Stephen Lerner wants to overthrow the government

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
boomerang said:
Yeah, on second thought I agree terrorism is too strong a word. An over-used word these days which I guess led me to the use of it. I still feel it should be investigated for the reasons I gave above.
Click to expand...
Why? What are they even suggesting that's remotely illegal?
 
C

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Macamus Prime said:
One problem though, if the rich are broke, who is going to order to make all the cheap crap they currently have made in China? Does this mean they will have to bring the jobs back to the USA?!?

*GASP*
Click to expand...
Yes, because those jobs will still exist when no one is buying the product they are producing... :hmm:
 
M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,860
6,783
126
Lemon law said:
Its every bit as legal as Wall Street and others acting in their own interests.
Click to expand...

My questions to the participants here are, is what Mr. Lemon law proposes an act of terrorism? Should it be investigated? Will Eric Holder do so?

My answers are:

Yes
Absolutely
No
 
M

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
No
No
Possibly, but I don't hold Mr Holder in high regard to begin with.
 
B

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I'm pretty sure every American wants to over throw the government. The extent we let others know about it is the only thing that varies from person to person.
 
DominionSeraph

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
rudder said:
misguided for sure. So everyone stops paying mortgages. the banks own all these properties. The rich folk then buy up all these properties and rent them out to the people who got foreclosed on. People need a place to live. It is no fun being a revolutionary when it is 45 degrees outside, raining and you have no roof over your head.
Click to expand...

You're missing something: You only truly own what you can protect. The banks only own the property if the government can enforce the decree that they have control. But the government gets most of its power from the people.
If the people as a whole decide to wrest the real property from the 2% who have massively leveraged property rights to funnel over half of the net worth of the entire country into their hands, there's really nothing the government can do. Voters would not allow the government to work to subvert their will and revert things to the previous status quo.
It would be the new normal that The People, not the rich, own their houses.
 
Last edited:
boomerang

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
IBMer said:
Its what you get for listening to Glenn Beck before thinking about what your posting. Its exactly what was in his show yesterday.
Click to expand...
I saw the article here which is probably where I picked up the terrorism schtick.

http://chicksontheright.com/2011/03/23/this-is-beyond-disturbing/

From there, I clicked on the Business Insider article I linked to. There are several links on the story at the chicks on the right site. And yes, I saw mention of Beck so I think you should throw it out there again and see if it sticks this time. You know what they say, third times the charm? Oh hell, don't stop at three, do it over and over and over. :rolleyes:
 
L

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Macamus Prime said:
One problem though, if the rich are broke, who is going to order to make all the cheap crap they currently have made in China? Does this mean they will have to bring the jobs back to the USA?!?

*GASP*
Click to expand...

You're doing it wrong.

Who will employ those people? Companies will be broke, the people the companies sell stuff to will be broke because the companies that employ them to make stuff will be broke. All of the assets you own will be worth a fraction of what they were worth before, so anything of value, anything you could sell to get money, anything you could pledge to a loan to get money, would be worth far less than current values.
 
boomerang

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
CycloWizard said:
Why? What are they even suggesting that's remotely illegal?
Click to expand...
Perhaps nothing. I read the article but didn't listen to the whole recording so I don't know what I missed. But I'm far from being well versed in what's legal and what's not.

Right now he's one person, but he does have an audience. I guess the question to ask would be, is their a conspiracy at this point. I'm pretty certain that a conspiracy to overthrow the government is something that would raise some eyebrows with the powers that be. It would warrant an investigation at some level.

A guy like this, I'd think you could just have him in for some questioning and he'd probably wet his pants and be on his way afterwards thinking maybe it wasn't such a good idea. But I'm not the one making those determinations.
 
M

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
LegendKiller said:
You're doing it wrong.

Who will employ those people? Companies will be broke, the people the companies sell stuff to will be broke because the companies that employ them to make stuff will be broke. All of the assets you own will be worth a fraction of what they were worth before, so anything of value, anything you could sell to get money, anything you could pledge to a loan to get money, would be worth far less than current values.
Click to expand...

Not every company depends on bank loans to run. And when the big, over-leveraged companies go bust, there will be a demand and opportunity for smaller businesses to take their place. The very idea that our entire economy depends on insolvent banks and Wall St casinos staying in business is how the bankers extort money from Congress and the people.
 
L

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Munky said:
Not every company depends on bank loans to run. And when the big, over-leveraged companies go bust, there will be a demand and opportunity for smaller businesses to take their place. The very idea that our entire economy depends on insolvent banks and Wall St casinos staying in business is how the bankers extort money from Congress and the people.
Click to expand...

Not every company does but most companies have some type of bank line just for backup liquidity, from small to large. That liquidity would be needed in a distressed scenario and wouldn't be had. Most companies would go bankrupt simply from the fact that a huge portion of their ability to sell stuff would be compromised for reduced value. The deflation would be extreme.

If anything, the rich would be far more isolated from this as they hold more hard assets.
 
C

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
boomerang said:
Perhaps nothing. I read the article but didn't listen to the whole recording so I don't know what I missed. But I'm far from being well versed in what's legal and what's not.

Right now he's one person, but he does have an audience. I guess the question to ask would be, is their a conspiracy at this point. I'm pretty certain that a conspiracy to overthrow the government is something that would raise some eyebrows with the powers that be. It would warrant an investigation at some level.

A guy like this, I'd think you could just have him in for some questioning and he'd probably wet his pants and be on his way afterwards thinking maybe it wasn't such a good idea. But I'm not the one making those determinations.
Click to expand...
So you are supporting government using intimidation techniques on citizens to deter or prevent them from taking perfectly legal (albeit ill-advised) action? Why?
 
boomerang

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
CycloWizard said:
So you are supporting government using intimidation techniques on citizens to deter or prevent them from taking perfectly legal (albeit ill-advised) action? Why?
Click to expand...
clive_anderson_facepalm.jpg
 
N

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
I support the right to protest in a nonviolent manner even if it is boycotting mortgage payments. While I believe they have the right to do so I hope it doesn't happen. The adverse effects (as LK pointed out) would not only be detrimental to the economy and stability of government it would also in turn undermine their own wellbeing. I will say if this is declared "economic terrorism" then we have given government much more power than it needs.
 
CPA

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Munky said:
Not every company depends on bank loans to run. And when the big, over-leveraged companies go bust, there will be a demand and opportunity for smaller businesses to take their place. The very idea that our entire economy depends on insolvent banks and Wall St casinos staying in business is how the bankers extort money from Congress and the people.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you can find one or two companies that don't have lines of credits, interest swaps, commercial paper, corporate bonds and other promissory notes. The vast majority, however, have one or more of these types of obligations and would be hardpressed to pay them off immediately.
 
D

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Londo_Jowo said:
I support people's right to boycott mortgages however, at same time I support the bank's right to foreclose on said home.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Anyone who takes advice of this SEIU guy deserves the inevitable out come that will occur, i.e. having their homes and businesses foreclosed for attempting to forgo their debt obligations they themselves agreed too when they as full grown adults took out a loan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom