Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[WildCat]

So let a corporation get away with whatever, because stopping them would not be painless? All corporations are too big to fail unless every last teller and janitor is corrupt? (edit)The blameless children of convicted felons lose a parent in the process, but that doesn't stop the state from jailing said felons. Should a felon run free because he "has a wife and three kids"? I see a double standard.

I'd ask if you've ever been introduced to the Excluded Middle Fallacy, but I see you're already well acquainted.

Have you read the 1st Amendment yet?

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Wow, just wow. You know for sure that the laundering occured but you can't prove who did it.

The entity named Wachovia "did it", I know that because anyone who cares to know that can easily obtain such uncontroversial information. Wachovia is an entity that could be held criminally accountable, but isn't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs

 

[Alt+F4]

The entity named Wachovia "did it", I know that because anyone who cares to know that can easily obtain such uncontroversial information. Wachovia is an entity that could be held criminally accountable, but isn't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs

So an "entity named Wachovia" did it. Who is it you would like to see prosecuted? Wells Fargo's 250,000 employees? The tens of thousands of investors who own Wells Fargo stock, after all, they own the corporation.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

I'd ask if you've ever been introduced to the Excluded Middle Fallacy, but I see you're already well acquainted.

OK, so if moving money for murderous drug gangs shouldn't get the organization disbanded because innocent tellers would become unemployed as a result, what would it take? Find me the "middle" interpretation of what Alt-F4 said that I "excluded".. it sure looks like he's saying said laundering isn't reason enough to do that.

Have you read the 1st Amendment yet?

Is it relevant to what I'm saying yet? I'm talking about crimes and corporate charters, I get the feeling you'd prefer to talk about Citizens' United but to do so you'll be talking to either yourself or to Ginger, not to me. Corporate personhood is a much older concept, which I have no problem with if it's not one-sided. I don't oppose first amendment rights for corporations, I oppose corporations being given other rights and privileges that regular citizens lack (like the apparent disconnect in legal responsibility and criminal accountability).

 

[Alt+F4]

Find me the "middle" interpretation of what Alt-F4 said that I "excluded".. it sure looks like he's saying said laundering isn't reason enough to do that.

Off topic, but don't make assumptions. I'm a woman.
Gonna have to go back to my old avatar.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

So an "entity named Wachovia" did it. Who is it you would like to see prosecuted? Wells Fargo's 250,000 employees?

Anyone who can be personally tied to the crime first and foremost, which according to people here seems to be "nobody". So, failing that let's prosecute the corporation itself.

The tens of thousands of investors who own Wells Fargo stock, after all, they own the corporation.

Prosecute the shareholders? Obviously not, but shareholders losing money on their investment if Wachovia's charter were revoked and assets liquidated as a result of a criminal judgement is a pretty flimsy reason to avoid doing it.

(edit)

Off topic, but don't make assumptions. I'm a woman.
Gonna have to go back to my old avatar.

Acknowledged, yes the bearded lego Jedi did throw me off. I'll try and modify my pronoun usage.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Perhaps you should phone a federal prosecutor about this knowledge you have?

Make your case to the feds then. I hope you have a more convincing argument than you've made here.

Prosecutors already know, they never got a chance to make the case in a court of law. It seems my links are invisible. Don't read this if you don't want to but I'm not saying anything that's a big secret. And believe me IMO "taking it up with the feds" is a GREAT idea. There's a major problem here, what do you think we should do about it? Or have we "done enough" with piddly noncriminal fines?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs

 

[WildCat]

OK, so if moving money for murderous drug gangs shouldn't get the organization disbanded because innocent tellers would become unemployed as a result, what would it take? Find me the "middle" interpretation of what Alt-F4 said that I "excluded".. it sure looks like he's saying said laundering isn't reason enough to do that.

It will take facts and evidence. I couldn't get your Guardian link to load, maybe you could quote the relevant parts? Your strongest evidence?

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

It will take facts and evidence. I couldn't get your Guardian link to load, maybe you could quote the relevant parts? Your strongest evidence?

