its kind of hard to read maybe you could put the link .
Another good example is Obama's ex-bff Jon Corzine, who stole a cool $1.2 billion and of course he's still at large.
Jon Corzine was Obama's chief fundraiser, thanks to his access to Wall Street cronies.
Clip of Biden saying he calls Jon Corzine for advice, because he knew about the economy unlike anyone they knew.
Then Jon Corzine takes his company to bankruptcy and steals depositors money.
Was it really necessary for you to make this political?
Hey.... Nice to see you out walking the Goldfish my friend... I have missed your wisdom here for some time.... hope your life is keeping you well... take care.. PD
Hey, PD! I'm walking the Goldfish indeed. I missed you too, pal; it's great to see you hanging on to your wit as a companion to your wisdom. I'll trot over to one of your Hubs in a few minutes.
Don't you think Cagsil is on to a great issue here?
It's not accurate to say that Corzine stole anyone's money, at least not in the sense of pocketing investors' money himself. Customers' deposits with MFGlobal which were supposed to be sequestered were transferred to JPMorgan in order to meet a MFGlobal margin call in its own account resulting from bad bets on European bonds. This was a violation. Corzine has denied that he authorized the transfer of $175 million of customers' money to JPMorgan. Another report said that $1.6 billion of customer money was missing.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/ … m_20120326
"Neither Ms. O’Brien, Mr. Corzine nor anyone else at MF Global has been accused of wrongdoing." [Yet.] It's still possible that criminal charges may be brought against Corzine and/or others from MFGlobal.
The funds were supposed to be segregated, that is untouchable.
Of course he denies it, because its illegal.
The "regulators" are in his pocket just like Obama, which is why they don't bring charges.
True. Segregated investor funds were illegally used by MFGlobal to meet a JPMorgan Chase margin call. I don't think Corzine is in the clear. Last I read they are still investigating. Corzine is a Democrat who supported Obama's election, but I don't think this gets him a free pass. He could end up in prison yet. Somebody will, I'm pretty sure of that.
Perhaps I'm more cynical, but it recently happened again
http://www.suntimes.com/business/137416 … -test.html
If the perpetrators aren't punished, then this has the potential to destroy the futures market, and raise the prices that you and me pay for everything.
That just about sums up the whole of the current administration’s policies. I thought it might be a good idea...ooops it wasn't, oh well let’s try again...after all we can just print more money right! or we can just add more regulations and taxes...same same.
I also don't think it's a coincidence that the dude on the left is white and the one on the right is black.
The real problem (and I voted for Obama in 2008) is that both parties are factions of the Wall Street Party, with only minor differences on social issues to differentiate them. There is a corporate oligarchy that controls the political process as well as how the media covers it. Why else would people in the Tea Party be so opposed to their own self-interests?
Say what you will about Occupy Wall Street (they should get jobs, etc.), they have raised awareness of the fact that monied interests have corrupted the political system. It's easy to fault the politicians, but they all want to stay in office, and that takes money, and if someone donates a big chunk of change, you're gonna listen to them.
What's needed is radical campaign finance reform. Eliminate private money from elections, and fund them publicly and with very limited funds. Also, members of Congress should be banned from becoming lobbyists after they leave Congress, and former lobbyists should not be eligible for cabinet positions.
I didn't reply to the last forum comment you left in reply to mine, because you just deflected. Maybe you would be good in politics. I never took the time to do more than a quick scan of your profile, so I’m sorry to offend you. Honestly if someone has too much to say about themselves I grow tired. Don’t forget to laugh, maybe I can help again.
Ok to the point… Where did you find this, OWS homepage on facebook? The penal institution here in America is possibly one of the most f’d of all government institutions. We should just accept sharia law, or revert to Hammurabi’s code, and then they both would be dead. Actually the guy that stole the tv would just be missing a body part or two, so everyone would be happy the “1%er” is gone.
How do we successfully reform anything these days?
Why can’t skeletons play music in church?
They need organs to play!…..Just in case the above didn’t it for you.
Good to know.
