate...

Really? You sure the housing market crash had nothing to do with this: www.letfreedomringusa.com/news/read/2245

That being said, big banks in bed with government is always a corruption of the law.

AMEN

What you're talking about is "Crony Capitalism," but shhhhhhhhh! Don't bring that up here! If you start talking about things like Freddie and Fannie screwing us with the fed's help it confuses the Ocupy idiots. They have a hard time arguing that...

...the government shouldn't be in bed with big finance, but they ABSOLUTELY should pick winners and losers in things like "Green Energy." After all, these big party politicians have to pay back their campaign financiers SOMEHOW! Didnt you know that?

Defense lawyers defending someone they know to be guilty us not unethical.

????????????????

Oh man! The emoticons dont work...so much for my clever use of the microphone and musical scales....sigh

???????

Told you. What happened to the emoticons Tony?!?!

I can see them just fine.

Hmmmmmm...it's all "??????????" On my end. Hold on. Deleting and reinstalling.

Don't bother reinstalling. ????

Awwwww. What a nice thing to say.

Still just question marks on my end.... Grrrrrrrrr

Lol! The emoji aren't working. Sorry for prancing you.

*pranking

Wow. You're just all kinds of hateful today.
:-)

????????????????????

❤

????????just testing...

Yep, emoji is broken...

Yup. It's all the banks fault for not reading the details of the contract to the ppl signing it. Just like its the cops fault for not reading the law to you before you break it. All makes perfect sense. Now go pick me up a foil hat & an Obama sticker

Rand2016, I bet a lot of liberals would have liked your comment if you hadn't included that snark at the end.

Had to make sure they understood the foolishness of that particular argument.

Banks don't set interest rates, ao dont give me that "malarky"

..and furthermore, if you took their money, how is it the bank's problem if you default on the terms of the loan? Nobody MADE you sign the loan... conversely, the CRA may have made it so they HAD to issue the loan regardless of your ability to pay.

How is that fair or even helpful to the loan recipient? *Hint: it's not. In fact, it created a massive mortgage backed securities market whose mortgages were "toxic assets" (or "liabilities" here in the real world) that culminated in a housing crisis

Were some of the banks to blame? Yup. Should those responsible be thrown in jail? You bet! But the problem was created by government intrusion in the marketplace, so you OWS types that push for more financial regulation are setting yourself up for...

...more of the same crap. Expect similar results when the chickens come home to roost with the FED keeping interest rates artificially low while continuing quantitative easing with the express purpose of propping up the stock market. It'll be ugly.

Ditto everything Anarchy said. And what of the responsibility of the "struggling" borrower? Did they not think, gee, if I take the bank's money and I lose my job, well you think it might be a good idea to save some money for a rainy day??

anarchy: but you've hit on one of the key issues: the people in the bank system who should go to jail go unpunished, or just fined. As long as there are no meaningful consequences, unethical behavior will continue - and only get worse, if history...

...serves as a lesson. We went from pyramid schemes to Enron to the housing meltdown that threatened the world's economy. It only gets worse, and there's no incentive for the industry to change their ways; they gamble with our money and always win.

Bkr: agreed, but that doesn't constitute an "unethical business model"...just unethical behavior which can happen in any given industry. They didnt get prosecuted largely because those responsible for doing so (congress) were active participants.

True, but I contend that the lack of consequences leads to more bad actors who act more badly than in most other industries. It becomes widespread and systematic, which I think justifies my "unethical" vote.

I still disagree, but hey, thats why there are two options. Banks in general lend money and provide goods and services related to money...they charge for those goods and services, like any other business. I see no inherent malfeasance in banks.

I don't disagree in principle. See my discussion with logicman81 above.

Oops. I guess the discussion is really with rand2016. Fell into *that* pit. ;)

This is OWS madness all over again.

It seems that the argument is "I took the bank's money to buy a house. The bank actually wants me to pay it all back or they will take the collateral I offered to get a loan. Who would have thought?"

Roy: HOW DARE THEY?!?!? You mean when they upheld their end of the agreement by loaning me an appropriate amount of money using collateral as security for repayment...

....they expected me and you to uphold OUR end of the agreement and pay them back as was fully disclosed in specific legal terms? Oh the humanity!!!!!!

ha ha ha brilliant you two, nailed it!

That's ridiculous! Why didn't they just take the loss? That's what a truly successful, ethical bank would do.

