Thread: Occupy Wall Street around the world.... Your thoughts and feelings about it!

Originally Posted by kidkboom

Eric, I personally can see quite a few reasons why the powers that banks are given, in the US especially but by dint of Hanna's words possibly abroad as well, should be clipped... Of course, I understand the Wells-Fargo/Pinkerton end of banking - that if the norm wasn't credit cards and checkings and savings accounts and direct-deposits, then burglars, bandits and thieves would be a bigger concern for you and I, the average citizen with personal holdings.

How it is, though, that hiring a bodyguard for your wealth became not only NORMAL but indeed a BYGONE CONCLUSION ACROSS THE WORLD, I don't really understand.. nay, I do understand how it happened, but I'm not a supporter of where it's gotten to.

Reason #1 why Banks' power (and the auxiliary groups, and their respective powers, granted to every financial market and substrate that they've hatched since coming into their own in the 1800s) should be clipped: Madoff.

Reason #2 why Banks' power should be clipped: A history of ridiculous feduciary greenlights between private Banks, the US Government and its many limbs, and the National Treasury (which, on that note, should be one pink piece of paper on the floor in an empty fort knox, reading: "I.O.U. - U.S.S. Grant").

Reason #3 why Banks' power should be clipped: the long explanation given here (The Raw Story | Corrupt banking and the fake war on terror ), though I wouldn't recommend hardcore skeptics to NOT read this, just because the pursed aperture of a closed mind could make this a headache-causing read.

As an aside... thanks to everyone who's being civil in this discussion. As long as we proceed in that manner, we can learn a lot from each other and not have a need to harbor negative sentiments.

Kidkboom,
Why do you mention a "civil discussion" and then say crap like this:

"though I wouldn't recommend hardcore skeptics to NOT read this, just because the pursed aperture of a closed mind could make this a headache-causing read."


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

Scott

Originally Posted by fortheether

Kidkboom,
Why do you mention a "civil discussion" and then say crap like this:

"though I wouldn't recommend hardcore skeptics to NOT read this, just because the pursed aperture of a closed mind could make this a headache-causing read."

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

Scott

Oh, I see what you mean, Scott - excuse my phrasing - that's meant as just a general statement.. A lot of my own personal friends are also hard-core skeptics, and their first approach to anything tinged conspiratorial is to doubt or dismantle it... Well, for those types, this link would be a headache.

I didn't mean it to be directed at you or at anybody in particular ..

PS - I also noticed I let slip a double negative by mistake... I meant to say "I *would* recommend that HC skeptics *not* read..." not the "wouldn't/not" combo I passed off as proper English in my quote above, hehehe.. sorry about that.