No, I know they are. Your not going to add more rumour here are you? What are trying to say, every bank that has folded or that have been bailed out has Bush connections? I have attempted to see it from your POV but your not helping me I don't think, sorry.
sorry, i'm too busy to google and post a bunch of links to make it easy. the information is out there if you want to go get it. read up on jp morgan chase, for example, which has been very favored by the present administration. destabilizing other governments and economies is one way to give predatory friends control of the wealth of others, but destabilizing our own economy is certainly within the control of anyone who controls the government as well...with the same result. jp morgan chase has been very, very fortunate indeed under this administration. they've not only been given control of iraq's money, but now they have control of a sizable chunk of the US's money. and this after getting a mere slap on the wrist for their involvement in the enron scandal, lol. sure pays to have friends in high places.
Well, thanks for atleast mentioning a bank you are talking about. I'm not so far under a rock I don't appreciate the points you raise are out there (in one form or another), but IMO it is just rumour and speculation or if I wished to be harsh accusation...I don't think it is as quite straight forward or even fair what you say. I'll just say if the US gov' has allowed the economy to fall, purposely allowed banks to get into the state they are in then bailing them out - I think we might be getting into conspiracy territory. I'm a little busy myself, but when I have time I'll do some further research myself.
don't be afraid to get into 'conspiracy territory' as you call it. sometimes that's where your research will take you. when you check into the background of jp morgan chase, you'll see what i mean.
Getting back to the original contention....The martial law talked about in the video clip was regarding Congressional Martial Law, which is quite different than the Martial Law the executive branch can declare. Read the grey box on the right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0pTizzR7hE
tricky, tricky...well, building deniability into a plan is always good. regardless, it looks like the american military is preparing for action here in the US. Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1 "The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home." "They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control..." "The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets. “I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered,” said Cloutier, describing the experience as “your worst muscle cramp ever — times 10 throughout your whole body. “I’m not a small guy, I weigh 230 pounds ... it put me on my knees in seconds.” The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced “sea-smurf”). http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/
i posted the link to the article didn't i? you got a problem with me posting the portions that were relevant to the subject of the thread? the relevant facts remain: an army brigade has been deployed on american soil as an 'on call federal response team' which is equipped with spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic, beanbag bullets, tasers, shields and batons...and is being trained for dealing with civil unrest and crowd control. if you find that uninteresting, fine. go stick your head back in the sand. ps - the fact that they came back and denied what they originally said their intentions were after the fact doesn't exactly strike me as believable. but hey, thatz just me.
want a cookie ? yes i do, its called quote mining / cherry picking Assume the position. When and where did they do that?
can't imagine why you'd need help with this since you read the article so very carefully, but it's at the end of the article. "Correction: A non-lethal crowd control package fielded to 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, described in the original version of this story, is intended for use on deployments to the war zone, not in the U.S., as previously stated." (emphasis is mine)
The fact that this army brigade is HERE scares me, and I don't scare all that easily. I look around and think, ok... 1. we have a massive financial crisis hanging over our heads (and in my area winter is a very real concern with the added expense of heating our homes.) 2. we have an election, and we can assume every close state will be contested in court, and its unlikely we will know who won for weeks if not months. 3. we have Bush and his method of keeping us "safe" is well-established. Looking forward to January 20, 2009...
i thought maybe you had a link to the original article that didn't have the correction already added. Was trying to see if you were mislead or were misleading . Maybe you should have added (quote-mining by me) Is that why you rewrote it for us ? Your version wasn't very believable either.
i did not rewrite the article, and had no intention of misleading anyone. if i did, i probably wouldn't have posted the link so you could read it yourself. i was calling attention to the things in the article that i found interesting. since you see no value in anything i've posted, why don't you just run along? bye bye!
Spent some time looking into this. I can't find anything about JP Morgan Chase "destablising governments and economies." Neither anything (involving JP') about: "Destabilizing other governments and economies is one way to give predatory friends control of the wealth of others, but destabilizing our own economy is certainly within the control of anyone who controls the government as well." Well, apart from JP Morgan Chase being one of the biggest financial insitutions in the world. So obviously anything that occurs to them will ripple through out the financial markets. With out them I do wonder how other banks less able to weather the financial storm would fare: "JPMorgan gets control of the nation's largest thrift -- more than 5,000 branches in 23 states. It also assumes a highly stressed loan portfolio that could prompt a $31 billion write-down. JPMorgan would be in a position to limit such a hit by taking advantage of a bailout plan like the one Paulson crafted. However, analysts said the bank is strong enough -- it had $98.7 billion in capital at the end of the second quarter -- to shoulder the write-down on its own. "I don't think they need the government bailout to make WaMu work," said Len Blum, managing director of Westwood Capital. He expects the bank to benefit from the bailout in a more indirect way -- as strong banks will prosper in a more stable market environment." As for "control of Iraq's money" - all I could find there is that JP Morgan along with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Standard Chartered, National Bank of Kuwait, Bank Millennium, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, San Paolo IMI, Royal Bank of Canada, Crédit Lyonnais, Caja de Ahorros y Pensiones de Barcelona, Standard Bank Group, Akbank TAS and Banco Comercial Portugues...helped run " Trade Bank of Iraq" for three years. But, The Trade Bank of Iraq, is wholly owned by the Government of Iraq. When you have a few minutes perhaps you could help me out.
um...you're not likely to find mainstream sources that are gonna spell it out for ya if that's what you're looking for. Did you miss this post I made on page 3 of this thread? "it's pretty obvious they've been panicking us all. what kinda government goes on the media and spreads panic that causes a 10 day run on a 119 year old bank that causes it to topple. $16.7 billion dollars in deposits were withdrawn from washington mutual in 10 days while paulsen got on the news 50 times a day carping 'the sky is falling'. instead of taking quiet action to keep the country's economy stable, they irresponsibly (and in my opinion deliberately) destabilized everything further. then the government seized wamu and handed it over to the biggest bank in the nation jpmorgan chase, who now instantly has branches coast to coast for a song. they got assets of $300 billion for just under a couple of billion. and this right after gobbling up bear stearns." so what does that tell you? right when wamu and many other banks were struggling with the mortgage crisis, the secretary of the treasury spread panic on every news media outlet he can. this was obviously intentional. how could it not be? you'd have to be a brainless idiot not to anticipate that. then there's a bank run, of course, and the FDIC seizes wamu and hands 300 billion in assets over to good ol' jp morgan chase for less than 2 billion. so they're already 298 billion ahead of the game. that's a pretty nice plum, mortgage portfolio write down or no. wow, that is very naive. okay, i'll give you some hints. go look for Order 39. look for a dick cheney connection with jp morgan chase. look at who has served on the board of jp morgan chase. if you really want to find the answers, that oughta get you started, doubting thomas. :tongue: okay, my son is kicking me off the computer...that's all the time i have.
If you know the way through a maze it is easier to find the middle. I'm not looking specifically through "Mainstream sources." It is not like I'm tapping pertinent words into the BBC search bar or anything like that. Then going: "Well, gee whiz nothing is coming up there, that must mean nothing is going on." Though "Mainstream sources" do have have opinion pieces that articulate the points you have raised. No, perhaps you won't find it on the front pages. Basicaly because a lot of it IS opinion. Persoanlly I just search through google and a few other search engines, not really concerning myself too much about the source of the information..."mainstream" / "Indy" / "whatever". Well, obviously there are limits though; Infowars/Rense are off limits... No, I did not miss that post, I just did not spend enough time reading through it. I was not focusing on it too much, because I was pushed for time. I wanted to give it some thought and further consideration. Plus, have the time to do some digging around for myself. You may still think my response naive, perhaps even stupid. It will make me feel better knowing I have atleast taken the time to do my best responding to it. I don't think it was the government spreading panic (if they indeed did) that forced a run on Washington Mutual. If that was the case then more banks would have succomened to the same fate. Like the other banks that have been bailed out or taken over all over the world - it was a mixture of other banks refusing to loan money to each other and a general lack of confidence. Brought about by more than words from any President or Prime minister. Perhaps the time it took to come up with a bail out plan did affect the mood, I can appreciate that. But, it is the way the media reports these things that IMO causes more panic than anything else. "quiet action to keep the country's economy stable" turns into "dithering": (Have you noticed how "dither" is being used a lot nowadays?) EU dithers over a 'united response' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eu-dithers-over-a-united-response-954585.html Decline continues as US dithers over bail-out plan http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/marketforceslive/2008/sep/26/wallstreet.marketturmoil Record FTSE fall as government dithers http://money.uk.msn.com/investing/articles/morecommentary/article.aspx?cp-documentID=9953301 Washington Mutual - collapsed under the weight of its enormous bad bets on the U.S. mortgage market. It had also been left with with billions of dollars of debt because it heavily invested in selling risky subprime mortgages to customers who later defaulted on them. Just like many other banks who did the same thing. Their troubles have been apparent for atleast a year. I'm not quite sure how the age of the bank has any relevance here; does that point to good management? Prudence? Or just a wish not to see an old financial institution go under? Well, thankfully, it is not going under it has been saved from itself and its own decisions. Don't you think a bank is only as safe as it's current financial circumstances and able to continue based on the current board of directors decisions? Not the fact it is old (119 years in this case.) Most countries have seen old and relatively new banks taken over or bailed out, due to them taking the same risks as each other. Unlike a lot of banks in Spain, who have faired better and themselves stepped in to save banks in the UK (for instance.) (Not to say Spain is not in difficulties as well) Santander in £1.3bn Alliance and Leicester takeover Abbey and Alliance & Leicester (A&L) agreed a £1.3 billion deal yesterday that will change the face of high-street banking, leap-frogging rivals to become Britain's second-biggest mortgage lender. Spain's biggest banking group, Santander, yesterday galloped to the rescue of Bradford and Bingley, the latest British bank to hit the skids, saving it from bankruptcy and probably further economic meltdown. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&refer=uk&sid=aTBJa4IvamJc Santander never got embroiled in dodgy loans or toxic mortgages, which it regarded as too complicated and unacceptably risky. While the world financial system juddered under the fallout of subprime loans, Sanatander declared its exposure to high-risk mortgages as "zero". Botin loftily told his shareholders, "We don't have those strange things." http://www.independent.co.uk/extras...-rude-health-when-ours-are-ailing-946135.html Europe / North America / South America / Asia - all have banks that dominate the market and are better placed to weather this storm, while taking advantage of the situation (it is not out of compassion, obviously) during this period of economic crisis. Is two billion a lot or a little for banks that have huge debts and an uncertain future? I have no idea. But, the e.gs I give have all gone for similar amounts of money too. Does this point to all governments doing the same thing? I doubt that very very much. OK Thanks: http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000036.html CPA Order 39, entitled "Foreign Investment", provided that "A foreign investor shall be entitled to make foreign investments in Iraq on terms no less favorable than those applicable to an Iraqi investor," and that "the amount of foreign participation in newly formed or existing business entities in Iraq shall not be limited...." Additionally, the foreign investor "shall be authorized to... transfer abroad without delay all funds associated with its foreign investment, including shares or profits and dividends.... these policies accord with current international standards on foreign direct investment which most of the developed world adheres to" You did say: " they've been given control of iraq's money" Which a little bit of a stretch I still do think. I was right about who JP Morgan were working with and who actually owns the bank in question. That I don't think you can dispute (can you?.) I'm not naive enough to think JP Morgan or any bank is there for humaniterian reasons, good grief no. But "control of Iraq's money" - sorry, can't buy into that one. Increasing access to financial services:http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/USAID_Strategy.pdf
Do you want to write more than one line to explain that one. I promise to be on the ground floor on this one. I've got my own net access and am able to use Youtube.