Major banks don't compete with credit unions. They generally service totally different customers.

this is true. I mean, one can get loans/mortgages/what have you through a CU and not need to put up with big banks.

If you voted ethical then please slap yourself right now. You probably work in the banking industry. Yeah we do transact our business through these monsters that charge 18 to 23 percent interest on CC's or a fee every time you use a debit card.

especially disgusting since they still get money very cheap. Or how about how understanding they are when you were a customer for 20 years been laid off and how quickly the will foreclose, recall a loan?

And why do you choose (free will, not force) to transact business with these evil institutions? They make your life *better*. You can buy a house 15-30 years sooner, a car 3-5 years sooner and earn "rewards" through your credit cards.

If they're so evil and charge you exorbitant interest rates, then don't do business with them! This isn't hard. And enjoy renting your entire life and driving around a jalopy you paid cash for.

I've got no love for banks and choose to limit my interactions with them. My only loan is a 15 year mortgage that I plan to pay off early and I'll be done with them forever. But I rightly acknowledge they're doing me a great amount of good.

Supplying a useful service does not make a person or business ethical.

Duey: 18 - 23% ?!?!? Fee for using debit cards? You need a new bank (and/or better credit). Good grief. The percentage on your CC's are purely a risk assessment based on the likelihood you'll pay the bank back based on your past payment history.

One of the first comments here is from a guy who works for one of the 3 largest US banks. He said unethical.

Whenever you do business with a bank you get full disclosures on how accounts work including a schedule of fees sheet. If you chose not to read and understand the disclosures that is your fault and not the banks.

Earlybird, I also work for one of the 3 largest banks and I voted ethical. I can't vouch for all banks but the bank I work for puts all of its energies into 'what's best for the customer' and we work hard to do what's right!

Governor - I voted ethical. I just tossed that bone in there. :-)

Yeah Anarchy, I suspect most of the people upset with banks are folks who misbehaved with money, defaulted on the loan, the bank pursued the matter in accordance with the signed agreement, and now they blame the bank!

No worries. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in

Oh shut up Governor, by your own admission you're a banker and therefor cannot be trusted. How dare you make me take out a loan on a house I can't afford and then make me live beyond my means and go into credit card debt?! You're evil!

I guess my point is I spent a lot of time and money believing big bank were unethical. I should have just gave in sooner and saved a lot of grief

Yup.

Dustbunny, I would love to know which bank and why you believe most banks are operating unethically? I also work for one of the ten largest in the US and feel you're mistaken. Please explain, if you would.

How do they forget that? They work for their shareholders..pension plans, 401k's& individual investors.

Finally someone with sense!

Is your name a 45 reference?

Yes.

I walked into US Bank with cash to make my car payment 7 days before it was due. The left the payment processing for 10 days to try and make me have a late payment. I had to call their main office and make a second payment by phone, for an additional $10 fee, to not be late.

I'm prolly one that doesn't read all the fine print. I deposited a 6 digit insurance check at Wells Fargo. I only had access to the money in 2 steps. It was almost a week before I had access to all. Why? A way to make more money.

Corrupt institutions there are

Feel free to prove that or admit you're just popping off at the mouth

Look up who is behind most of the wars in history and who finances both sides of the wars...

That isn't proof of anything. You are still just saying stuff you have no evidence of or links to credible articles backing up your position. I have only seen one credible source/link put up and that was for 1 bank. U can't lump them all in b/c of 1.

Here are a couple articles for you. Read them and let it all soak in...

whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php

whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wildbankers.php

whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wildbankers.php

Sorry but I don't do the conspiracy nut thing.

I guess you missed the part where I said CREDIBLE SOURCE/LINKS

So all of that's a lie? Did you even bother to read? Don't be so close minded. Just cause George bush told you not to tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories" doesn't mean you have to listen to him.

Sorry I didn't post you a link from Fox News if that's what you're into.

Lol, whatever man. I'm not a Fox News or CNN fan. You are posting AS YOUR ONLY SOURCE the rants of a guy that was a part of Alex Jones' nut job outfit. If what you're saying is true then there will be more than 1 source. Do better bro

Don't argue with me, convince me you are right by using facts and reason.

Here's a video for you buddy. I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee...

youtu.be/TyVfViRS_2o

Man, I don't think I can help you. I just watched your vid. It's equal parts Truth, lies, & conspiracy. Glen Beck is out there sometimes and he doesn't get that bad. Have a nice life and God bless bro.

