FDIC Admits To Strangling Legal Gun Stores Banking Relationships

[glenn1]

Was there criminal wrongdoing?

The Federal government can discriminate against legal business. Hell, taxing certain products at higher rates is discriminating against legal business.

What did the Federal government do that is illegal?

I'll remind you of that once a Republican is in office and starts having the regulatory agencies attempt similar tactics against abortion clinics, labor unions, and other legal businesses with 'inconvenient' political viewpoints. You seem very naive about this and oblivious to the fact that Republicans are much better at this than their counterparts and refine these type of tactics pioneered by Democrats and use them to much more vicious effect.

 

[rudeguy]

Because as a libruul, I'm clearly moocherin' and looterin' on your hard work.

Actually, I'm sitting in class right now and between taking notes and reading/commenting here, I'm not going to go read an article. So, I'll ask, since it isn't too difficult to post a short synopsis, or people will respond.

I came in here, and there's talk of criminal and confessions, yet if nothing was illegal, then there wasn't a crime. Terrible government policy, sure, but not crime.

I'm a lefty, but I'll be reasonable with people who are reasonable with me.

OK...you are going back on my idiot list.

You are why I normally don't address people until they've been here at least 3 years. I thought maybe you were an exception but instead you are an example.

Good job buddy.

 

[nickqt]

I'll remind you of that once a Republican is in office and starts having the regulatory agencies attempt similar tactics against abortion clinics, labor unions, and other legal businesses with 'inconvenient' political viewpoints. You seem very naive about this and oblivious to the fact that Republicans are much better at this than their counterparts and refine these type of tactics pioneered by Democrats and use them to much more vicious effect.

So, Republicans are worse than Democrats. Ok, I won't disagree. One party is corrupt and doesn't really care about the people, and the other one is made up of grifters and lunactics.

It doesn't make me naive that the government does this. In fact, I think I even said that the Federal government does this.

 

[rudeguy]

So you have time to write this post but not read the article? :hmm:

What an idiot. Instead of backing up his stance, he falls back on "well I didn't read the article".


Getting back on point: Isn't the whole reason we have 3 separate branches of government to prevent tyranny? Checks and balances to make sure that Americans are treated fairly and justly?

 

[nickqt]

OK...you are going back on my idiot list.

You are why I normally don't address people until they've been here at least 3 years. I thought maybe you were an exception but instead you are an example.

Good job buddy.

You've been here for over 3 years, have terrible reading comprehension, and make delusional accusations.

Good job buddy!

See ya in 3 years!

 

[nickqt]

What an idiot. Instead of backing up his stance, he falls back on "well I didn't read the article".

Man, you really are bad at reading.

I backed up my stance. I was asked why I didn't read the article. So I answered why.

My stance has been backed up the entire time.

There was no admitting of criminal wrongdoing. A Republican said so, and that doesn't mean shit. That isn't a confession from the FDIC, as someone valiantly posted in a comment.

I said if there was no criminal wrongdoing, then there wasn't a crime. That is backed up by the fact that by definition, if there was no criminal wrongdoing, there was no crime. Go figure.

And then I repeated that I don't support the government doing that.

But no, go on about tyrany of the big gub'mint while continuing to make accusations and reading words terribly. I'll leave you all to plan your next brilliant Benghazi.

 

[werepossum]

Again, where is the evidence of abuse? You propose to jail people without offering any evidence of a crime. Evidence first, please.

Pretty strong left wing bias if you continue insisting government did nothing wrong after government admits it did something wrong. Is this really the government you want, where the President decides he doesn't like a legal industry and sends out his minions to ruin them without due process?

EDIT: Does it make any difference that in this instance, they are going directly after a right government is supposed to protect?

Does it make any difference that the Obama administration did the same thing with the First Amendment, going after reporters whose stories they found inconvenient?

So you have time to write this post but not read the article? :hmm:

He's a lefty, he doesn't need data to know what he feels.

 

[IronWing]

Pretty strong left wing bias if you continue insisting government did nothing wrong after government admits it did something wrong. Is this really the government you want, where the President decides he doesn't like a legal industry and sends out his minions to ruin them without due process?

First, enjoy your Meringue of Outrage™ and then maybe read the FDIC statement.

 

[Matt1970]

Was there criminal wrongdoing?

The Federal government can discriminate against legal business. Hell, taxing certain products at higher rates is discriminating against legal business.

What did the Federal government do that is illegal?

This is what you get when you have people just ready to chomp at the bit to defend Obama no matter what he did. The man can do no wrong in the eyes of a lot of folk, including abuse of power.

 

[K1052]

The FDIC statement admits nothing like the claims being made in here.

https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2015/fil15005.pdf

Questions on how the DOJ implemented their program may be valid but if people don't possess the requisite reading comprehension to understand what the FDIC actually said and that they are not responsible for any such program (unless somebody made the FDIC part of the DOJ when I wasn't looking) I don't hold out much hope for nuanced discussion.

Issa's committee and the Heritage Foundation aren't exactly popping out at me as impartial sources. Oh...and the Daily Signal talked to someone who knows someone in Congress who saw emails. Compelling. I guess I'll bow to the journalistic integrity of a man who is a writer for an NRA publication and writes books with titles like "Saving the Bill of Rights: Exposing the Left's Campaign to Destroy American Exceptionalism"

 

[schmuckley]

Wow,That's pretty bad.

 

[Kadarin]

The idea of Operation Choke Point, without oversight and accountability, is a perversion of the ideals on which our country was founded.

 

[nickqt]

Pretty strong left wing bias if you continue insisting government did nothing wrong after government admits it did something wrong. Is this really the government you want, where the President decides he doesn't like a legal industry and sends out his minions to ruin them without due process?

EDIT: Does it make any difference that in this instance, they are going directly after a right government is supposed to protect?

Does it make any difference that the Obama administration did the same thing with the First Amendment, going after reporters whose stories they found inconvenient?


He's a lefty, he doesn't need data to know what he feels.

No, I actually understand ye olde law.

If there was no criminal wrongdoing, then just saying that the big bad F'rdul Gub'mint discriminated isn't a crime.

Not that I agree with it. It just isn't crime if there was no criminal wrongdoing. Reality sucks, yes, I know.

This is what you get when you have people just ready to chomp at the bit to defend Obama no matter what he did. The man can do no wrong in the eyes of a lot of folk, including abuse of power.

I'm not defending Obama. You constantly, in almost every post, start with anyone to your left as an Obamabot defender.

Yes, I'm a lefty, but it doesn't make me an Obamabot. Mostly because I criticise Obama from the left, but still, when you're making silly statements that all libruuls love Obama and will fall on a sword for him, it's counterproductive for YOU.

I can agree on a whole host of issues with you, criticising Obama. All you have to do is drop the "Obamabot" reflex you project onto every single "lefty" you encounter.

You want less/better gub'mint? Me too.

Sure, I don't have 20k+ posts, and my join date is within the last year, but seriously, if you're actually trying to make a substantive argument rather than disseminate talking points, don't just accuse me of something. And no, for the 20th time, I'm not a previously banned user. FFS.