Actually try this link, it appears my browser is forgiving a minor error in the URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs (edit: I'll go up and fix the ones I can)

During a 22-month investigation by agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and others, it emerged that the cocaine smugglers had bought the plane with money they had laundered through one of the biggest banks in the United States: Wachovia, now part of the giant Wells Fargo.

The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveller's cheques and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts. Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme. Of special significance was that the period concerned began in 2004, which coincided with the first escalation of violence along the US-Mexico border that ignited the current drugs war.

Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year's "deferred prosecution" has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.

More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn – a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national product – into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business.

"Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations," said Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor. Yet the total fine was less than 2% of the bank's $12.3bn profit for 2009.

The article also talks about Martin Woods, whistle-blower and former director of Wachovia Corp.'s anti-money-laundering unit in London:

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/61169668/

Again, they apparently are going to get away with this, but I'm damned unhappy about that.

 

[WildCat]

The article also talks about Martin Woods, whistle-blower and former director of Wachovia Corp.'s anti-money-laundering unit in London:

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/61169668/

So your example of a bank "getting away with whatever" is a bank that was investigated by multiple federal agencies and which paid the largest fine ever imposed on a bank under the bank secrecy act?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'd like to see Citizens United overturned, unless you can show me how I can go to the funeral for a corporation and be assured that it is dead and buried. Or to electrocute one. Or to have on catch cancer of the pancreas.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

So your example of a bank "getting away with whatever" is a bank that was investigated by multiple federal agencies and which paid the largest fine ever imposed on a bank under the bank secrecy act?

We're talking about $378 billion in transfers here. Now, I don't know what the budget of your average narco-terrorist army is, but with negligence that big I don't care. The worst-case scenarios get pretty awful. We can hope Wachovia wasn't enabling most of the financing for these murderers (they easily could have been with those figures), but hope is all we can do now. If you think a couple hundred million in fines is an appropriate or meaningful response or will deter others from these same activities I will have no further motive to discuss this with you. Our worldviews would at that point be mutually exclusive and I'll have no choice but "agree to disagree".

(edit)This entire conversation has been about one of many things I said in response to Skeptic_Ginger on the previous page. I may have reached the end of my rope on this matter, but will try and stop by tomorrow to see if anything else I've said is responded to.

 

[WildCat]

I'd like to see Citizens United overturned, unless you can show me how I can go to the funeral for a corporation and be assured that it is dead and buried. Or to electrocute one. Or to have on catch cancer of the pancreas.

Have you ever read the 1st Amendment?

 

[WildCat]

We're talking about $378 billion in transfers here. Now, I don't know what the budget of your average narco-terrorist army is, but with negligence that big I don't care. The worst-case scenarios get pretty awful. We can hope Wachovia wasn't enabling most of the financing for these murderers (they easily could have been with those figures), but hope is all we can do now. If you think a couple hundred million in fines is an appropriate or meaningful response or will deter others from these same activities I will have no further motive to discuss this with you. Our worldviews would at that point be mutually exclusive and I'll have no choice but "agree to disagree".

How much do banks make transferring money? You must know the answer, otherwise you coulodn't make these claims, yes?

(edit)This entire conversation has been about one of many things I said in response to Skeptic_Ginger on the previous page. I may have reached the end of my rope on this matter, but will try and stop by tomorrow to see if anything else I've said is responded to.

It sucks when your Exhibit A of a bank "getting away with whatever" is a bank that got fined a record amount after investigations by multiple federal agencies.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

How much do banks make transferring money? You must know the answer, otherwise you coulodn't make these claims, yes?

May as well get it out of the way tonight if you're really digging in your heels where it looks like you are. For you this is about the profit for Wachovia, not the drug trafficking and murder it enabled? Not the effect is had? See my previous post.

It sucks when your Exhibit A of a bank "getting away with whatever" is a bank that got fined a record amount after investigations by multiple federal agencies.

I repeat, if you think several hundred million is a meaningful or appropriate response given the scale of this crime and the terrorists involved, not whether it's "a record amount after blah blah blah" (paraphrasing), then you and I are done here. I can't imagine a single grain of common ground I could ever find with you on this topic.