That's where I have my money :)

But poor services compared to a bank. Most big banks have excellent online services while many credit Unions are limited. There hours are not very convenient either.

I suppose the quality of service depends on the credit union. Shop around and compare, see what works best for your needs. At the end of the day, that's what matters most.

I've heard this story before. Elizabeth Warren criticizing the treasury department.

What are you trying to say with this?

Big banks are unethical. Multiple comments saying "libs, provide evidence!!!"

Here is some. Bank laundered and helped drug cartels, just had to pay a fee.

I'm sorry about those comments. I don't use that language. I'm honestly interested in why people think big banks are unethical.
This is the first specific comment I've seen thanks.
HSBC got out of this too easy I agree the treasury department ....

... should have done more than just settle. This was the complaint Warren had.
However, small banks have bad business practices too. I don't get why big is mostly unethical. Are you suggesting they on average are worse?

No need to apologize.

Bigger banks can have a much bigger influence on the worldwide economy than smaller banks.

Both cod be doing illegal activities, but much more is at stake with big banks

Could, not cod

I just hate any name calling, it really gets to me... And it just ruins any valuable discussion.
I have to agree both they have bigger influence and the sheer size make them more at risk if getting into any bad business.
I will still hold ...

*risk of
... I don't think they are mostly unethical. They offer a service to companies which a small bank cannot meet. They have by their volume a way to make a very efficient business.

Mrs. Warren deserves her position. That is an outrageous amount of corruption (HSBC) and astounding incompetence (Gov).

What services to big banks have that small banks don't?

That is the only credible instance of wrong doing I've seen thus far. Though it is egregious, I can't say that all big banks are unethical based on the evidence available.

Mattiga: big banks have a network, they operate all over the country, in other countries they either have branches or deals with other banks. They have expertise to give unique service, currency hedging, corporate bonds etc. They can make big loans

...which big companies need. They can through their size offset risks with one customer by having many of them and not all should fail at the same time.

Ha, you don't even have to find someone to debate, you can just create an idiot to disprove. That's so much easier!

Just bits from other's arguments and then a little humorous artistic license to finish it off :)

Yeah, it was actually pretty funny. I just wanted to make sure you know that there's more to the other side than that. Those are arguments from some of the most painfully ignorant people.

Those tend to be the loudest, lol

Right on Rand, the very same people who complain about "corporate greed" need to be asked this very important question: "Well have you ever turned down a raise at work?" But of course they're not greedy, it's only the other fellow who's greedy.

Big commercial banks. Question suggest they are unethical. If you think so, please let us know why?

How would you invest that cash?

I would put that cash in a safe place and wait until im ready to spend it.

That's why there are banks. If everyone was paid in cash, nobody would invest. If nobody invests, it's really hard for businesses to start and grow and for new ideas to get funding.

Well maybe it would help take us back to a time when you used hard work, determination and the resources you have instead of begging for money to start a bsiness, that in todays economy wont last more than a year because your ideas are old news.

So if an entrepreneur takes out a loan to start a business s/he is begging? Investment is the grease to capitalism's gears. Without it the resulting economic contraction would lead to higher prices and lower standards of living for everyone.

Hippiedude, you should probably be aware that banking in various forms has been around for at least a couple thousand years. Investing, and small businesses needing startup funds (the "begging" you mention), is also very old. The "good old days"...

I just dont get how you can say its ok to make money on money. I just makes no sense, give me your money so i can charge you money for the money you gave me so i can make money? Sounds like a lot so that we can have a bunch of fancy things.

...you refer to were probably not what you think they were.

I didnt say the good old days, im sure they were hard as hell, but you see, things were about quality and working through problems rather that borrowing thousands of dollars on a slim chance.

hippie, To put it in the simplest terms, commercial banks ensure a more efficient allocation of capital. They take deposits from people with extra money and give it to people who will create more from it. The depositors then get a small reward.

An part of my reasoning for probably not making any sense to you is the fact that i hate money, i think its the dumbest thing in the world. I would much rather learn how to live on my own with whats around me then worry about my paycheck.

I think what you're referring to is really irresponsible lending, like what contributed to the Great Recession, not the banking system in general.

Oh, well then I guess you're just really old school that way. Nothing wrong with that. I think most in our society would choose the current complex system over the rustic lifestyle you propose, though.

