If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   The IMF makes a suggestion that will cause US libertarians to crawl into a fetal position tightly clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged softy murmuring "Ron Paul will save us. Ron Paul will save us"   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 402
    More: Unlikely, Atlas Shrugged, Ron Paul, International Monetary Fund, fiat moneys, intrinsic value, types of business, fractional reserve, money creation  
•       •       •

25330 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2012 at 1:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



402 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-22 02:16:06 PM

slayer199: ghare: No, we understand the LP just fine: nuts, who used to be Republicans but are now embarrassed to admit it. But mostly nuts.

mr lawson: man...don't even try. The left will never understand and the right just thinks we are godless heathens.

Good advice.


Yeah, never argue with an idiot. Ghare certainly is one, and he is always concerned about Mexicans as well.
 
2012-10-22 02:16:28 PM

SageC: No you didn't! You just gave Bill the money Jack told you to hang on to even though it wasn't yours to give. You're not a money creator, you're a jerk who spends other people's money! Go get Jack's money back before he hears about what you did and deposits his fist into your face.


please say you are joking..lol
/in his example, he stated he was a bank
//this is how banks work
///it is called the money multiplier effect
////actually the MME can work without fractional reserves, but the effect is greatly lessen.
 
2012-10-22 02:16:40 PM

Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....


This.

Requiring banks to back all deposits with state cash will skyrocket fees and strangle the personal credit market resulting in deflation.

Yes, you get lending under control, but at what cost? The banks will not go down quietly.
 
2012-10-22 02:17:00 PM

jaytkay: lordaction: Also, dumbmitter, libertarians vote are for Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul.

So no true Scotsman, oops I mean libertarian, votes for Ron Paul.

Got it.


Why would a libertarian vote for a non-libertarian? I would think they would vote for the Libertarian on the ballot.
 
2012-10-22 02:17:25 PM

vartian: Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?

Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.


Bullshiat. I'd rather have the money in the hands of men without qualm regarding how the money is used so long as they believe they can get a cut, than in the hands of those dedicated to bringing personal power to themselves at all costs.

The former can be controlled by making publicly good ventures more profitable than publicly disadvantageous ones. The latter have little enough to control them by already.

Better our rich men contend with our powerful men. Setting things at odds is the foundation of American governance.
 
2012-10-22 02:17:55 PM

mizchief: I don't see where you get that from. Anti-democrat for sure and for good reason since they do the things the LP hates and doesn't come though on the promises of social liberty either. Reason has no support for a police-state or the endless foreign wars and military presence which along with the religious aspect is was sets LP apart from the GOP.


That was GAT's POV regarding Reason.com, not mine.
 
2012-10-22 02:18:01 PM

lordaction: jaytkay: lordaction: Also, dumbmitter, libertarians vote are for Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul.

So no true Scotsman, oops I mean libertarian, votes for Ron Paul.

Got it.

Why would a libertarian vote for a non-libertarian? I would think they would vote for the Libertarian on the ballot.


unless that "Libertarian"'s name is "Bob Barr"
 
2012-10-22 02:20:16 PM

bunner: YixilTesiphon: bunner: david_gaithersburg: The ignorance from the left on display here is non-astonishing.

Any time somebody gets all squinty and eye roll-y and "oh, my dear boy, harrumph"y about the minutiae of on the folds in the elephant's skin, they usually have a vested interest in keeping people from noticing the f*cking huge elephant wearing it. The problem *is* fractional reserve banking, non existent money and it being printed like confetti to leverage actual wealth into an ever growing pool that only a few people are allowed to swim in. Amschel Rothschild stated things quite succinctly, years ago and the business plan hasn't shifted since.

Has poverty increased or decreased since the advent of fractional reserve banking?

Heck no! We're farting through silk! As long ans everybody shuts the hell up, eats their gruel and doesn't try to actually call in any of that magically wealth building debt. Did you know that endless growth defies the laws of physics? So far, all this malarkey farming with what money is and isn't has gotten us here. And here ain't so hot. I got a funny feeling that an economy based on mass delusion isn't as workable as it seems.


The fact that i had a 100% average from my public high school's economics class without knowing how money was created until i researched on my own later in college, is a pretty good indicator of why this system is working.
 
2012-10-22 02:20:19 PM

skullkrusher: unless that "Libertarian"'s name is "Bob Barr"


lutz..i still voted for him.
he was an idiot...but OUR idiot.
and still better than the other two
 
2012-10-22 02:21:22 PM

LOTN: Better our rich men contend with our powerful men.


The point of money isn't just liquidity, it's power. This is why ostensibly wise and learned men spend tens upon tens of millions of dollars to get a public service job that pays 400,000.00 a year.
 
2012-10-22 02:21:54 PM

mr lawson: skullkrusher: unless that "Libertarian"'s name is "Bob Barr"

lutz..i still voted for him.
he was an idiot...but OUR idiot.
and still better than the other two


I neglected my civic duties and didn't vote at all
 
2012-10-22 02:23:10 PM

jaytkay: DerAppie: YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?

Put up a decent bussiness plan and look for someone (corporations are people) who thinks that your plan has decent risk:reward ratio. In exchange for money (let us call that "interest" because it is what makes it "interesting" to invest) from your profits they will lend you money.

Interesting.Investors should extend some kind of money or "credit" to the business, correct?




Sounds like your arguing with a person who never needed a short term loan to make payroll.... or should you just ask your investors for that?
 
2012-10-22 02:24:04 PM
Read up on Pennsylvania Scrip. 

Or, sorry, study it out.
 
2012-10-22 02:24:05 PM

skullkrusher: I neglected my civic duties and didn't vote at all


can't really blame ya.
I rolled my eyes pulling the lever
/Libertarian party: Hearding cats is easier
 
2012-10-22 02:24:50 PM

mizchief: The fact that i had a 100% average from my public high school's economics class without knowing how money was created until i researched on my own later in college, is a pretty good indicator of why this system is working.


Yeah, but you don't have any skin in the game until you go in hock to your philtrum for a degree. You're not supposed to see the emperor's naked ass until you have an interest in pretending he is clothed in splendor.
 
2012-10-22 02:24:57 PM

Tat'dGreaser: PsiChick: Eh, I figured it out in a few seconds.

Well so did I but that doesn't mean they can just do what they want and throw extra "u's" anywhere they want


...Well, it's their variant of English, not ours...so they kinda can.
 
2012-10-22 02:26:22 PM

lordaction: jaytkay: lordaction: Also, dumbmitter, libertarians vote are for Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul.

So no true Scotsman, oops I mean libertarian, votes for Ron Paul.

Got it.

Why would a libertarian vote for a non-libertarian? I would think they would vote for the Libertarian on the ballot.


One should never support a candidate solely by the party they belong to.
 
2012-10-22 02:26:35 PM

mr lawson: skullkrusher: I neglected my civic duties and didn't vote at all

can't really blame ya.
I rolled my eyes pulling the lever
/Libertarian party: Hearding cats is easier


I am far less ideological than the LP and don't agree with much of what they say so it's not a natural go-to for me. I will be voting for GJ next month, however.
 
2012-10-22 02:27:39 PM

Amos Quito: Sounds like a great idea... but


[2.bp.blogspot.com image 578x522]


Coming from the IMF???


I know, right? This is the New World Order that was prophesied years ago. This is Obama's black helicopters and white tanks rolling through American cities to implement universal communism the day after he gets re-elected. This is the end of the world as we know it, friends, and the beginning of the Tribulation.

Or so Mitt's big money backers will have us believe, soon enough. Why have they not seized on this as part of their anti-Obama ad campaigns?
 
2012-10-22 02:29:16 PM

Elegy: How? You deposit 100 dollars in the bank. If, by law, I (the bank) need 10% of deposits on hand, I turn around and lend out the other 90 dollars to someone needing a mortgage at interest. Or a car. Or someone looking to expand their business. The interest on that loan then pays the interest that you accrue on your deposited savings, with some left over as a profit for the bank.


Yes, but you leave out the fun part. The builder who receives the cash from the borrower then turns around and deposits that money into the same bank which in turns loans it out again at 10 times it's value. Since we have a global reserve system, this all funnels back into the same system where the actual wealth (gold for ex) was long extracted by the bankers only leaving the IOU's behind.

Then as the system collapses, they bankers turn around and take back the house, which they then sell off to someone whom they just wrote another loan too. This is where the boom-bust cycle comes from, and as any 5th grader can see only the bankers will ever own real wealth.
 
2012-10-22 02:29:28 PM
I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged, so I'm getting a kick out of these comments.
 
2012-10-22 02:30:06 PM

misanthropologist: Or so Mitt's big money backers will have us believe, soon enough. Why have they not seized on this as part of their anti-Obama ad campaigns?


