They intended to incite a bank run. This is against the law.
ValtaK !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^][v]#234,780
@previous (B)
It's against the law BECAUSE of the bank's control over our government and the fact that they have been arrested for it is a great protest over this control. I just wish they'd give up the peaceful protest shtick already and light up some molotovs.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^][v]#234,784
@previous (ValtaK !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
You must be the one to throw the first molotov, Walter. Only you can set things right.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#234,786
It's against the law because it destabilizes a bank. A destabilized bank requires a bail-out to stop it from collapsing. A collapsed bank can cause a chain reaction which would topple the already damaged economy.
ValtaK !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#234,790
@previous (B)
Maybe the banks should be decentralized (read: have their monopolies split up and their trusts broken) and the federal reserve eliminated so that our economy can be mended.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#234,791
@234,775 (B) > They intended to incite a bank run. This is against the law.
Is there actual proof that this was their stated intent, or is that just conjecture? 20-30 people closing their accounts in protest hardly constitutes a bank run, especially for an entity the size of Citibank.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#234,792
Impossible. We're too far down the rabbit hole to do that, unless you want starvation, riots and poverty for a couple of decades. Is it worth millions of lives?
ValtaK !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^][v]#234,794
@previous (B)
Since when would having trusts and monopolies broken be broken cause starvation, poverty and riots for decades? Since when would enforcing the policy of congress-controlled currency cause starvation, poverty and riots? If ANYTHING, riots, poverty and starvation will result from a LACK of change in policies. Actually, there wouldn't be starvation. The government pumps out a great amount of money to farmers (hmmm... could this be why America is becoming a nation of obesity? nah...) so we'd NEVER face starvation until the government collapses. I'm not calling for a government collapse (that's a whole nother can of worms) in this thread... I am advocating the state having control over our corporations rather than the other way around.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#234,796
Also state control of the economy is communism. I thought you hated communism.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
dreamworks !AUIkTW/L46 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 41 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#234,836
citibank is evil
micheal moore told me so
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#235,118
I always wonder is anon b just a random troll that has been here 5 minutes; is he a long term anon (are there any? anon is not conducive to drama which is MC raison for existing) or is he a namefag anontrolling