Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He may have encouraged it. Did he provide any incentives? If so, you may have a good point.Motherfucker! All that bullshit is his idea! That motherfucker actively thought of and promoted a way to suppress the 2nd amendment. Do you not understand that?
But, they are not denying legal transactions. They are refusing to extend credit in certain situations. Apples to mailboxes.They are federally regulated. They can't deny legal transactions or else it would become too subjective.
Yes, but that does not dictate lending practices. I am not seeing the legal nexis.The credit is extended under the auspices of FRNs.
And, I am not, by ANY stretch of the imagination, and anti-gun guy. I think I have more than demonstrated that on USMB.
I am also a liberty guy. I MUST stick to my principles or everybody will have an excuse to fuck us over and dilute that liberty.
.
Some of the banks are making decisions directly involving gun transactions. They need to answer. None of us alive had slaves. The bank doesn't even need to answer that question. Yes, congress is filled with morons.
Why do they need to answer for business practices that are not illegal?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
As is their right.I've heard that some banks are getting rid of investments in gun manufacturers.
Banks doing doing that is perfectly legal, I suppose. A sitting president cooking up that idea and promoting it is NOT.
Motherfucker be all like "Hehehe, I'll show them a way to get around the 2nd amendment to infringe on 2nd amendment rights."
And that's exactly what happened.
The cleverness of Obama which is unConstitutional.
But, they are not denying legal transactions. They are refusing to extend credit in certain situations. Apples to mailboxes.They are federally regulated. They can't deny legal transactions or else it would become too subjective.
They're refusing to extend credit to make a purchase. My bank explained that if they were challenged, they would lose since they are federally regulated. If they weren't federally regulated, they could deny credit based on whatever.
If so, the question now should be whether that restriction is warranted? Have we completely fucked over contract law?They're refusing to extend credit to make a purchase. My bank explained that if they were challenged, they would lose since they are federally regulated. If they weren't federally regulated, they could deny credit based on whatever.
They cannot deny credit on the sole bases of belonging to a protected class. They can (and do) deny credit to people of a protected class daily. The reason is obviously that many people (protected or not) have shitty credit.Being federally regulated means they cannot deny credit for one of the protected classes...buying a gun is not a protected class.
They cannot deny credit on the sole bases of belonging to a protected class. They can (and do) deny credit to people of a protected class daily. The reason is obviously that many people (protected or not) have shitty credit.Being federally regulated means they cannot deny credit for one of the protected classes...buying a gun is not a protected class.
We know he came up with the idea. How did he get Citigroup to go for it? Anyone know?I do agree about a sitting president cooking up that idea and promoting not being legal or moral.
We know he came up with the idea. How did he get Citigroup to go for it? Anyone know?I do agree about a sitting president cooking up that idea and promoting not being legal or moral.
.
The disinvestment that I read about was in the past year or so. I don't know if it was banks, actually, or those investment companies. I never heard of Obama doing it. What are you talking about?Yes, but that does not dictate lending practices. I am not seeing the legal nexis.The credit is extended under the auspices of FRNs.
And, I am not, by ANY stretch of the imagination, and anti-gun guy. I think I have more than demonstrated that on USMB.
I am also a liberty guy. I MUST stick to my principles or everybody will have an excuse to fuck us over and dilute that liberty.
.
Some of the banks are making decisions directly involving gun transactions. They need to answer. None of us alive had slaves. The bank doesn't even need to answer that question. Yes, congress is filled with morons.
Why do they need to answer for business practices that are not illegal?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
As is their right.I've heard that some banks are getting rid of investments in gun manufacturers.
Banks doing doing that is perfectly legal, I suppose. A sitting president cooking up that idea and promoting it is NOT.
Motherfucker be all like "Hehehe, I'll show them a way to get around the 2nd amendment to infringe on 2nd amendment rights."
And that's exactly what happened.
The cleverness of Obama which is unConstitutional.
I was interested in whether or not Obama engaged in any coercion or other illegal activity to try and circumvent constitutional protections. It would not surprise me, but I would like to know, if anyone has any info.I suppose peer pressure did that, I do not think that Obama really had much to do with it. He was not that good at getting people to do things
If so, the question now should be whether that restriction is warranted? Have we completely fucked over contract law?They're refusing to extend credit to make a purchase. My bank explained that if they were challenged, they would lose since they are federally regulated. If they weren't federally regulated, they could deny credit based on whatever.
.
Bush II was bad and I detested the dufus too until Obama came along and made him look good in comparison.I'm citing laws that the banks profit from....If they want to have laws on their side, then they can deal with the ramifications when those laws go against their mixing politics and business.The banks that issue commercial credit are doing so because of the Federal Reserve Act and legal tender laws (i.e. gubmint force)....They need to be held to the laws from which they derive their profits.What's the alternative?Global banks and mega corporations buying off politicians and deciding what people can and cannot buy? Is that freedom?
Government force?
.
You communist need to keep the government out of private businesses. Move to Russia or China if you want to live where the government dictates what private companies must do
Now go light a candle at your shrine to the Bushes.
Oh yeah...me who says that Bush II was the worst POTUS in the history of the country has a shrine to the Bushes...you are a funny, funny man.
Why do you want the Fed Govt telling people who to loan money to and whom not to? That is what got us into the big fucking mess back in 2008
I do have a HUGE problem with that, especially if government regulations require the bank to rat out clients like that. That's regulation as a means of spying on U.S. Citizens.My inclination is to side with the private company. They have the right to refusal of a service or product. Thats not even the big issue to me. Its the information that the lender receives during the transaction and then turns over to the federal govt.
Agreed.The refusal to process a legal transaction based upon the fact that it is for a gun is discriminatory - just like refusing to bake a cake. You can't have it both ways RaTz,
Gun manufacturers are not "minorities" in the public accomodation laws.The refusal to process a legal transaction based upon the fact that it is for a gun is discriminatory - just like refusing to bake a cake. You can't have it both ways RaTz,
So, let them all decide for any reason or no reason at all. Let freedom decide.Gun manufacturers are not "minorities" in the public accomodation laws.The refusal to process a legal transaction based upon the fact that it is for a gun is discriminatory - just like refusing to bake a cake. You can't have it both ways RaTz,
You'll not get me to agree to that, Bootney. There are reasons for the PA laws, unfortunately.So, let them all decide for any reason or no reason at all. Let freedom decide.Gun manufacturers are not "minorities" in the public accomodation laws.The refusal to process a legal transaction based upon the fact that it is for a gun is discriminatory - just like refusing to bake a cake. You can't have it both ways RaTz,
I'm watching the bank CEOs testify before Congress.
We had one Democratic Congressperson ask the CEO of JP Morgan if they benefited from slavery.
Now we have another Republican Congressperson ask the CEO of Bank of America if they support gun rights.
These people are bankers, and these grandstanding morons in Congress are asking questions that are completely irrelevant to their businesses.
