Comments
1 - 13 of 13 Comments Last updated Mar 12, 2013
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#1 Mar 8, 2013
This really ticks me off. If any citizen shoplifts a candy bar from a store...

I even question Holder's willingness to prosecute considering his private legal background before becoming the U.S. AG.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric...
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#2 Mar 9, 2013
Holder shouldn't be allowed within 20 miles of a seat of power.

Did you happen to see how much effort it took before he finally admitted it was unconstitutional to kill an American if they weren't an immediate terror threat to the US?

Simple yes or no answer, Mr AG.

And how about those New Black Panthers ... hmmm
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#3 Mar 9, 2013
Oneal wrote:
Holder shouldn't be allowed within 20 miles of a seat of power.
Did you happen to see how much effort it took before he finally admitted it was unconstitutional to kill an American if they weren't an immediate terror threat to the US?
Simple yes or no answer, Mr AG.
And how about those New Black Panthers ... hmmm
Again, Holder shouldn't have even had to answer that question. Rand Paul should have and did know better than to even ask it. He's supposed to be a United States Senator. The ONLY reason he did was to once again and continually raise the hackles of the right-wing conspiracy theorists to put Obama in and keep him in a bad light. Had Paul any integrity AT ALL he would have responded to the fear mongered minions it is/was an outrageous conspiracy theory.

If there was ANY credibility I would have given Paul it is completely gone. Along with any for Libertarians. Paul is a disgrace to the office of United States Senator.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#4 Mar 9, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, Holder shouldn't have even had to answer that question. Rand Paul should have and did know better than to even ask it. He's supposed to be a United States Senator. The ONLY reason he did was to once again and continually raise the hackles of the right-wing conspiracy theorists to put Obama in and keep him in a bad light. Had Paul any integrity AT ALL he would have responded to the fear mongered minions it is/was an outrageous conspiracy theory.
If there was ANY credibility I would have given Paul it is completely gone. Along with any for Libertarians. Paul is a disgrace to the office of United States Senator.
I do believe Rand effectively ended his chances any presidential aspirations he may have had by pulling his dumb publicity stunt. IT blew up in his face, the people know it for what his stunt was, and they will remember it the next election cycle. The only ones who don't are right wing crazies who are becoming less relevant and important with each day.

Bye, bye Rand Paul. You done f'd up And thank you Rand for settling people's minds about you and what you're about.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#5 Mar 9, 2013
The big banks are like gamblers who take their customers' money and place it all on black at the roulette table. If the ball lands on black, they make a lot of money. If it lands on red, the government will reimburse them for the money they bet. They can't lose. And the CEO's making the bets get big bonuses, even though they're making bad decisions, because wherever the ball lands they won't lose money.

Bankers, and this includes Wall Street operate -- and know they operate -- above the law. That makes all the argument about regulations and legal limits laughable. Bankers spend tens of millions lobbying to weaken regulations and starve regulators of authority and resources. But when the action gets hot, the bubble starts to inflate, the music keeps playing, they can trample the laws, mislead the regulators and defraud their customers, confident that the laws will not apply to them. How many of them have ended up in prison?

Congress has two choices. Nationalize them in which case the public takes their profits and covers their losses or break the big banks up. Personally I'd like Congress to do the latter, but I know they never will.
Really

Grandville, MI

#6 Mar 10, 2013
Oooh, I think they should nationalize the banks! I think that is a wonderful idea! And then next, nationalize the oil companies. What else could they nationalize? The airlines perhaps and the utility companies?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#7 Mar 10, 2013
Really wrote:
Oooh, I think they should nationalize the banks! I think that is a wonderful idea! And then next, nationalize the oil companies. What else could they nationalize? The airlines perhaps and the utility companies?
No we shouldn't nationalize the banks. Just make those in charge of them subject to the penalties of breaking the law as one who steals a candy bar from the local store.

But then it takes money to investigate and prosecute, and the conservatives would rather they get away with breaking the law than pay the taxes necessary so they can be prosecuted. The taxes they pay just might pay for their prosecution. Can't have that.

One more advantage to the super rich. Affordability to avoid prosecution for breaking the law. Just one of those trade-offs conservatives accept.
Really

Grandville, MI

#8 Mar 10, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
No we shouldn't nationalize the banks. Just make those in charge of them subject to the penalties of breaking the law as one who steals a candy bar from the local store.
But then it takes money to investigate and prosecute, and the conservatives would rather they get away with breaking the law than pay the taxes necessary so they can be prosecuted. The taxes they pay just might pay for their prosecution. Can't have that.
One more advantage to the super rich. Affordability to avoid prosecution for breaking the law. Just one of those trade-offs conservatives accept.
Very very busy condemning just the conservatives, aren't you? Whatever, SIB. It's your opinion, to which you are entitled.
Chip

Beloit, WI

#9 Mar 10, 2013
pipedream wrote:
The big banks are like gamblers who take their customers' money and place it all on black at the roulette table. If the ball lands on black, they make a lot of money. If it lands on red, the government will reimburse them for the money they bet. They can't lose. And the CEO's making the bets get big bonuses, even though they're making bad decisions, because wherever the ball lands they won't lose money.
Bankers, and this includes Wall Street operate -- and know they operate -- above the law. That makes all the argument about regulations and legal limits laughable. Bankers spend tens of millions lobbying to weaken regulations and starve regulators of authority and resources. But when the action gets hot, the bubble starts to inflate, the music keeps playing, they can trample the laws, mislead the regulators and defraud their customers, confident that the laws will not apply to them. How many of them have ended up in prison?
Congress has two choices. Nationalize them in which case the public takes their profits and covers their losses or break the big banks up. Personally I'd like Congress to do the latter, but I know they never will.
Interesting, yet you favor regulations that small banks are not able to comply so the big banks take over all the small banks.

One example:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-13...

Romney warned about this during the debates if you cared to listen.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#10 Mar 10, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Very very busy condemning just the conservatives, aren't you? Whatever, SIB. It's your opinion, to which you are entitled.
Opinion yes. But based on evidence. Much more than you are able to provide.
Really

Grandville, MI

#11 Mar 11, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Opinion yes. But based on evidence. Much more than you are able to provide.
Whatever SIB. You are an arrogant elitist and you keep proving it over and over and over.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#13 Mar 11, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Whatever SIB. You are an arrogant elitist and you keep proving it over and over and over.
That you consider taking the time and effort to investigate and present "opinion" backed by citation(s) as being arrogant and elitist is perplexing. To me arrogance and elitism is expecting one's opinion to be sanctioned for no other reason that it's their opinion.
Really

Grandville, MI

#14 Mar 12, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
That you consider taking the time and effort to investigate and present "opinion" backed by citation(s) as being arrogant and elitist is perplexing. To me arrogance and elitism is expecting one's opinion to be sanctioned for no other reason that it's their opinion.
That you missed the point of my post isn't puzzling at all.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'We Don't Have a Strategy' to Fight ISIS t 4 hr Oneal 15
Movie Theater Demolished 4 hr Oneal 14
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) 10 hr JimGR 937
A long-time cafe in the East Hills are may close 18 hr Dominic 1
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) Sun Go Blue Forever 1,328
Meet The Press Sat Go Blue Forever 3
why war with isis? Fri Colonel Sanders 15
•••
•••
Grand Rapids Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••