I got it from Facebook, but no particular homepage. Someone posted it and I wanted to use it as an example. Nothing more, nothing less.
Unfortunately, it's not an easy thing to do today because America is so divided. But, I still think it could be done as long as common ground, such as equality on an economic front is establish, as well as, equal rights.
Would be funny and I'm sure it is for some. However, I don't find it funny.
Guess I’m going to have to be a little more creative for a laugh next time. That was my go to g rated joke.
What does economic equality mean to you? Briefly please, because all truths are truly simple.
I, of course, hope that no one accepts this as being ok - justice must be blind in it's apprehension and unbiased in it's distribution or it is not justice at all. But introducing notions about a 1% and pitting one criminal and crime against another as more virtuous is itself not blind and unbiased. There is, by practical necessity, a distinction to be made between one who steals millions from many people and one who steals a hundred from one person - but nobody is a good guy here.
Today too many have succumbed to the 'noble savage' notion . . . the idea that those who are less in some manner, less in number (a minority), less in wealth, less in whatever, have within them some natural virtue that a White rich guy can't possibly have - that is just as ignorant, biased, racist, etc, as any Klan-type racism. Putting this in economic or racial terms only feeds the ugliness of the lack of genuine justice - we need to clean-house and fight for authentic justice that is blind to financial achievement or race. If someone steals millions from lots of people he's a bad guy and should be stopped and punished - if someone steals a tv from a local shop he's a bad guy and should be stopped and punished . . . with the punishment being appropriate for the crime and the criminal (repeat offenders, etc).
Well, it's been happening for a long time and very few have done anything about it.
For evil to succeed, good men(and women) only need to do nothing.
I agree . . . my concern is just that many rightly recognize the evil, but are quick to hop on the assumptive bandwagon politicians advance and simply point fingers at rich White guys and corporations as the villains - and that kind of non-critical knee-jerk reaction just isn't going to solve the real problems that many are truly hurting from.
My only implication for this thread is to honestly show how equal application of Law isn't actually done.
I appreciate that - again, I simply tremble at both our points; that an equal application of law isn't always practiced, and that an easy knee-jerk assumption faulting rich White guys or corporations contributes more harm rather than pointing to any solution.
You seem to think that I've not a solution or answer, and that would be further from the truth about my activity than anything else.
Cagsil ~ I'm not addressing at all if you might or might not have a solution to the problem of unequal justice - I'm only asserting that an easy knee-jerk assumption faulting rich White guys or corporations, which is too common a sentiment today, is no solution.
I'm not faulting your original assertion or undermining the validity of your point - I was only using your reasonable charge to remind us all of a collateral bit of ugliness, another form of bias and assumption, etc.
I'm not faulting rich White guys or corporations. You've made a poor assumption(knee-jerk as it is).
Anything and everything I do is for other people and people who know me, knows this. If you don't like the ugliness or any other form of what you consider bias and assumption, then don't take part in the forum thread which display what you think you see.
I make no bones about my work and that equality on the economic front and equal rights(which also includes equal application of the laws) is what's most important.
You're not helping anything in this thread by repeating yourself.
. . . well then, I suppose I'll apologize and bow out - I'll only (forgive me) reassert that I was not assuming that you were faulting rich White guys or assuming anything else about you, and I am sorry if I was not clear about that . . . I was addressing a circumstance I see all the time that is associated with the concern that you presented here.
Because in a system we see to favor rich white guys, controlled by rich white guys, for the benefit of rich white guys we should blame someone else right?
Just like when America was originally founded. It was done so by a bunch of white guys who disguised their actions, while telling people equality and equal rights was the primary concern.
Yet, equality and equal rights has never come to be.
(if I may - staying on subject)
"America . . . equality and equal rights has never come to be"
. . . but, more so here and now(ish) than anywhere or at any time else - right?
Equality and equal rights is not a sliding scale and it certainly should not be a gradual proces either everyone is equal or none of us are equal.
