oh, and stars.

oh yes, my stars

From the preview image I though this was a internet sketch or something like autotune the news. I'm glad I was wrong.

They're not advocating arresting someone, they just want to get to the point where they're actually investigating people for what happened. It's like a cop finding a guy, who smells like alcohol, behind the wheel of a car that crashed into a tree and letting him go because he swears he has no idea how he got there. Then taxpayers are forced to buy him a nice new car to replace the one he crashed.

Replace "tree" with "a billion human lives."

What investigation is needed? The banks are just acting rationally in an environment created by the government in which they have no risk.

Take away FDIC insured bank accounts and the banks might not feel so comfortable getting leveraged 50:1. Take away cheap money from the Fed and bailouts and they might not feel so comfortable buying risking instruments with their own money. Take away Freddie and Fanny and to whom is Wall St. going to flip these retarded mortgages?

Let banks be regular businesses with risk management issues like all other businesses instead of some centrally managed branch of government.

Ah yes those golden banking years before the FDIC...

BS logic indeed, and the righteous indignation to the suggestion that 'banksters' didn't break any laws is really deliberately obscures things.

Take a look at the GS settlement on the abacus issue, the BNY Mellon FX case and the recent the Citi settlement. How can people suggest no one is being investigated?

Just so we are clear, I'm not suggesting the banks are without blame (I despise the banking system as it is). What I am saying is that the logic presented in the video clip is faulty.

Smiley asks why not arrest bankers?

O'Reilly responds the bankers didn't break an laws.

West, on behalf of Smiley, argues O'Reilly is not in a position to make such a statement because no investigation was made to affirm the statement that no bankers broke any laws.

If we agree with West that no investigation has taken place and that no evidence is available exonerating the bankers, then we also do not have evidence suggesting the bankers are in violation of the law (because no investigation establishing evidence of guilt or innocence has taken place).

I think the banks are guilty of fraud in some sense, but from West's argument that does not follow.

[Assuming you read my post before posting]
There hasn't been an investigation on whether or not you ate 12 babies. I am not in a position to say whether you have or not, since no investigation has taken place.

Banking isn't really any different from any other big money sector...successful business is dirty business (here is a secret, all your favorite companies like Google and Apple don't always play nice with the competition or their clients).

Where there has been evidence of fraud, investigations have been performed, lawsuits have been filed and in many cases (which I cite above, I can easily cite more) settled. I am not sure where anyone gets off saying that there have been no investigations.

People this is a very simple issue: if you agree with bill o'reilly then you are a splotchy, jowly, awful person.

gmol: didn't see your post that appeared before my last. Was responding because other comments seemed to go off in another direction suggesting a position I do not support.

Me neither.

derp

Dude, you fail to see the real point here. Does it fucking matter if they technically broke any laws? Laws they paid senators to write in their favor, laws that have supported their every action from the get go?

Remember 1800's America? Yeah, back then, it was legal to own slaves. Laws supporting owning slaves were written by slave-owners. Killing your slave for not sucking your **** was legal as it was your property. Slaveowners didn't "break any laws" then, either.

But then, Lincoln said, "Alright, fuck it." And then hundreds of thousands of slave-owners, their supporters, and sadly, innocents that had no idea they were fighting and dying for atrocious acts of evil and the benefit of the few, died.

And the same ought to be done today.

I don't give a damn if the bankers are legally in the right or the wrong. We need to follow Iceland's example, and declare war on the bankers.

Oh, and before anyone counters my argument with, "Oh, haha, you're going to MISS your bankers!" No, I won't: Japan has a federal postal service that functions as a bank as well, and we can do the same. And no, I don't understand economics. I just fucking hate rich white people.

Yes you missed that part. I think you missed a lot of parts.

Well, I'm glad we all took 8th grade social studies and now know that the sole reason of the American Civil War was dick-sucking slaves.

This is probably the case: much of the banking industry's meltdown occurred not because people were breaking the law, but because they were taking advantage of newly-legal opportunities.

And where laws were broken, convictions may not be possible because there are high standards of proof that must be met, involving deliberate fraud vs. inability to foresee what is going to happen in a volatile market.

How many trillions in fraud are we talking in total?

We won't know, but at least bankers aren't impeding traffic.