It all makes sense, its just a lot of work to check my bank account to see how big the number is that defines my worth.

Idk man people prefer it but id like to be proud of what i can make and harvest (not just literally) and doing what i really enjoy. Its sad that i put in so much energy into still having no money.

It would certainly be a lot of hard work, society has its benefits and drawbacks.

Making money on money is actually one of the simplest things to understand. If I give you 500k to start a business, and you make 5 million in profits, I am entitled to some of that because you couldn't have made it without me. Easy.

No i understand the whole process i just think its stupid. If thats how it is cool i just dont like it, or money in general.

Sounds like you need just a little adjustment in your thinking. Never define your worth by how much money you have. The impact you have on the lives of ppl around you is a much better and more accurate way of measuring your worth.

If you really want to live without money, then do it. This is the greatest country in the world and you can live that way if you so choose

Even that aspect i dont feel like much. I have hope though. And i was thinking about that, i get done cooking school in 2 years so i might just pack my stuff and make a living. Its what i want to do

How is it stupid? Look, you may hate money but that's how things are. Because of that 500k you made 5 million. Because you made that 5 mil, you were able to hire people and pay them so they can provide for their families. Capitalism at it's best

Dude you dont have to tell me, i know its how it works, its just depressing

You really are a hippie lol. Why is it depressing?

Because to be honest, i want to sit on the side of a mountain, looking over the river on the porch of the home i made, puffing on a fat joint. No money, no worries, just me, the land and what i need to live on.

Go for it my man

Gonna try as soon as i can

Sounds like you need to be living in Colorado then. Mountains and weed bro

If you had a change of heart, you could always open up a weed shop lol. I'm pretty conservative but honestly I would invest in some land or something for it

Ill be out there as soon as i graduate. And me and my friend want to open a burger shop out there one day. So its something to work for.

Really? You trust a credit union? I have to use a credit union for my car. Only bill I cannot pay online. Very obvious federal unions are a little behind in the times.

Your credit union is probably atypical. I have my money in three credit unions; not only can I bank with them all online, they all have iPhone apps.

iOS FTW! :)

@ tdubbs my credit union is online capable and they have a banking app. Plus, their rates are great and I know they won't do anything stupid with my money.

...though it is shameful that we as a nation allow that state of affairs to continue. And that we somehow can't manage to elect more politicians like Elizabeth Warren who will take that issue on.

Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to make money?
How are they supposed to run a business without a profit?

I'm saying we need to rethink a system that prioritizes profit over things like equity, human rights, and morality. The banks aren't the problem; they (and specifically the way they work) are a result of the underlying problem.

Not sure I completely follow you. What's the underlying problem in your opinion?

I don't mean to butt in, but I think what bckr might be trying to say is that our system rewards banks for sticking it to their customers, basically placing more value on money than on people.

So the problem is that as a society our values are out of whack. Bckr, am I close?

Big banks lost billions on those loans. Lots of people got help, but some just couldn't be helped.

How could they lose money if the homeowner was paying MIP which was required for loans with less than 20% down. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteed those loans

Not all loans are through Fannie or Freddy. Some were taken back because the banks didn't follow their rules, multiple other reasons.
I'd like to know if you think they are unethical, if yes, why?

I don't disagree with your point. But why would a bank hold a 98% funded loan? Or any loan that was not insured? Another point is that I have seen offers on short sales which were at market price which the banks refused to sell.

I will also concede that perhaps through government regulations it may give an appearance of unethical behavior.

We may agree more than I first thought. I think the banks acted they way they did due to regulation. It forced them into loosening loan standards to allow everyone to follow the American dream and own a home, remember that phrase...

Banks will in some situations not sell homes. Can be due to concerns they will flood the market and further depress prices. Can be because they then have to realize a loss on their books. Can be because they think the market will improve. Who knows.

When I was 15 I thought that movie was awesome. Then I looked up rebuttals and read about all the inaccuracies, it's better left unseen in my opinion. Some things are insightful but overall it almost causes more misinformation

Dude. That movie is full bs. Seriously, it preys on the unskeptical, and sometimes just lies. Just search some rebuttals to it, they are much better and more accurate.

No offense, just helping.


Then again, you are the troll had has sex with his uncle, you could just be trolling right now

Of course there are inaccuracies in that movie. It's just cool to watch and consider. We all know the Jews were behind 9/11, not the banks

And you have links to back all that up?

