First NATIONAL City Bank -- Nationalization Upon Us?

Heineken Helen · January 2009

I'm not sure about in the US... but in Ireland it was pretty obvious to see that pretty much anyone who was in a position to buy HAD BOUGHT... and yet these wonderful hopeful banks were still lending money to builders to buy ACRES upon acres to build hundreds of apartments. And you think all this was simply in good faith? Since when do banks work by the 'good faith' etiquette?????????????????????

I don't know what's going on and I don't claim to know what's going on... but I call bullshit on it being what we're told it is... cos from an idiot observing, I called it months before the banks did :? now that's just bollox.

soulsinging · January 2009

Heineken Helen wrote:

I'm not sure about in the US... but in Ireland it was pretty obvious to see that pretty much anyone who was in a position to buy HAD BOUGHT... and yet these wonderful hopeful banks were still lending money to builders to buy ACRES upon acres to build hundreds of apartments. And you think all this was simply in good faith? Since when do banks work by the 'good faith' etiquette?????????????????????

I don't know what's going on and I don't claim to know what's going on... but I call bullshit on it being what we're told it is... cos from an idiot observing, I called it months before the banks did :? now that's just bollox.

I guess I'm fuzzy on what you think you're being told it is and what you mean by "good faith." I truly believe these bankers were deluded and thought they would get rich off these properties. I think they saw the same signs everyone else did, but they ignored them or thought they could outsmart other people or any number of other things. They saw nothing but the dollar signs they MIGHT make and it blinded them to all else.

I've seen it in my hometown... they built 2 huge shopping center things within about 3 years of each other. Why? Because one was built in another city not far from here and did well and someone thought "man, I should get a cut of that action" and managed to convince everyone else it would be a great idea. So because one such center did well in a city 3 times the size of ours, we now have TWO such centers in a town that has barely been struggling to stay out of collapse.

Heineken Helen · January 2009

soulsinging wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

I'm not sure about in the US... but in Ireland it was pretty obvious to see that pretty much anyone who was in a position to buy HAD BOUGHT... and yet these wonderful hopeful banks were still lending money to builders to buy ACRES upon acres to build hundreds of apartments. And you think all this was simply in good faith? Since when do banks work by the 'good faith' etiquette?????????????????????

I don't know what's going on and I don't claim to know what's going on... but I call bullshit on it being what we're told it is... cos from an idiot observing, I called it months before the banks did :? now that's just bollox.

I guess I'm fuzzy on what you think you're being told it is and what you mean by "good faith." I truly believe these bankers were deluded and thought they would get rich off these properties. I think they saw the same signs everyone else did, but they ignored them or thought they could outsmart other people or any number of other things. They saw nothing but the dollar signs they MIGHT make and it blinded them to all else.

I've seen it in my hometown... they built 2 huge shopping center things within about 3 years of each other. Why? Because one was built in another city not far from here and did well and someone thought "man, I should get a cut of that action" and managed to convince everyone else it would be a great idea. So because one such center did well in a city 3 times the size of ours, we now have TWO such centers in a town that has barely been struggling to stay out of collapse.

So your ONE example of bad town planning backs up your view that all bankers throughout the world (cos this is certainly not localised) were deluded and driven by greed (I'd buy the latter, pun intended, if I bought the former... which I don't... but the former is necessary for the latter to be a genuine reason). If it were a few scattered bankers who WERE deluded... sure this can happen... but to get me to believe that they were ALL deluded... well you'll have to do better than an example of bad town planning :?

Lesbelges · January 2009

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

There is a LOT of buzz about bank nationalization going around in the last few days,
starting with a bank formerly known as First National City Bank -- that is, of course, Citibank.

Given the tumultuous events befalling the banking industry,
how do people on this boar feel about the idea of bank nationalization?

Do you think that the country would be better served by having direct government control over banks in this time of crisis?

If this were to happen, common stock holders would most assuredly be wiped out through share dillution.
Do you view nationalization as "fair" in this regard, as investors (many bank stock holders being retirees and elderly, relying on dividend income) were waging their risk\reward on the seemingly obvious premise that free market capitalism would sustain, and the government would not interfere unduly with private enterprise?

Is it really in our best interest to let corrupt goverment further marry itself to corrupt private banking enterprise?

