Should Goldman Sach's be Impeached and Fired?

[ginjawarrior]

That really went over your head, didn't it?

did it really? you might wanna let deprave know that...

It has everything to do with it. I see you haven't done much research, this companies founders and its children such as JP Morgan come from British bankers and your denial that it doesn't is as absurd as the lizard people example you gave.

british bankers or the british royal family? make up your mind one does not equal the other

Haven't you ever thought that regulation only serves to prop up monopolies and give large corporations more power and market control?

So you expect goldman sach's to regulate themselves? I am sure that is exactly what they want thus why they sit as advisors to Obama and sold Obama and Romney to us. I think they like having the secretary of treasury and others being former sach's executives.

I could say that they fear the free market but I don't even have to go there, just look at obama's cabinet.

LOL

 

[Brick Top]

Obviously, from what I have read in this thread and others, talking politics with Uncle Buck is like trying to talk to a 5 year old that's in the middle of a temper tantrum. With the added twist that he seems to delight in being purposely obtuse, intellectually dishonest, willfully ignorant and casting false aspersions and derisive comments toward anyone that isnt "politically correct" in his view.

A-fucking-men! You got a bullseye with that one!

 

[deprave]

british bankers or the british royal family? make up your mind one does not equal the other

Yes they do - and why your response is "LOL" to me pointing out that Goldman sachs likes very much to regulate themselves is beyond me. I guess you just like being in denial or something. Did you read the original post?

 

[ginjawarrior]

Yes they do - and why your response is "LOL" to me pointing out that Goldman sachs likes very much to regulate themselves is beyond me. I guess you just like being in denial or something. Did you read the original post?

so the royal family own all the banks? you so far down the rabbit hole lizards probably would be a step up

ron paul would remove all regulations if he had his way how is that better? its that naive view thats so laughable

 

[NLXSK1]

Yes they do - and why your response is "LOL" to me pointing out that Goldman sachs likes very much to regulate themselves is beyond me. I guess you just like being in denial or something. Did you read the original post?

They do like to regulate themselves. Businesses do what they can to make a profit.

 

[deprave]

They do like to regulate themselves. Businesses do what they can to make a profit.

Yep so how come they get to do it and nobody else?

 

[deprave]

so the royal family own all the banks? you so far down the rabbit hole lizards probably would be a step up

ron paul would remove all regulations if he had his way how is that better? its that naive view thats so laughable

You are still not answering the question, So why should goldman sach's executives be expected to regulate the market fairly when they exploited it in the first place?

Really simple question..We have gone on for 5 pages now and nobody has answered it.

 

[ginjawarrior]

You are still not answering the question, So why should goldman sach's executives be expected to regulate the market fairly when they exploited it in the first place?

im still trying to get past the turd in the punch bowl about the royal family kinda find it hard to take anyone seriously when they sprout such tinfoil ready ideas

 

[NLXSK1]

Yep so how come they get to do it and nobody else?

The problem is not the banks it is the bailouts.

If Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae had not been around to buy up all that bullshit paper, this would not have happened.

The government needs to get out of the banking business and let banks succeed and fail based on their own accounts and not relying on the FED and other government institutions to keep them afloat. Also, any bank that has FDIC deposits should not be able to use them for risky investment purposes like real estate or stocks.

 

[NLXSK1]

im still trying to get past the turd in the punch bowl about the royal family kinda find it hard to take anyone seriously when they sprout such tinfoil ready ideas

Deprave's 3rd choice for president is Vermin Supreme.... So.....................

 

[deprave]

im still trying to get past the turd in the punch bowl about the royal family kinda find it hard to take anyone seriously when they sprout such tinfoil ready ideas

Ok well its half-hearted joke in my hatred for British bankers that I put in parenthesis...that's not really the point...your just arguing semantics like Uncle Buck.

 

[deprave]

The problem is not the banks it is the bailouts.

If Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae had not been around to buy up all that bullshit paper, this would not have happened.

The government needs to get out of the banking business and let banks succeed and fail based on their own accounts and not relying on the FED and other government institutions to keep them afloat. Also, any bank that has FDIC deposits should not be able to use them for risky investment purposes like real estate or stocks.

Good so we agree somewhat. So why should Goldman Sach's run the executive branch and setup their own regulations for example in the department of treasury? This is what you vote for if you vote for Mittens Obama, Goldman Sach's and associates.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Ok well its half-hearted joke in my hatred for British bankers that I put in parenthesis...that's not really the point...your just arguing semantics like Uncle Buck.

british bankers does not equal the royal family

you say its just semantics but you may as well be saying banana's = baseballs or winnebago

and you've had front to tell me to research

 

[deprave]

its the part in parenthesis, its not the point and is a for the most part a joke/exaggeration. I could argue that with you fine but that is not what this is about and why would I want to argue a joke anyway . The point is a vote for Obama or Romney is a vote for goldman sachs. The question I asked you is how can you expect goldman sach's to regulate themselves and you were unable to answer.

My question for Republican's is how can you elect someone funded by liberal pacs and funded by the same organizations as obama.

My question for liberals is again 'How can you expect goldman sach's to regulate themselves?'

 

[ginjawarrior]

its the part in parenthesis, its not the point. I could argue that with you fine but I am not going to. The point is a vote for Obama or Romney is a vote for goldman sachs. The question I asked you is how can you expect goldman sach's to regulate themselves and you were unable to answer.

ron paul = no regulations = goldman sachs regulating themselves.

is that not what your asking for?

 

[jesus of Cannabis]

ron paul wont win so why waste the effort?
he is:
too old
too out there
too radical

 

[deprave]

ron paul = no regulations = goldman sachs regulating themselves.

is that not what your asking for?

I am asking for the corruption to end, it starts with no goldman sachs in the whitehouse, and that starts with electing a president who isn't corrupt.

No, you didn't answer my question again.....Why do you expect Goldman Sach's to regulate themselves?

 

[ginjawarrior]

I am asking for the corruption to end, it starts with no goldman sachs in the whitehouse.

just a question where will the whitehouse get their qualified, experienced advisers from??

oh and once ron paul removes regulations does goldman sachs even need to be in whitehouse anymore would they not be regulating themselves?

 

[sync0s]

just a question where will the whitehouse get their qualified, experienced advisers from??

oh and once ron paul removes regulations does goldman sachs even need to be in whitehouse anymore would they not be regulating themselves?

Market regulates them.

 

[deprave]

just a question where will the whitehouse get their qualified, experienced advisers from??

oh and once ron paul removes regulations does goldman sachs even need to be in whitehouse anymore would they not be regulating themselves?

Your proposing then that we just let them continue the corruption and trying to further it by making me explain the 'hows' and 'what ifs', no thanks, I am not here to argue unproductively. You provide hypothetical scenarios as if they are reality and then suggest that I dig myself a hole by joining in on that, again no thanks....What I have to ask to continue this discussion productively is firstly; What is your suggestion? Secondly; Again, Do you really expect goldman sachs to regulate themselves?