They foreclose like any small bank would too when people don't pay. yes there were a few bad examples, but out of the total number, they are very few.

Foreclosure only happens when bills aren't paid. Working hard has nothing to do with paying your loan back. When you get a loan you are giving your word that you will repay the $ on terms agreeable to both parties. If you don't follow through with

your end then you lied to the bank and they are within their right to take possession of the property you bought with their money.

This user is currently being ignored

And you do realize that the borrower has the choice to have a fixed rate. If they chose the variable rate then that is their fault.

This user is currently being ignored

That wasn't caused by banks greed, lol.

This user is currently being ignored

Wow, man do a little research before you start saying crazy things like that

This user is currently being ignored

All you're doing is ranting without the first piece of evidence to back you up. How about instead of calling names and getting mad you actually try to convince me with links to credible sources backing your statements. You can do better than this

This user is currently being ignored

This user is currently being ignored

I read the about.com article even after you decided to take a parting shot at me. It doesn't say anything about big banks being unethical. And if you knew more about what the article doesn't really touch on you'd know that the subprime market was

created by politicians that wanted to buy votes by forcing banks to loan money to unqualified borrowers. Think about what you're saying versus what the article said. The banks lost money and many didn't survive the crisis. You think they wanted that?

This user is currently being ignored

Lol, good luck with life man. I'll leave you with my favorite John Wayne quote since it seems to apply: "Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid"

This user is currently being ignored

And I haven't heard anything about it since.

Provide a link pls

Had some facts wrong, but here ya go

www.talkingaboutpolitics.com/CommentDiscussionForum/tabid/74/aft/600/Default.aspx

If that is your source then I would keep looking if I were you. That's just a talking forum/blog. Very tinfoil hatish

You're not going to find any top news media backed sources....did you read what happened to the one media outlet that did report on it???? Why is this not proof enough for you? Who is considered a "credible" source to you?

peacersvp.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/spire-law-group-42-trillion-dollar-lawsuit-cnbc-article-vanish/

www.dailypaul.com/260706/cnbc-digital-vps-children-murdered-after-43-trillion-bankster-lawsuit-suit-post-post-removed

www.westernjournalism.com/obama-administration-facing-massive-federal-lawsuit/

www.marketwatch.com/story/major-banks-governmental-officials-and-their-comrade-capitalists-targets-of-spire-law-group-llps-racketeering-and-money-laundering-lawsuit-seeking-return-of-43-trillion-to-the-united-states-treasury-2012-10-25

Last one should be proof enough for everyone.

Quit asking for links if all you're going to do is say "nope nope nope that's not good enough, I'm still right."

The market watch link is a press release from spire law group, who are they?
Their website is broken, cannot be viewed on my device. Looks like a trial lawyer of the worst kind.

I don't get the part about CNN's children. Are you talking Ted Turner?

All the links lead to stories that refers back to this press release by this law firm. It doesn't tell me anything.

Haaaa I didn't expect satire from a person from a narrow minded liberal state. I could see other Libby's believing what you say here. CNN is a great news source as well

Obviously a conspiracy theorist. The links only say a lawsuit was filed. That proves nothing. Anyone can claim anything and file a suit. Then just to get the juices flowing a few sites throw in the murdered children's angle. Worthless and sick

Everything is a conspiracy you idiot. When two or more people get together and develop a plan of any kind (business plan, school project, etc.) they are conspiring. And I'm not saying that the whole lawsuit is legit. I used it as an example to prove

Some of the unethical things the top people affiliated with banks do. Money laundering...racketeering...inside info on stock markets....oh but I know, I'm a conspiracy nut. Nothing bad ever happens in the world. Everyone's a saint.

No you are an angry person with trust issues and no real proof to back your rants. Come on back when you have EVIDENCE, not loons and a cartoon.

You can't even define what evidence is. Thank god you're not an investigator. You'd never solve any cases.

This is the only real evidence I've seen at all: www.ianfraser.org/hsbcs-drugs-money-laundering-settlement-a-mockery-of-justice-says-sen-warren/

Though now that I've put out some evidence I'm sure u will be assassinated. Tell Mom I loved her.....

Didn't see a single sliver of evidence that the HSBC helped to launder millions of dollars to the Mexican drug cartel.

if it was like operation fast and furious, where the facts were admitted by the organization that pulled it, then I'd believe it.

*Documented evidence

Also, he's a writer for BBC....enough said

Whatever, go troll someone else man.