You Must Be in Favor of This

[Rupert Pupkin]

The Justice Department is doing more great work. Thank God for Eric Holder.

The Justice Department is ordering bank employees to consider calling the cops on customers who withdraw $5,000 dollars or more.

"Assistant attorney general Leslie Caldwell gave a speech in which he urged banks to “alert law enforcement authorities about the problem” so that police can “seize the funds” or at least “initiate an investigation”."

http://www.infowars.com/feds-urge-ba...-5000-or-more/

Everybody knows it's illegal to withdraw money from your own bank account. It's good that we finally have a courageous leader like Eric Holder who is tackling this problem head first.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The Justice Department is doing more great work. Thank God for Eric Holder.

The Justice Department is ordering bank employees to consider calling the cops on customers who withdraw $5,000 dollars or more.

"Assistant attorney general Leslie Caldwell gave a speech in which he urged banks to “alert law enforcement authorities about the problem” so that police can “seize the funds” or at least “initiate an investigation”."

http://www.infowars.com/feds-urge-ba...-5000-or-more/

Everybody knows it's illegal to withdraw money from your own bank account. It's good that we finally have a courageous leader like Eric Holder who is tackling this problem head first.

I think it is ridiculous but then again I am consistent in my disdain of law enforcement overstepping their boundaries. Do you not see the hypocrisy in the fact that you have defended law enforcement ad nauseam around these parts until that law enforcement is Democratically aligned? Just like criticizing government for wasting tax payers money but advocating the study and implementation of a deer relocation program. This kind of hypocrisy is what is driving those that actually think away from from your beloved Elephant gang. You know the gang that gave us Birthers and now is giving us a candidate that ACTUALLY WAS NOT BORN IN THE USA.

[Pants II]

So are you trying to tie this story to his non-support of the morons currently in charge failed race bait campaigns in Florida and Missouri?

FFS man. Stop dick riding the guy.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

I think it is ridiculous but then again I am consistent in my disdain of law enforcement overstepping their boundaries. Do you not see the hypocrisy in the fact that you have defended law enforcement ad nauseam around these parts until that law enforcement is Democratically aligned? Just like criticizing government for wasting tax payers money but advocating the study and implementation of a deer relocation program. This kind of hypocrisy is what is driving those that actually think away from from your beloved Elephant gang. You know the gang that gave us Birthers and now is giving us a candidate that ACTUALLY WAS NOT BORN IN THE USA.

the article tho is a horrible example of the continued belief that we are all the enemy.

[Rudeboyelvis]

I've been chastised for linking anything from Infowars/Alex Jones in the past.

Hmmph.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I've been chastised for linking anything from Infowars/Alex Jones in the past.

Hmmph.

your comment made me look for more info.

The U.S. Justice Department’s criminal head said banks may need to go beyond filing suspicious activity reports when they encounter a risky customer.


“The vast majority of financial institutions file suspicious activity reports when they suspect that an account is connected to nefarious activity,” said assistant attorney general Leslie Caldwell in a Monday speech, according to prepared remarks. “But, in appropriate cases, we encourage those institutions to consider whether to take more action: specifically, to alert law enforcement authorities about the problem.”


now, i'm sure one could turn this into 'cops calling people on 5k withdrawals'...but it seems the original article may be hysterical hyperbole.
we encourage to consider doesn't mean 'call the cops every time or else'.
well, to me it doesn't.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

your comment made me look for more info.

The U.S. Justice Department’s criminal head said banks may need to go beyond filing suspicious activity reports when they encounter a risky customer.


“The vast majority of financial institutions file suspicious activity reports when they suspect that an account is connected to nefarious activity,” said assistant attorney general Leslie Caldwell in a Monday speech, according to prepared remarks. “But, in appropriate cases, we encourage those institutions to consider whether to take more action: specifically, to alert law enforcement authorities about the problem.”


now, i'm sure one could turn this into 'cops calling people on 5k withdrawals'...but it seems the original article may be hysterical hyperbole.
we encourage to consider doesn't mean 'call the cops every time or else'.
well, to me it doesn't.

Still seems to me that us innocent folks have nothing to worry about, of course in my case withdrawing that much money at once isn't a concern...to me this is an example of "Chicken Little" syndrome.