Absolutely - but men are corrupt, we have not (historically) treated everyone equal, we are (hopefully) a maturing race, we are not (here and now, generally) as bad at this as we used to be . . . in other words, America has failed in it's announced design, it has not lived-up to it's high goals, etc - but we (mankind, civilization) have gotten closer in the experiment called 'America' then anywhere or any time else, right?
No. It's more obvious now that equality and equal rights are not the foundation of America and never has been, which is what has made people grow in awareness and dislike government, it's distortion tactics and much of the misinformation passed along to the general public.
Remember, when America was founded, equality and equal rights were supposedly the best foundation to grow America, however, women were not allowed to vote and blacks were still slaves.
It's my work which is help grow that awareness and increase the individuals' knowledge about such BS going on in America.
I understand and easily agree with all your points, no women & no Blacks were included, and so, there was no real equality - but when they said "We the people" that was a step, they were not saying 'we the landowners' or 'we the titled', etc, it was a step. The reason America evidences such a failure to practice true equality is because we've come that much closer to it than anyone else, our failure glares against how far we (man) have come and what the ideals are that we set before ourselves.
Look at gender and race and religious liberty and equality of treatment in other parts of the world - we've not lived-up to our asserted ideals, but our progressive steps should be recognized while those lingering in the 17th century should be noted . . . it just seems to me we are now on the back-swing against the 'my country right or wrong' sentiment and relishing a 'we're always the bad guy' sentiment, when the historic reality is that we are hugely (comparatively speaking) the good guys.
Equality isn't equal rights. Please learn the difference.
We the people- it's was a step yes, but not as it was supposed to be.
You have no clue the extent of this statement and for me to have to explain it to you? Is actually quite scary in and of itself.
I'm not sure I understand this particular statement.
Good guys? You're joking right?
True, but we have a ways to go compared to several other countries.
Bravo, Cagsil! You do have a way of spotlighting the core issues. I agree that our society's worship of cash (in my country too) has sidetracked us from pursuing the ideal of justice for all.
LOL. The crimes are not even close to equal. Wiping out the life savings of multiple because of your greed, and stealing someone's TV as a petty criminal are hardly cases that can be described as needing "equal justice."
Critical thinking is dying.
. . . critical in fact seems dead, in some folks.
I very specifically and intentionally said both "There is, by practical necessity, a distinction to be made between one who steals millions from many people and one who steals a hundred from one person" and ". . . the punishment being appropriate for the crime and the criminal", so how you "LOL"ingly assert that I suggested that these two crimes are comparable is, well, either lacking in critical thinking or reading comprehension.
And I'll say again, non-critical knee-jerk reaction just isn't going to solve the real problems that many are truly hurting from.
"But introducing notions about a 1% and pitting one criminal and crime against another as more virtuous is itself not blind and unbiased. There is, by practical necessity, a distinction to be made between one who steals millions from many people and one who steals a hundred from one person - but nobody is a good guy here."
Who said one crime was virtuous and more so than the other? REALLY? Who claimed that it was more "virtuous" to steal a TV than steal thousands of people's life savings? And you call into question my reading comprehension? Ha.
You said, one is not more virtuous than the other, and both are bad guys. It is beyond comprehension and human reason to suggest that. You are completely contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say, there has to be a distinction, and on the other, you say one is not more virtuous than the other. Which is it?
And why are you ignoring the fact that people who steal TVs and are arrested, often DO NOT get away with it, while wall-street criminals do. No bank CEOs have been arrested yet. But, if I were to go into Wal-Mart, and steal one of their TVs, I would be arrested, and probably have to serve a little bit of time, and it wouldn't take 10 years to do an "investigation" to figure it out. You're completely missing the point of the picture.
There's no need to get your boxing gloves on, Sooner. You and Mickey are saying the same thing. I know you're a good person; why don't you show that to people in this discussion?
Sooner28 ~ I think I may be misrepresenting my point here, let me ask you this to clarify if we genuinely disagree on anything here or if we're just misunderstanding each other; say 2 guys hold-up a mini-mart and each points his gun at a clerk and fires, one misses while the other hits his target and the clerk dies - do you count either of those 2 criminals as more or less virtuous than the other?
(and, in all these posts, when I say one is virtuous and another is not, etc, I'm not asserting anything about the totality of their character - I'm only addressing the virtue or evil of their act, this particular incident)
Sooner28, this is no trick question or trap, I am asking honestly - if you supply a straightforward answer to my question I will share with you my own view and we can see where we might actually disagree or agree.
Okay, you're using the terminology again. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. What exactly do you mean when you call a crime virtuous? That sounds contradictory, but I'm open to your explanation.
If you are asking which one is worse, I'd say the guy who was successful. If I were to claim otherwise, it would be similiar to, if you were in an altercation with two different people, and one swung at you and missed, and the other swung and hit you, that both are equally guilty. The guy who hit you is obviously worse, even if it's just by chance. The law makes the same distinction with attempted murder vs actual murder.
Sooner28 ~ thank you, I appreciate your forthright response. When I referenced one crime as being cast as more virtuous than another I wasn't asserting that any crime at all is actually virtuous - my point was that we should count all crime as noxious and seek to dispense proper justice against any and all crime, not use one crime to portray another as particularly vile. In other words, if a poor inner-city Black guy steals a tv he should be properly charged, receive a fair trial, and live with the consequences of his own actions - regardless if some rich White guy is given special treatment. The solution here is to make sure everyone, Black or White and stealing a little or a lot, receives the results of genuine justice - the solution is not to switch who we're harsh with and who we're lenient with or to make the issue race against race or economic class against economic class.
I understand that the issue itself may be race, etc, but the only workable solution remains making sure there is fair and equal justice for all - not a reverse bias. So my point wasn't that any crime is virtuous, but that we treat crime that way, as if one crime is more virtuous (or less vile) than another any time any manner of bias is applied . . . whether it's applying understanding to a minority stealing a small amount or to a White guy stealing tons. Neither is more or less virtuous.
Now, I acknowledge that one crime might have a greater consequence to others, some crimes provide little harm and to only one person while other crimes cause great harm to many people - but the result of the criminal's actions don't define the moral nature of his action, the moral nature of his actions define the moral nature of his actions. In other words, if a criminal acts on an internal selfishness disregarding the welfare of his victim, that is a bad thing he did whether the consequences are big or small.
That's my point about the two robbing a mini-market. I don't understand how you can conclude that when two guys raise a gun and aim it at another person and pull the trigger, that the one who is a better shot or just gets 'lucky' is worse, has made a more evil choice, than the one who missed. They both did the same thing, made the same decision, how can one be a worse guy because he's a better shot?
If someone doesn't move their foot in time and accidentally trips me and I fall and twist my ankle, and if another guy shoves his foot out in front of me trying to trip me but I catch myself and don't stumble, shouldn't I be angry at the guy who intended to harm me but failed and not be angry at all with the guy who intended me no harm at all but accidentally injured me? Wrong is wrong regardless of the consequences. We have to prosecute with reference to the consequences to deter criminals from doing greater harm to larger numbers, so people thinking of stealing a tv need to be punished (and so discouraged from trying it) 'this' much while people stealing the retirement and life savings of scores of people need to be punished (and so discouraged from trying it) 'THIS' much - but the moral action of disregarding the interest of another and taking whatever you want for yourself is the same regardless of size, amount, etc.
What do you want to bet the police did not apprehend the white dude and the DA didn't prosecute the case in criminal court.
It's not that easy to prove someone "stole" $2.5 million.
And someone who's playing in that league can of course afford the best defense attorneys.
Which really only goes to prove your point, Cags.
The 1% even have their own rarified court process.
There are absolutely two different Court systems, one is for individuals with a hired Attorney representing the best interests of their client, the other is for individuals with an Attorney paid for by the government, which also looks out for the best interest of their client. The first is granted trials and grand juries, the second must succumb to a plea deal that is in the best interest of the government. The second scenario's actual client.
The only chance a poor person has for actual justice is to acquire a pro bono rep! High profile cases!
It is difficult to have a fair trial when your prosecutor, your judge, and your attorney, are all the same entity.
