dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 36,039
- 30,321
- 136
Then the sentence is bullshit.The murder charges were all dropped.
Then the sentence is bullshit.The murder charges were all dropped.
Yeah, next time actually read things in context and perhaps you won't make such a fool of yourself.
The comment wasn't made about this case in particular, but rather the asinine assertion that someone would rather vote "not guilty" on any federal charge except murder because the penalties might be too 'harsh'.
Silk Road was just a website that required TOR to access where you could buy and sell illicit items for Bitcoins.I'm still having trouble understanding what silk road was about. I also am still having trouble understanding how banks can collude to rig markets and nobody was in charge or responsible.
But... But.. the media had been using that word so much in regards to this case!He said MOST, ass. This was a victimless crime, unless you consider the state a victim since they lost out on a lot of asset seizure as a result of this.
Did you look up the word "launder" yet? Maybe you should learn what words mean before you use them instead of pretending to be smart on the internet.

Obligatory picture of the judge, Katherine B. Forrest, for public shaming:
Appointed by Barack Obama
On May 4, 2011, President Barack Obama nominated Forrest to fill a judicial seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that had been vacated by Judge Jed S. Rakoff, who took senior status at the end of 2010. Forrest was nominated by Obama to the bench in May 2011 on the recommendation of U.S. Senator Charles Schumer of New York
Hmmm should the person who appointed her be shamed too? Maybe the person who recommended her should be shamed as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_B._Forrest
Your ODS acting up?
There's plenty of shame to go around, maybe you should be included as you more than likely voted for the person that appointed her.
Bitcoin and Silk Road replaced cash and street corner for anonymous transactions.Silk Road was like an ebay for illegal products and services.
I'm still having trouble understanding what silk road was about. I also am still having trouble understanding how banks can collude to rig markets and nobody was in charge or responsible.
I do hope hope someone launders all your savings and investments, and when caught, your doppelganger on the jury thinks like you do, because you know, justice is like, mean and stuff.
He said MOST, ass. This was a victimless crime, unless you consider the state a victim since they lost out on a lot of asset seizure as a result of this.
Did you look up the word "launder" yet? Maybe you should learn what words mean before you use them instead of pretending to be smart on the internet.
That's because it was more the politicians than the bankers. Barney Frank and John McCain were going back and forth about it for years. Bleeding-heart politicians encouraged the bankers to give risky loans, denied the coming crisis, and continued pushing for more easy money. Even the politicians who warned about it ultimately laid back and let it happen because they didn't want to be the ones blamed for a jobless single mom not getting that home loan.The Silk Road folks were involved in handling a couple hundred million dollars that was used to buy illegal drugs etc. But, you're quite right that our banks have been involved in far greater deals totaling many billions and indeed trillions. The bankers won't go to jail because they contribute money to both parties.
When you add up the entire economic impact of street crime (burglaries, holdups, car jackings etc) it works out to about $18B per year and that's a lot. OTH, one man, Bernie Madoff, had a ponzi scam that totaled $65B -- one fucking man equals more than 3 years of all the street crime. While Bernie was eventually caught and imprisoned most of the bankers that were involved in the shenanigans that resulted in the banking crisis in 2008 and cost us trillions have gone unpunished.
I know this isn't ever going to happen, but the judge admitting that they're using the sentence to send a message/make an example should be grounds for a mistrial. That's a blatant violation of individual rights.