[GenuineRisk]

Oh, Rupert, I love when you play Right Wing Telephone. More! More!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

your comment made me look for more info.

The U.S. Justice Department’s criminal head said banks may need to go beyond filing suspicious activity reports when they encounter a risky customer.


“The vast majority of financial institutions file suspicious activity reports when they suspect that an account is connected to nefarious activity,” said assistant attorney general Leslie Caldwell in a Monday speech, according to prepared remarks. “But, in appropriate cases, we encourage those institutions to consider whether to take more action: specifically, to alert law enforcement authorities about the problem.”


now, i'm sure one could turn this into 'cops calling people on 5k withdrawals'...but it seems the original article may be hysterical hyperbole.
we encourage to consider doesn't mean 'call the cops every time or else'.
well, to me it doesn't.

I am hopeful that they would only do it in extreme cases where there was good reason to believe that a crime was committed. But considering their track record, I doubt it. Look at what they did to these totally innocent people:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us...ired.html?_r=1

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I am hopeful that they would only do it in extreme cases where there was good reason to believe that a crime was committed. But considering their track record, I doubt it. Look at what they did to these totally innocent people:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us...ired.html?_r=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/inv...top-and-seize/

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

I think it is ridiculous but then again I am consistent in my disdain of law enforcement overstepping their boundaries. Do you not see the hypocrisy in the fact that you have defended law enforcement ad nauseam around these parts until that law enforcement is Democratically aligned? Just like criticizing government for wasting tax payers money but advocating the study and implementation of a deer relocation program. This kind of hypocrisy is what is driving those that actually think away from from your beloved Elephant gang. You know the gang that gave us Birthers and now is giving us a candidate that ACTUALLY WAS NOT BORN IN THE USA.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. As Coach Pants said, how in the world can you compare the two things? You think that because I thought the cop in Ferguson did nothing wrong, that I should be in favor of the government harassing innocent people for depositing or withdrawing $5,000 from their bank? And you think I would favor this practice if Bush was President? What are you smoking?

I don't love the Republicans. I have said on numerous occasions that I don't think either party represents the wishes of the people. Both parties care more about special interest groups than the American people. Do I think the Republicans are the lesser of two evils? In general, yes. That doesn't make me a big fan of the Republican party. I would be nervous if the Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of congress. I don't trust them when it comes to the environment and plenty of other things too.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. As Coach Pants said, how in the world can you compare the two things? You think that because I thought the cop in Ferguson did nothing wrong, that I should be in favor of the government harassing innocent people for depositing or withdrawing $5,000 from their bank? And you think I would favor this practice if Bush was President? What are you smoking?

I don't love the Republicans. I have said on numerous occasions that I don't think either party represents the wishes of the people. Both parties care more about special interest groups than the American people. Do I think the Republicans are the lesser of two evils? In general, yes. That doesn't make me a big fan of the Republican party. I would be nervous if the Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of congress. I don't trust them when it comes to the environment and plenty of other things too.

Do you really believe the bullshit you spew?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/inv...top-and-seize/

every time i see something like that article....it just burns me up.
as for the irs, there's something wrong when in a place where we're supposed to be innocent til proven guilty, the exact opposite goes on with them.
they audit you, you have to prove your stuff was right, the burden is on you to prove innocence.
that's also why when people say 'why don't you want to be stopped/searched/questioned? if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide'. no, our fourth amendment is there for a reason. there's already overreach by the police and the highers up they serve (it is no longer the case that the cops serve the community, they serve the powers that be). does anyone really want to prove to the police, like the irs, that you're innocent?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

every time i see something like that article....it just burns me up.
as for the irs, there's something wrong when in a place where we're supposed to be innocent til proven guilty, the exact opposite goes on with them.
they audit you, you have to prove you're stuff was right, the burden is on you to prove innocence.
that's also why when people say 'why don't you want to be stopped/searched/questioned? if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide'. no, our fourth amendment is there for a reason. there's already overreach by the police and the highers up they serve (it is no longer the case that the cops serve the community, they serve the powers that be). does anyone really want to prove to the police, like the irs, that you're innocent?

I highly recommend the following book.

http://www.amazon.com/Divide-America...e+great+divide

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Do you really believe the bullshit you spew?

I can't argue with you. You know me too well. You called me out on my obvious hypocrisy for supporting Officer Wilson but not supporting the feds for wanting to harass people who withdraw $5,000 from the bank. You were the only one on this board smart enough to notice my obvious hypocrisy on that.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I can't argue with you. You known me too well. You called me out on my obvious hypocrisy for supporting Officer Wilson but not supporting the feds for wanting to harrass people who withdraw $5,000 from the bank. You were the only one on this board smart enough to notice my obvious hypocrisy on that.

So you like us to believe that the Wilson issue is the ONLY time that you have supported law enforcement on this forum? This is the only time you ever sided against law enforcement. Also Rupe were you not outraged at existing regulations that require banks to report all transactions over 10K? Is it the extra 5 K that enrages you?


https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/saf...section8-1.pdf

[Danzig]

the wilson case is an interesting one. altho he was cleared of the shooting, which i expected him to be, the whole incident touched off all that happened since, and not just in ferguson.
it's started a lot more dialogue about the whole issue, which is a good thing. things have been going down the wrong path too often in regards to crime and punishment, as well as us seeing that altho crime is down significantly, you really can't tell that by looking at police departments and prisons. you certainly can't tell when you see the over-militarization of our police departments. it's more control of the peasantry it seems.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

So you like us to believe that the Wilson issue is the ONLY time that you have supported law enforcement on this forum? This is the only time you ever sided against law enforcement.

I sided against law enforcement in the George Zimmerman case. I agreed with Alan Dershowitz (who is obviously a liberal democrat) when he totally chastised Angela Cory (the republican special prosecutor) for overcharging Zimmerman.

In the New York case where the cops choked the guy and he died, I though that at the very least the police should be held accountable civilly and that the family of the victim should be owed a few million dollars.

With regard to the republicans, it is true that I believe that even the worst republican would be better than Obama. That doesn't mean I love the republicans. I don't like Rand Paul. I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh. If those guys were running for President against a guy like Charles Krauthammer, who is a democrat, I would vote for Krauthammer. I would vote for a democrat like Harold Ford over Rand Paul.

Even though I'm not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, I think he is the greatest person in the world compared to Obama.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I sided against law enforcement in the George Zimmerman case. I agreed with Alan Dershowitz (who is obviously a liberal democrat) when he totally chastised Angela Cory (the republican special prosecutor) for overcharging Zimmerman.

In the New York case where the cops choked the guy and he died, I though that at the very least the police should be held accountable civilly and that the family of the victim should be owed a few million dollars.

With regard to the republicans, it is true that I believe that even the worst republican would be better than Obama. That doesn't mean I love the republicans. I don't like Rand Paul. I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh. If those guys were running for President against a guy like Charles Krauthammer, who is a democrat, I would vote for Krauthammer. I would vote for a democrat like Harold Ford over Rand Paul.

Even though I'm not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, I think he is the greatest person in the world compared to Obama.

Can you articulate why you have such hatred for Obama?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

So you like us to believe that the Wilson issue is the ONLY time that you have supported law enforcement on this forum? This is the only time you ever sided against law enforcement. Also Rupe were you not outraged at existing regulations that require banks to report all transactions over 10K? Is it the extra 5 K that enrages you?


https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/saf...section8-1.pdf

First of all, I couldn't tell you what Administration implemented the $10k thing in the first case, so you can't accuse me of being biased. I know the thing has been around forever. I'm used to it. Everybody knows about it. You know that if you make a deposit over 10k, it's going to be reported. I don't like it, but it is what it is. I understand why they do it.

But now they have been taking it to a whole new level. As if reporting it isn't bad enough, now they are confiscating all the money from people's accounts. As Danzig said, in this country you are supposed to be considered innocent until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In these money cases, it is the opposite. You are considered guilty if you make suspicious deposits. They will take away your money. The burden is on you to prove you're innocent. That is insane. I'm against that no matter who is in office. I wouldn't be shocked if there were cases similar to the cases mentioned in the NY Times while Bush was President.

But no matter who is to blame for the thing getting to the point where it has gotten like those cases mentioned in the NY Times, now Holder wants to double down and get even more aggressive. After articles like the NY Times article, most politicians were outraged and wanted to stop this kind of thing. Holder was the opposite. He thought we better start getting more aggressive and going after people making withdrawals.