Citibank is under $3 a share going in to close today.
You are going to start hearing a lot more about this topic in debate on the news in coming days,
that is a near guarantee.

Anyone?

Whoever invested in Citibank would be wiped out regardless of government intervention, so that point is moot.
As for nationalization, I would rather have the government own citibank than the crooks who ran it into the ground.

I think a real important question is this: If you all remember, there was a big fight between Citibank and Wells Fargo because Citibank had a verbal agreement to acquire Wachovia, however Wells Fargo outbid Citibank and Citibank was outraged and tried to stop that acquisition via litigation. Now that we know in how bad a shape Citibank is (So much so that it has to split into two), isn't everyone outraged that Citibank was trying to increase its market share on the backs of the tax payers? I say this, since there was no way that Citibank was healthy enough (and the CEO could not have not known) to acquire a bank, let alone a failed bank like Wachovia.

I just can't believe I have not read any such story/opinion on the news!

Your thoughts?

DriftingByTheStorm · January 2009

soulsinging wrote:

It's not apocalyptic, but it's a new kind of problem and it's got people panicked.

I don't understand your constant refusal to acknowledge catastrophic failure as a possibility.
It may or may not be, but all systems have their limits, and there is no reason to believe that the US economic system is any different.

There are certain tolerances that are going to be allowable, and pushing beyond any of them could lead to a systemic breakdown.

I honestly sometimes wonder if people around here watch or read ANY intelligent news reports.
This is not lone chicken little any more.
OBAMA HAS ACKNOWLEDGED OUTRIGHT THAT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM COULD COLLAPSE.
He said it in a speech only just this week.

This kind of problem should not be taken lightly.
If there are any "solutions", the "experts" certainly have come NO WHERE NEAR a consensus on what that solution would be, and THAT has me (and a great many others) very worried!

DriftingByTheStorm · January 2009

Lesbelges wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

There is a LOT of buzz about bank nationalization going around in the last few days,
starting with a bank formerly known as First National City Bank -- that is, of course, Citibank.

Given the tumultuous events befalling the banking industry,
how do people on this boar feel about the idea of bank nationalization?

Do you think that the country would be better served by having direct government control over banks in this time of crisis?

If this were to happen, common stock holders would most assuredly be wiped out through share dillution.
Do you view nationalization as "fair" in this regard, as investors (many bank stock holders being retirees and elderly, relying on dividend income) were waging their risk\reward on the seemingly obvious premise that free market capitalism would sustain, and the government would not interfere unduly with private enterprise?

Is it really in our best interest to let corrupt goverment further marry itself to corrupt private banking enterprise?

Citibank is under $3 a share going in to close today.
You are going to start hearing a lot more about this topic in debate on the news in coming days,
that is a near guarantee.

Anyone?

Whoever invested in Citibank would be wiped out regardless of government intervention, so that point is moot.
As for nationalization, I would rather have the government own citibank than the crooks who ran it into the ground.

I think a real important question is this: If you all remember, there was a big fight between Citibank and Wells Fargo because Citibank had a verbal agreement to acquire Wachovia, however Wells Fargo outbid Citibank and Citibank was outraged and tried to stop that acquisition via litigation. Now that we know in how bad a shape Citibank is (So much so that it has to split into two), isn't everyone outraged that Citibank was trying to increase its market share on the backs of the tax payers? I say this, since there was no way that Citibank was healthy enough (and the CEO could not have not known) to acquire a bank, let alone a failed bank like Wachovia.

I just can't believe I have not read any such story/opinion on the news!

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that the true powers behind Citibank are essentially the same forces "behind" our government.
Citi is one peg lower than JP Morgan on the pole, it is true, but they are very much backbones of the US Military Industrial Complex.

If you don't choose to acknowledge this, you are missing some very far reaching conclusions about the structure of our government. our entire system is predicated on the dollar, which is -- as stated on the face -- a "Federal Reserve Note". The entire US economic system hinges on the secret (seriously obscured) truth that private banks own the government. The faith and credit of the government itself is backed by private wealth. That IS what the Federal Reserve system is. The BANKS own it. They and they alone. In fact, this is SO secret that the list of Federal Reserve banks' stock owners (for ANY of them) has NEVER been oficially published. But it IS the truth.