Cagsil ~ (as we ran out of space, I hope you don't mind me starting again here so I can offer a response) "Equality isn't equal rights. . We the people- it's was a step yes, but not as it was supposed to be. You have no clue the extent of this statement and for me to have to explain it to you? Is actually quite scary in and of itself. I'm not sure I understand this particular statement.
Good guys? You're joking right? "
Don't you think, maybe, that your condescending manner is exactly representative of the kind of thing you might most eagerly point your finger at as an ugliness of 'Americansim'? We are two different lives and two different views, and for my part I am merely trying to better understand your view and make sure you accurately know my view - all your "Please learn the difference" and "You have no clue the extent of . . ." and ". . . to have to explain it to you", etc, it seems to me, is just the kind of narrow-minded belligerent approach I would imagine you might attribute to the conservative patriot. I make no assumptions, and certainly no accusations - I say 'it seems to me' and 'I would imagine you might'.
My thinking (on the point in question) is this; I think if you view America as a contemporary American who recognizes our many faults you might be frustrated that others don't seem to recognize and admit to those very real shortcomings, that it may seem an ugly thing to wave the flag and promote America as something great when so many are discriminated against and do not share in the same opportunities, etc. But I'm thinking, not as a contemporary American with a vested interest in my 'home team' so to speak - I'm thinking as a man, a member of humanity, and looking at the historic development and the current circumstance of civilization. I think, if the proverbial spaceman who has studied earth's history and has no favorites in the world today would visit and talk to Americans who see America as the bad guy, he would be astoundingly befuddled at how we could come to such a ludicrous conclusion.
If you compare America to the kind of virtuous goals America has educated the world to strive for, then America is bad and has failed and is not so great at all - but if you compare America with past cultures and civilizations and against current nations of the world, America is easily and without question the good guys . . . we, failing as we do, are man's best foot forward so far. We need vast improvement, we need to live-up to our own set forth standard, etc - but compared to the history of mankind, to mark us as anything less than the best advancement so far is emotion-driven bias and not dealing with the facts. Just because someone celebrates that we ended slavery doesn't mean that they don't deplore that we ever practiced slavery, in fact, it kind of evidences exactly that.
The left doesn't more rightly understand America's evil while the right ignores or excuses it . . . we all know stealing the land from Native Americans and enslaving a whole race of people, etc, etc, etc, was/is evil - when the left thinks it has to 'educate' the right because they are stupid and don't 'get' it or that the right is simply evil and doesn't care, they are totally missing the truth and are hindering any solutions that might actually help those in need and hurting rather than building to a better way.
Condescending manner? Interesting you said this, isn't that what you normally do every time you open your mouth? So, I guess it would be your own reflection you're seeing. That is one of the things wrong with your post I was responding to, when I said that YOU keep talking about something you know nothing about.
Equality and Equal rights are two different things and yet you're calling me condescending when I tell you that you don't know what you're talking about? Absurd really.
Well, what would you like me to say to you when you speak nonsense.
How in the world did you get that I was waving the America Flag or promoting America as something great? It's not.
Good for you, but you're still using words which apparently you lack knowledge about, which is my problem with many of your statements.
Yet another paragraph that shows way too much of the distortion and misinformation which has been spread over 2 centuries in this country.
Really? Stolen land? Who did the Native Americans steal the land from?
I guess you've never understood my position, ever. I'm not left nor right.
"Condescending manner? . . . isn't that what you normally do every time you open your mouth?"
Cagsil, if I've presented myself in a condescending manner I do apologize - I don't see where I've done this, certainly not every time I open my mouth, but if I have it was unintentional and I am sorry. To me, from my reading, I see you saying things like "please learn . . ." and "you have no clue" while I am saying things like "it seems to me". I don't understand why we can't see things differently and discuss it without introducing the idea that one guy is just stupid because he doesn't agree with you.
"Equality and Equal rights are two different things and yet you're calling me condescending when I tell you that you don't know what you're talking about? Absurd really."
First, I don't know where you get the idea that I make no distinction between 'equality' and 'equal rights', but even if that were the case, even if they seem the very same thing to me, why not simply share your own view of the distinction rather than defending that it's not being condescending, or arguing that it's ok to be condescending and assert that I don't know what I'm talking about. Cagsil, when you say that we (America) are essentially bad or more bad than good, etc, I don't reply that you don't know what you're talking about and please learn your history and you don't realize how difficult it is for me to properly educate you, etc, etc - that would be condescending, that would be me imagining that I know you and your capabilities and assuming myself your superior. Instead, I talk to you like we are equals and we simply see some things differently.
"How in the world did you get that I was waving the America Flag or promoting America as something great?"
I didn't and didn't say or suggest that you were.
You say I "keep talking about something you (I) know nothing about" - you don't know what I know or what I don't know. I know history and I know a bit about the historic development of philosophic and political thought . . . it is ludicrous to thoroughly and honestly consider the historic development of civilization and conclude Americas to be the 'bad guys', and it's ludicrous to thoroughly and honestly consider the historic development of ideas and not recognize the experiment of self-governance in America and the personal liberty and responsibility it established as a giant step forward for mankind.
To count America as 'bad guys' means that the rest of all of humanity is only and always the most vile demons imaginable. America is bad, we have done much wrong and are not at all what we should be - but we are nonetheless leading the way for mankind to enjoy a better, more just tomorrow. To point to America as a 'bad guy' in today's world is like pointing to a rapist and faulting him as a bad dresser - it is so missing the big picture that it in the end simply makes no sense at all.
Some people are just more defensive than others. Don’t expect Cags to be on the receiving end of any criticism without a full rebuttal/belittlement session. I’ve noticed a lot of people here like that, including myself from time to time. The two of you provided for some good entertainment.
We all hope to input our ideas of how to fix things. Good thing the Hubber’s aren’t all put in a room and asked to agree. We would probably put politicians to shame.
. . . and, wouldn't it be a real drag if we were all the same? I just always wonder at folks who can't disagree pleasantly, and even with a bit of humility. If we now think the same way about everything as we did 20 years ago then what have we been doing the last 20 years . . . and if we think in 20 years just as we think now on all points, then will we have done with those 20 years . . ? To me, that means that right now, we're undoubtedly not so smart as we think.
I assume I'm wrong on many points and I discuss things with those who disagree with me in the hope of contributing to my understanding (and not wasting my time on earth) . . . I simply am always surprised and dumbfounded when people get belligerent and accusatory when they bump into folks who don't see things just as they do. Isn't that a big part of most of the problems we face . . ? . . people dismissing and insulting those they don't agree with, rather than trying to learn and work together against the actual troubles?
by ga anderson 10 days ago
I don't really have his opinion, but I do have a clerk's description of what it was.I caught an interview segment of Fox's Neil Cavuto with Justice Scalia's son, Chris.A clerk of Scalia's, Jan Samuals, paraphrased something that Scalia said, or intimated to his clerks. It was said that several...
by Sharlee 12 days ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
by chipsball 8 years ago
Having survived the "Rites of Passage of an African-American Teenager in America" myself as a teenager and having raised four African-Americans teenagers in America I feel so blessed today that none of them ever encountered George Zimmerman. Nor having them ever being judged by the jurors...
by Rev Bruce S Noll HMN 6 years ago
Do you think the American legal system is designed to protect the criminal or the victim?Our constitution indicates that we have the right to a fair and speedy trial and that the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. Does that system still serve us adequately today?
by David Stillwell 9 years ago
Should women have the right to vote?Am working on my first political hub and gathering information. I would like to hear both sides of the opinionated coin about whether or not women should have the right to vote or if only men should vote and speak for their house. This ties a bit into religion...
by Kristen Burns-Darling 10 years ago
Do you believe that all men/women should have the equal right to thought and opinion?Recently engaged in a debate with someone who believes "The ideology of egalitarian -ness of thought and opinion is inherently dangerous, the murderer and the rapist should not have the right to think that...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|