Its all just semantics though, isnt it? It wouldnt matter what the law actually says, the question is can it actually get better. I dont recall a single instance, where a law/regulation has been abolished or modified, where it was replaced with something that was actually simpler. I recall a certain western gumbiment "simplifying" the tax code, only to go from something like 13,000 pages to over 18,000 pages of legislation/guidelines. Simpler? Well have to form a commitee to find out.........
i know..... am ex-top tier american/swiss IB, ex-top tier US/UK audit & management consulting firm... the level of stuff one can get exposed to in terms of unethical behaviour / outright fraud while working in these environments is just unfathomable... cause its all based on trust... and it works 99% of the time... but boy, this lil' 1% abandon all hope if u ever look in there... just one small example: in an internal review i did at my top-tier IB once, i came across so-called orphan entities http://www.sfmlimited.com/SPVs/spvs_channelislands_jersey.htm and a number of bogus "charity" entities used to handle MD's PAs (managing directors' personal accts, ie personal trading...) what whistle do u reckon one shld blow in such a situation? am not american, was HK-based at the time, everybody else in the tree-up was aware............... corruption? nahhhhhhhhh......... 'verybody does it, its just, there's this grey line, ya know.... its nut technically illegal ya see........................ what? unethical? and who says that?????????? if its not technically illegal, its not technically illegal, GIT IT!!!? we've got a legal opinion from A&O on that, thats completely watertight, move on pal.... anyway... its all smoke & mirrors once one starts toeing that "grey" line.......
See Rat, you're just confused. McFadden was making a moral arguement against the Fed, not a legal one. I skimmed his speech and I find no passages where he claims the whole 'idea' of a Fed Res bank to be ILLEGAL. If I missed it, please post it up. And now - (click, whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr) Translation : I have no legal legs to stand on, crap. I know, I'll continue to post off topic, trying to convince Hiroshima that the legal arguement and the moral arguement are the same, cuz it's the only way to save face at this point. Man, it's the only way at this point. Ah hah, another brilliant idea ! I'll just lie and say that Nagasaki supports private bankers ripping off the country. And I'll insinuate that he's unAmerican too if he doesn't take my moral arguemnet as a legal one. Yeah, and I'll call him names, that always worked a few years ago when i was in junior high, it should work here too. I know that'll work,I mean, I'm in the right here aren't I? The Fed is immoral. That's what I believe in. And if something is immoral in my eyes, then it has to be illegal too. And besides,Alex Jones told me it's illegal, and I have such man love for him... Gosh, he's my hero. I love all the posters I have of him up on my walls. He's such a manly man, I want to grow up to be just like him...... So, just to review the thread topic here, RP did praise criminals. ZZZzzzzzzz is correct with that statement.So what was RP praising, exactly? To answer my own questions, since you don't seem to have very good comprehension skills, he was praising them for standing up to change the TAX LAW. He believes in lowering taxes. Nothing earth shattering there. No legal arguements from him in the Browns' favor either, since there are none.
So any argument based on fairness or equity is redundant, due to their not being a "legal" arguement. Sounds about right.......gotta love that "grey" zone:eek: wow, you must have had some moral dilemmas working for these guys-(show me the money!!!) but thats how it is, huh? Anyone who can, feathering there nest with OPM-whoda thunk.
not really... see, its all about the choices YOU make as a person... bear in mind that in lots of cases, the prevailing "logic" is "show me the body"... if u can't then there's no crime.... so goes the white collar criminal's mind...
True enough, your saying you made a choice, knowing how rotten the real situation was, and that even if you wanted too, you would be hung out to dry for standing up-shanked, shot, at the bottom of the harbour, not so much for "the little guy", or shareholders, thats irrelevant, what counts is you would be openly against "them", and thats what matters. No?
not sure where your going with this... its not about being against "them" necessarily, cause often times "them" doesn't even have a face to start with... its about making your own choices... "staying clean" means different things to different people, but to the law it doesn't... i gave u just one lil' example... in the said case, the entities were set up in 2-step removed jurisdictions with "lax" enough criteria such that self-directed charity would "qualify"... were the MDs american? that wasn't the scope of my then-assignment and in any event i am not an IRS agent... were the shareholders being defrauded? of course not, all this scheme was known and approved by the remuneration committee... strangely enough, those "arrangements" don't get published very widely but... so where's the body? ahhhh.... yeah..... the... whatsitcalledagain??... IRS? smart hey!?! except the guys who do this to park hundreds of millions of $ away, they inflate YOUR tax bill... YOU are the body in the end but you don't even know it... cause you too want to fraud the IRS, therefore you don't view these guys as the criminals... the IRS is!!!! so wld most people think, until they realize the joke is on them... anyway... except where people actually believe in and enforce the rule of law, its always the dumber / weaker who pays... and why should it be otherwise, let me ask you... ?