What does that mean?
It means the government MUST "save" the banks, through some scheme ... some smoke and mirrors routine.
it must because ITS OWN CREDIT depends on the underwriting of those very same "private" banks, which own the Federal Reserve, issue the currency, and provide the US Government with the credit distribution (loan origination) mechanism by way of which it (The US Government Establishment) can say "here are my assets, look at all these loans people owe us. Of COURSE the US government can pay YOU back! EVERYONE owes US!" ["US" being the private banks that issue the currency, and underwrite the government]

What do i think about Citi trying to buy Wachovia?
I think that Citi has always been a Rockefeller institution, and i have NO suprises that it is corrupt and dishonest as hell. That's what the elite did in the first depression, they tried to gobble up all the competition. Why would i be suprised this time? And remember, it was THE GOVERNMENT that was "facilitating" the Citi\Wach deal behind closed doors. They (USGov) were FULLY behind Citi nearly all the way to the end -- the same cushy way they were behind JP Morgan SEVERAL times earlier in the year.

I have NO idea how "they" will "save" Citibank, but they are FORCED to do SOMETHING slick.
R E A L slick!

soulsinging · January 2009

Heineken Helen wrote:

So your ONE example of bad town planning backs up your view that all bankers throughout the world (cos this is certainly not localised) were deluded and driven by greed (I'd buy the latter, pun intended, if I bought the former... which I don't... but the former is necessary for the latter to be a genuine reason). If it were a few scattered bankers who WERE deluded... sure this can happen... but to get me to believe that they were ALL deluded... well you'll have to do better than an example of bad town planning :?

:roll: I suppose it's too much for you to respond to any of my requests that you explain a bit more clearly what you think is happening rather than just saying my theories aren't good enough?

How many examples would be enough for you? That's one. I'm quite certain I could come up with many more if I needed, but you could say each one by itself isn't good enough. It's not about a worldwide epidemic of greedy small town bankers. All it takes is a few greedy people at the top of the company. They put pressure on the people below them to get "results." So these people take big risks hoping for big scores.

This is a huge part of the problem here in the US... the banks, in an effort to make it look like they're doing very well to their superiors, who are pressuring them for high returns, would make a big loan, but then put down as an asset their "hopeful" estimate of what the property was worth... so it LOOKED on their books like there was no problem and no risk and finances were good. Then people started defaulting on those loans, and the banks get the property. Only they find out that the property is not worth what they hoped, because there's no demand for houses anymore. This was happening ALL OVER the country and it WAS a result of pressure from the people on top, who were driven by greed. These people felt free to apply the pressure because they figured that even if they had losses in one region they would be offset by wins in other regions. But the low demand for this property was national, and everyone started failing. Big problem.

So yes, greed played a part, as did unrealistic optimism. I DO think bankers and capitalists are deluded as a rule. They all expect and demand ever increasing profits. This is why I don't care if the market collapses, good riddance. The stock market is the problem. It distorts results and drives delusional expectations. When profits go down, so do stockholder dividends. That means you can have a company that is making millions of dollars still be a failure. Why? Because if dividends are not as high as last year, stockholders see the company as failing, even if it's still turning a large profit. They sell, stock price goes down, and now the company IS failing. So there is an expectation that your company will ALWAYS make more money than the year before, and it is grossly unrealistic. It put enormous pressure on every company not just to run well and efficiently, but to always make more than the year before or face the wrath of the market. Thus, you have banks not content to run a good, steady business... they have to take bigger and bigger risks to get bigger and bigger returns. And then you have that trickling down to bad business at the local level.

soulsinging · January 2009

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I don't understand your constant refusal to acknowledge catastrophic failure as a possibility.
It may or may not be, but all systems have their limits, and there is no reason to believe that the US economic system is any different.

There are certain tolerances that are going to be allowable, and pushing beyond any of them could lead to a systemic breakdown.

I honestly sometimes wonder if people around here watch or read ANY intelligent news reports.
This is not lone chicken little any more.
OBAMA HAS ACKNOWLEDGED OUTRIGHT THAT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM COULD COLLAPSE.
He said it in a speech only just this week.

This kind of problem should not be taken lightly.
If there are any "solutions", the "experts" certainly have come NO WHERE NEAR a consensus on what that solution would be, and THAT has me (and a great many others) very worried!

I think you and I have different definitions of apocalyptic. I think the system and the market collapsing would be a good thing. We're due for a shake up. But I don't see this as an apocalypse, just a huge paradigm shift in world economics. Yes, it will be rough and painful. But I don't view the market collapsing as the end of the world, so I'm not completely disturbed by the thought. I see it as an opportunity to try something new.

Heineken Helen · January 2009

soulsinging wrote:

:roll: I suppose it's too much for you to respond to any of my requests that you explain a bit more clearly what you think is happening rather than just saying my theories aren't good enough?

I don't KNOW what's happening... I've said that a few times... no least in my FIRST post in this thread. I don't know... I never claimed to know. All I said is that it's not what we're being told cos what we're being told makes zero sense by any standard. As to what IS happening... it could be anything... but I said in my first post that we probably won't know til hindsight.

Jeez... stop acting like some kinda victim and read the posts :?

soulsinging · January 2009

Heineken Helen wrote:

I don't KNOW what's happening... I've said that a few times... no least in my FIRST post in this thread. I don't know... I never claimed to know. All I said is that it's not what we're being told cos what we're being told makes zero sense by any standard. As to what IS happening... it could be anything... but I said in my first post that we probably won't know til hindsight.

Jeez... stop acting like some kinda victim and read the posts :?

That's classic, you're one of a kind... "I don't know what's happening, I just know that you're wrong." And I'm the one with the vendetta?

Heineken Helen · January 2009

soulsinging wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

I don't KNOW what's happening... I've said that a few times... no least in my FIRST post in this thread. I don't know... I never claimed to know. All I said is that it's not what we're being told cos what we're being told makes zero sense by any standard. As to what IS happening... it could be anything... but I said in my first post that we probably won't know til hindsight.

Jeez... stop acting like some kinda victim and read the posts :?

That's classic, you're one of a kind... "I don't know what's happening, I just know that you're wrong." And I'm the one with the vendetta?

Huh??? When did I say 'I just know that you're wrong'? And when did I say you have some kinda vendetta???? :? :roll:

DriftingByTheStorm · January 2009

soulsinging wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I don't understand your constant refusal to acknowledge catastrophic failure as a possibility.
It may or may not be, but all systems have their limits, and there is no reason to believe that the US economic system is any different.

There are certain tolerances that are going to be allowable, and pushing beyond any of them could lead to a systemic breakdown.

I honestly sometimes wonder if people around here watch or read ANY intelligent news reports.
This is not lone chicken little any more.
OBAMA HAS ACKNOWLEDGED OUTRIGHT THAT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM COULD COLLAPSE.
He said it in a speech only just this week.

This kind of problem should not be taken lightly.
If there are any "solutions", the "experts" certainly have come NO WHERE NEAR a consensus on what that solution would be, and THAT has me (and a great many others) very worried!

I think you and I have different definitions of apocalyptic. I think the system and the market collapsing would be a good thing. We're due for a shake up. But I don't see this as an apocalypse, just a huge paradigm shift in world economics. Yes, it will be rough and painful. But I don't view the market collapsing as the end of the world, so I'm not completely disturbed by the thought. I see it as an opportunity to try something new.

You do under stand that your abstract "market collapse" entails the outright implosion of every level of our economy, right? A collapse in the banking sector would mean a literally catastrophic chain of counterparty disasters, and an outright armageddon in the credit markets. With business absolutely unable to retain short term credit, EVERYTHING falls apart -- i'm talking about Food Lion can't stock the shelves with food because they can't get the money to buy the shipments, the trucking company can't get the money for gas or to pay employees, and the produce manufacturers can't get the funds necessary to operate.

When you speak of "market collapse" being a "good thing", i can't help but think that MAYBE you are underestimating the gravity of the situation.

TO BE HONEST, i somewhat share your inherently optomistic "subvert the dominant paradigm" mentality, but i think that in defense of your moral position (which i DO agree with) that you are trying to gloss over the severity of the situation.

Yes, I think Gerald Celente is DEAD on when he repeats his belief that the economic implosion of wall street (and what he says will also be outright riots and rebellion) will bring about NECESSARY redistirbutions of resources (and wealth) BACK TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY. This will be an organic grassroots movement in the truest sense, as people in necessity of self reliance will be forced to break down the "mental distance of modern life" and reconnect with their NEIGHBORS.

Jefferson warned us that allowing these private banks to run our system of credit would result in a generation being homeless in the land their fathers conquered. He was VERY right. We ARE that generation, and it WILL be a difficult time, indeed.

soulsinging · January 2009

Heineken Helen wrote:

Huh??? When did I say 'I just know that you're wrong'? And when did I say you have some kinda vendetta???? :? :roll:

"You BUY that????????????????????"

Maybe I read it wrong, but it sure reads like "you're wrong and nuts for thinking that." If I misread it, my bad. Sorry.

Also, you 1) claim not to know and 2) tell me I need to do better if I'm to convince you there's merit to what I'm saying, and then refuse to read or comment on my explaining what I think and why it is reasonable.

soulsinging · January 2009

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You do under stand that your abstract "market collapse" entails the outright implosion of every level of our economy, right? A collapse in the banking sector would mean a literally catastrophic chain of counterparty disasters, and an outright armageddon in the credit markets. With business absolutely unable to retain short term credit, EVERYTHING falls apart -- i'm talking about Food Lion can't stock the shelves with food because they can't get the money to buy the shipments, the trucking company can't get the money for gas or to pay employees, and the produce manufacturers can't get the funds necessary to operate.

When you speak of "market collapse" being a "good thing", i can't help but think that MAYBE you are underestimating the gravity of the situation.

TO BE HONEST, i somewhat share your inherently optomistic "subvert the dominant paradigm" mentality, but i think that in defense of your moral position (which i DO agree with) that you are trying to gloss over the severity of the situation.

Yes, I think Gerald Celente is DEAD on when he repeats his belief that the economic implosion of wall street (and what he says will also be outright riots and rebellion) will bring about NECESSARY redistirbutions of resources (and wealth) BACK TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY. This will be an organic grassroots movement in the truest sense, as people in necessity of self reliance will be forced to break down the "mental distance of modern life" and reconnect with their NEIGHBORS.

Jefferson warned us that allowing these private banks to run our system of credit would result in a generation being homeless in the land their fathers conquered. He was VERY right. We ARE that generation, and it WILL be a difficult time, indeed.

I do understand that, yes. No pain no gain. Our system is unsustainable. Period. Whether it happens now or later, it cannot continue indefinitely. Those on top are not going to let it change willingly. There is no "soft" means of changing things. I'd just as soon have it happen now, when there still is a middle class with some power that might be in a position to pick up the pieces and keep things together enough to avoid total anarchy. Better that than to keep limping along until the wage gap is such that there are only the wealthy owners and the poor slaves and worse odds.

Heineken Helen · January 2009

soulsinging wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

Huh??? When did I say 'I just know that you're wrong'? And when did I say you have some kinda vendetta???? :? :roll:

"You BUY that????????????????????"

Maybe I read it wrong, but it sure reads like "you're wrong and nuts for thinking that." If I misread it, my bad. Sorry.

Also, you 1) claim not to know and 2) tell me I need to do better if I'm to convince you there's merit to what I'm saying, and then refuse to read or comment on my explaining what I think and why it is reasonable.

Ahhh... I see we're back to the whole 'taking my words, ignoring them completely and inserting new words in their place to somehow support your argument'. Good for you soulsinging if that's the route you wanna take... I'd rather discuss the topic at hand :?

soulsinging · January 2009

Heineken Helen wrote:

Ahhh... I see we're back to the whole 'taking my words, ignoring them completely and inserting new words in their place to somehow support your argument'. Good for you soulsinging if that's the route you wanna take... I'd rather discuss the topic at hand :?

Pot, meet the kettle. Still haven't read my post explaining my views on the topic at hand to discuss them, have you? Nope, you read the first sentence, quoted it, ignored and deleted the 5 paragraphs following and then tell me I'm guilty of selective reading to avoid discussing the topic. That's rich.

DriftingByTheStorm · January 2009

soulsinging wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You do under stand that your abstract "market collapse" entails the outright implosion of every level of our economy, right? A collapse in the banking sector would mean a literally catastrophic chain of counterparty disasters, and an outright armageddon in the credit markets. With business absolutely unable to retain short term credit, EVERYTHING falls apart -- i'm talking about Food Lion can't stock the shelves with food because they can't get the money to buy the shipments, the trucking company can't get the money for gas or to pay employees, and the produce manufacturers can't get the funds necessary to operate.

When you speak of "market collapse" being a "good thing", i can't help but think that MAYBE you are underestimating the gravity of the situation.

TO BE HONEST, i somewhat share your inherently optomistic "subvert the dominant paradigm" mentality, but i think that in defense of your moral position (which i DO agree with) that you are trying to gloss over the severity of the situation.

Yes, I think Gerald Celente is DEAD on when he repeats his belief that the economic implosion of wall street (and what he says will also be outright riots and rebellion) will bring about NECESSARY redistirbutions of resources (and wealth) BACK TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY. This will be an organic grassroots movement in the truest sense, as people in necessity of self reliance will be forced to break down the "mental distance of modern life" and reconnect with their NEIGHBORS.

Jefferson warned us that allowing these private banks to run our system of credit would result in a generation being homeless in the land their fathers conquered. He was VERY right. We ARE that generation, and it WILL be a difficult time, indeed.

I do understand that, yes. No pain no gain. Our system is unsustainable. Period. Whether it happens now or later, it cannot continue indefinitely. Those on top are not going to let it change willingly. There is no "soft" means of changing things. I'd just as soon have it happen now, when there still is a middle class with some power that might be in a position to pick up the pieces and keep things together enough to avoid total anarchy. Better that than to keep limping along until the wage gap is such that there are only the wealthy owners and the poor slaves and worse odds.

Well if that's the case, LETS BRING IT ON!
Welcome to the revolution, and I SALUTE YOU AND YOUR BRAVERY.
I can't argue with THAT perspective.
I like you soulsinging.
You're an argumentative son of a bitch,
but i'm pretty sure you mean well,
and once i got "to the bottom" of your argument, i find your central thesis is not really so different from mine.
i think.
wanna argue that point?

VINNY GOOMBA · January 2009

soulsinging wrote:

IThe elderly will have fallbacks like social security or God forbid, having their children care for them which worked pretty well for 3000 years before private wealth and selfishness ruled the day. And those that aren't elderly can go fuck themselves.

GREAT QUOTE :!:

I think this is the greatest argument against social security, welfare, etc... What if we had our tax money to take care of ourselves, or our children? Planned our own retirements, used our money as WE saw fit. I would think it would be even easier to take care of each other.

soulsinging · January 2009

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Well if that's the case, LETS BRING IT ON!
Welcome to the revolution, and I SALUTE YOU AND YOUR BRAVERY.
I can't argue with THAT perspective.
I like you soulsinging.
You're an argumentative son of a bitch,
but i'm pretty sure you mean well,
and once i got "to the bottom" of your argument, i find your central thesis is not really so different from mine.
i think.
wanna argue that point?

Not really. I've always felt our views are closer than you might suspect. The only real difference is our views on the motive. You believe those at the top are and have been engaged in a unified international conspiracy to keep everyone else down. I believe they're just greedy bastards out for their own gain and only cooperate with each other when it's convenient or expedient. The former seems too complicated for me to believe it would work long and it assumes way more honor among thieves than I'm willing to believe. I find the simplicity of greed, and mutual greed occasionally uniting for mutual help, much more convincing. But the outcome is the same... namely, that those in the middle and the bottom are at the mercy of the rest and spend most of their lives being used and fucked over.

It's also why I like to poke fun at your occasionally histrionic reaction to market fluctuations

Because I'm not remotely disturbed by the thought of a collapse.

soulsinging · January 2009

soulsinging wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

Ahhh... I see we're back to the whole 'taking my words, ignoring them completely and inserting new words in their place to somehow support your argument'. Good for you soulsinging if that's the route you wanna take... I'd rather discuss the topic at hand :?

Pot, meet the kettle. Still haven't read my post explaining my views on the topic at hand to discuss them, have you? Nope, you read the first sentence, quoted it, ignored and deleted the 5 paragraphs following and then tell me I'm guilty of selective reading to avoid discussing the topic. That's rich.

*crickets*chirp*crickets*

Helen? I thought you wanted to discuss the topic at hand, like I tried to do?

First NATIONAL City Bank -- Nationalization Upon Us?

Comments

Categories