 

[WildCat]

May as well get it out of the way tonight if you're really digging in your heels where it looks like you are. For you this is about the profit for Wachovia, not the drug trafficking and murder it enabled? Not the effect is had? See my previous post.

Perhaps you have access to information the prosecution doesn't? Have you contacted them?

I repeat, if you think several hundred million is a meaningful or appropriate response given the scale of this crime and the terrorists involved, not whether it's "a record amount after blah blah blah" (paraphrasing), then you and I are done here. I can't imagine a single grain of common ground I could ever find with you on this topic.

Again, if you have evidence of your claims you should contact a federal prosecutor.

Will you be doing so?

 

[Checkmite]

Have you ever read the 1st Amendment?

Several times.

Are you just in a cryptic mood today?

 

[Brainster]

Getting back to the Occupy A Park That Isn't On Wall Street folks, I can across this 99% Declaration; not sure if it's official, but worth discussing.

Essential elements of the plan are as follows:

1. National convention to take place starting July 4, 2012 in Philly. Two delegates (one male, one female) to be elected from each congressional district. The delegates will come up with a Petition of Grievances, which they will submit to the Congress.

2. If the grievances are not acted upon to their satisfaction, they will form a third party and run in all 435 congressional districts in 2014.

There is a long list of proposed grievances, but none are binding as yet; they are just includedin the declaration as samples.

More info here.

Observations: Essentially they plan to do nothing for the next two years or so; what a shock! The third-party threat is silly, particularly as it is focused on the House of Representatives. I do like this proposal:

11. Immediate passage of the Dream Act and comprehensive immigration and border security reform including offering visas, lawful permanent resident status and citizenship to the world’s brightest People to come and work in our industries and schools.

Dummies need not apply.

 

[JihadJane]

Because these fools don't even know what they are talking about. The link below shows a protestor this weekend holding a sign that says, "Chase, give us our money back". Ummm.....Chase repaid the TARP money (with interest) over two years ago! How can problems be solved if people are too ignorant to even try to figure out what they are?

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/15/141382468/occupy-wall-street-inspires-worldwide-protests

Teach-ins and discussion is largely what the Occupy movement is about, e.g. : 'Do you idiots realize that Chase paid back every penny of bailout money plus $800MM in interest?', http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-you-idiots-realize-that-chase-paid-back-every-p/

Propagandistic name-calling might increase tumescence but it doesn't make you right or guarantee that the same labels cannot be applied to you.

Chase may well have paid back part of a gift that it didn't need in the first place. Other banks and insurance companies haven't. Chase's TARP money windfall was a tiny amount when compared to its supposed assets but the taxpayer still foots the bill, even now it's "paid back". It used the money to enrich and expand itself rather than ease lending and returned it via parasitic financial shuffling games, giving nothing back to the economy.

More importantly, the banks received other bailouts and subsidies which they (including Chase) will likely never pay back (details in first article linked to, below)


"""When all of the different bailouts and subsidies given to the big banks are added up, it is obvious that they have not come anywhere close to "paying back" what we gave to them."""

'No, The Big Banks Have Not "Paid Back" Government Bailouts and Subsidies'



"""Here's the thing: Even today, CNBC is still talking about "recapitalizing the banks." What's "recapitalize" mean? It means steal from you. See, the reason you need to "recapitalize" these firms is that they*********** away their own capital by doing dangerous, risky, even fraudulent things."""

OWS: The Risks Facing America Today


Earlier in the thread, as well as insanely claiming that protestors were sleeping in their own feces, you brought up the general problem of sewage and how it disgusted you to see buckets of **** and piss wandering around, looking for a home. What's your solution? I understand that the New York protestors have already set up a grey-water treatment system.

 

[JihadJane]

JihadJane's linked article comparing OWS with the Arab Spring is especially a howler, considering that the Arab Spring movements all have and had very specific demands.

Not at the beginning, they didn't. They were similarly criticized for not having specific demands while they burnt down police stations and then stopped people sleeping with their noises.