Because Romney is center-right at most and not a fire breathing loon?
 
2012-10-22 02:31:05 PM

mizchief: Yes, but you leave out the fun part. The builder who receives the cash from the borrower then turns around and deposits that money into the same bank which in turns loans it out again at 10 times it's value. Since we have a global reserve system, this all funnels back into the same system where the actual wealth (gold for ex) was long extracted by the bankers only leaving the IOU's behind.

Then as the system collapses, they bankers turn around and take back the house, which they then sell off to someone whom they just wrote another loan too. This is where the boom-bust cycle comes from, and as any 5th grader can see only the bankers will ever own real wealth.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nSAlEGPemug/TzgRphGqP-I/AAAAAAAABhQ/Ip3vh0c Y gHs/s1600/daunte-touchdown.jpg
 
2012-10-22 02:31:41 PM

YixilTesiphon: david_gaithersburg: Banks do not lend money for you to open a business.

So I'm imagining the bank loan that my brother-in-law has for his practice?


Sure, send me his financials for the 24 months prior to the loan and I'll explain it for you.

//btw - my dad is also a TV repairman. (too obscure?)
 
2012-10-22 02:31:51 PM

slayer199: Kazan: almost every farking Libertarian i have ever met is just a randite republican embarassed to call themselves republican.

there are almost not "little l" libertarians in the united states. which you're trying to claim to be. and quite frankly i don't buy what you're selling based on your posting history.

Apparently you suffer from selective memory or you have me confused with someone else.. I've voted Libertarian since '92. I was not a fan of Bush (I was very critical of Bush). I'm not a fan of Ron Paul. I've supported gay marriage, legalization of marijuana (and ending the War on Drugs in general), legalization of prostitution, shrinking of the military, cutting off of foreign aid (other than for natural disasters), open trade, open immigration, balanced budget, dramatically reducing the size and scope of the government, and pretty much every small-l libertarian ideal. Basically individual liberty with personal responsibility and smaller government.

What I find amusing is that lefties have such a hard time understanding libertarianism...other than "ZOMG, WANTING LESS GOVERNMENT IS BAD". I'll boil down libertarian philosophy down for you in a couple short lines.

Government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, enforce contracts, and provide physical infrastructure. That does not mean it's government's responsibility to protect me from myself or my poor life choices.


I might have a one-up on you with that. I'm in favor of completely dropping the term "marriage" from the US law, and replace it with "civil unions." Everyone can have a civil union, and the rights extend to the partner as it would have with marriage. I also believe in dropping everything not included in the constitution (and its amendments), and bring those back to local and state governments. That even means the USPS would go back to being a government agency, but Social Security, Medicare, SSI, Medicaid? Let the local and state handle it, or at best privatize it and make it optional (I'm already arranging my retirement to not include Social Security).

I too say end this war on drugs, this also includes: cigarettes, alcohol, and other forms of -legal- drugs, and also allow states to have laws and controls without stepping on their heels (Fed law vs CA law is a good example). I have no issues with people smoking at a little post 50 feet from the grocery store in sub-zero temperatures no more than I have in the store in a secured, ventilated, and climate-controlled room. At least in the climate-controlled room, they won't catch the exposure effects from standing in the elements.

Everything else is good as well, but I also think while we limit the scope of our military, we need to keep numbers up, and teach the brats life lessons. Conscription needs to make a comeback (and not just for the military mind you). Tie things to taking a year or 2 of your life in service to the local/state/federal government. Even working in the US Dept of the Post Office would teach.
 
2012-10-22 02:31:59 PM
oops

mizchief: Yes, but you leave out the fun part. The builder who receives the cash from the borrower then turns around and deposits that money into the same bank which in turns loans it out again at 10 times it's value. Since we have a global reserve system, this all funnels back into the same system where the actual wealth (gold for ex) was long extracted by the bankers only leaving the IOU's behind.

Then as the system collapses, they bankers turn around and take back the house, which they then sell off to someone whom they just wrote another loan too. This is where the boom-bust cycle comes from, and as any 5th grader can see only the bankers will ever own real wealth.



Then as the system collapses, they bankers turn around and take back the house, which they then sell off to someone whom they just wrote another loan too. This is where the boom-bust cycle comes from, and as any 5th grader can see only the bankers will ever own real wealth.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-22 02:34:05 PM

slayer199: mizchief: I don't see where you get that from. Anti-democrat for sure and for good reason since they do the things the LP hates and doesn't come though on the promises of social liberty either. Reason has no support for a police-state or the endless foreign wars and military presence which along with the religious aspect is was sets LP apart from the GOP.

That was GAT's POV regarding Reason.com, not mine.


Apologies if misdirected, but I stand by my opinion.
 
2012-10-22 02:36:17 PM

CruJones: lordaction: jaytkay: lordaction: Also, dumbmitter, libertarians vote are for Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul.

So no true Scotsman, oops I mean libertarian, votes for Ron Paul.

Got it.

Why would a libertarian vote for a non-libertarian? I would think they would vote for the Libertarian on the ballot.

One should never support a candidate solely by the party they belong to.


That is exactly right, however the Democrats and Republicans have zero to offer to a libertarian and the Green Party is straight up communist.
 
2012-10-22 02:36:32 PM

boogie_down: jaytkay: DerAppie: YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?

Put up a decent bussiness plan and look for someone (corporations are people) who thinks that your plan has decent risk:reward ratio. In exchange for money (let us call that "interest" because it is what makes it "interesting" to invest) from your profits they will lend you money.

Interesting.Investors should extend some kind of money or "credit" to the business, correct?



Sounds like your arguing with a person who never needed a short term loan to make payroll.... or should you just ask your investors for that?


Don't you have friends or family? I have made loans to and gotten loans from family members when times asked for it. With as added benefit that they are interest free. You know why I can borrow from family? Because I very rately do, never needed more than €50 and return the favour. No bank needed.

Besides, banks earn money. If they didn't no one would use them because they wouldn't get interest. The money a bank earns can be used in any way the bank wants. I'm not advocating 100% coverage at all times, I just want banks to have a balanced budget. Every cent they owe someone should be covered by either money the bank possessed or money people owe the bank (or collateral). None of this "Don't worry everything will work out as long as the government keeps sending us money" crap. We've just seen that there is reason to worry because in virtually risk free environments people take stupid risks.
 
2012-10-22 02:36:53 PM

mr lawson: skullkrusher: unless that "Libertarian"'s name is "Bob Barr"

lutz..i still voted for him.
he was an idiot...but OUR idiot.
and still better than the other two


Lol, I did too, but wouldn't have if i thought he had a chance to win :) I actually like Gary though.
 
2012-10-22 02:38:29 PM
FTA: The Athenian leader Solon implemented the first known Chicago Plan/New Deal in 599 BC to relieve farmers in hock to oligarchs enjoying private coinage. He cancelled debts, restituted lands seized by creditors, set floor-prices for commodities (much like Franklin Roosevelt), and consciously flooded the money supply with state-issued "debt-free" coinage.

Athens had no coinage until years after Solon, the debt cancellation was the same as land restitution because wealth was measured by land. He cancelled all debts, for everyone, which included people who had borrowed massively and more or less made out like bandits because they didn't have to pay back their loans. By everyone that is public and private. Anything anyone owed you was whoosh, gone. I dunno about the floor price thing. I mean he did some cool things, especially for a guy with absolute power in the 7th century BCE but I dunno what it has to do with this guys article.

Sorry, done geeking.
 
2012-10-22 02:40:43 PM
You lost me in Solon.
 
2012-10-22 02:40:46 PM

mr lawson: LasersHurt: But you characterize anything you thing is a step too far as "tyranny," so it makes you hard to negotiate with.

life is hard


I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't jump right on board with Libertarianism with such thoughtful discussion.
 
2012-10-22 02:41:23 PM

Elegy: Now eliminate the fractional reserve requirements, and change the law so that I (the bank) now have to have 100% of deposits on hand. Surprise! Now no one can get credit, because I have no money to lend, instead I have to have all sit idling in my vault, by law. Good luck buying that house.


Uh, that's not how it works in this proposal.

The private bank would go and get a loan from the government (bank) in order to loan you your money. In this way, the government would have their foot on the gas pedal (or brake) in order to control the money supply.

To your perspective, you would still be getting a loan.
 
2012-10-22 02:41:28 PM

BigNumber12: I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged


Sorry to hear that. You'll get through it. Eventually.
 
2012-10-22 02:42:23 PM
The banking mafia versus the IMF. Jesus Christ, it's like Aliens vs Predator - "whoever wins, we lose".

I was shaken a few years ago when I read an explanation of how the banking system works. These bastards - private companies - literally have a license to print money. It's monstrous. As Bertold Brecht said, "what is the crime or robbing a bank compared to the crime of founding one?" No wonder the muslim world regards the Christian and Jew banking system with disgust.
 
2012-10-22 02:43:17 PM
That was a tough slog. Still, what I understood was this:

Banks now lend money well in excess of their actual deposits. This effectively creates money. If the borrower pays them back, the banks make money, and if they don't, the bank takes the asset (that the borrower was trying to buy).

So, the author of the study wanted to tie lending to assets, and make the reserve (and depositors) the only source of assets. That way, private financial institutions don't indirectly control the money supply. This would turn banks into what most people think they are: an intermediary between savers and borrowers.

Perhaps I don't see the danger, but that seems reasonable to me.
 
2012-10-22 02:43:32 PM

bunner: boom-bust cycle


That reminds me of a song.

Link
 
2012-10-22 02:44:57 PM

jigger: BigNumber12: I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged

Sorry to hear that. You'll get through it. Eventually.



I'm currently working my way through You-Know-Who's 56-page speech near the end.
 
2012-10-22 02:44:58 PM

lordaction: That is exactly right, however the Democrats and Republicans have zero to offer to a libertarian


Eh, you take what you can get when you can get it.
 
2012-10-22 02:47:14 PM

skullkrusher: Ron Paul is a neo-confederate farkwit... much like most big Ls


i know. you're pretty much the only reason i do not say "all Libertarians i've met" on most things.

gingerjet: Kazan: in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.

Most (big L) Libertarians have never read one of her books already through nor can discuss what her beliefs are so - no - I don't think most (big L) Libertarians in the US are followers of rand.

/there is a reason for that - Rand was an awful writer


whether or not they've read her they agree with her view of economics.
 
2012-10-22 02:48:35 PM

mizchief: Elegy: How? You deposit 100 dollars in the bank. If, by law, I (the bank) need 10% of deposits on hand, I turn around and lend out the other 90 dollars to someone needing a mortgage at interest. Or a car. Or someone looking to expand their business. The interest on that loan then pays the interest that you accrue on your deposited savings, with some left over as a profit for the bank.

Yes, but you leave out the fun part. The builder who receives the cash from the borrower then turns around and deposits that money into the same bank which in turns loans it out again at 10 times it's value. Since we have a global reserve system, this all funnels back into the same system where the actual wealth (gold for ex) was long extracted by the bankers only leaving the IOU's behind.

Then as the system collapses, they bankers turn around and take back the house, which they then sell off to someone whom they just wrote another loan too. This is where the boom-bust cycle comes from, and as any 5th grader can see only the bankers will ever own real wealth.


This, and don't even get me started on the derivatives market. Banks are criminal organizations that hide behind smoke and mirrors.

Having the state suddenly seize control of the currency may be too extreme an approach, though. Countries all over the world should initiate audits of their central banks, then implement more stringent regulations with safeguards to keep the bankers from playing musical chairs with regulators. The derivatives market should be regulated immediately.
 
2012-10-22 02:48:52 PM

slayer199: I've voted Libertarian since '92.


yes. you've voted US Libertarian party. thank you for proving my point you that are NOT a little-l libertarian but a united states "big-L" libertarian.

learn the difference before opening your cornhole.
 
2012-10-22 02:49:19 PM
"My viewpoint is better than yours"

"No it isn't, your viewpoint is for idiots"

"Idiots like me are better than idiots like you"



Does this sum up this thread so far?
 
2012-10-22 02:49:23 PM
What I'm laughing at is that subby thinks that anything makes a libertarian curl up into the fetal position, instead of say, shrugging their shoulders and figuring out how to make a buck off it.

IMF's suggestion is government created paper fiat money instead of private banker created fiat money
/just like Nazi Germany
//America has had a strain of people that believe in this crap for a century, they are called "Greenbackers", and were even a third party in parts of the country
/// for results of their proposal to have government magically invent money instead of big banks, see a book called "The Vampire Economy" written by a German economist in I want to say 1946. https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=371
////the whole reason that their are hard money die hards is because counterfeiting gold bars requires some gold(about a 1/16 in plating) and tungsten, which means that even someone that's been cheated still has something of value while people that have been cheated with paper have something they can use to keep warm with for about five minutes or so
//there's no perfect solution, no utopia, just trade offs whichever way you want to go and I believe there is ample evidence that the world will continue to spin either way
//there should be a hunting season on employees from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, etc.
//lot's and lots and lots O' slashies
//Robert Heinlein has a character that believes as I do who describes himself as a "rational anarchist", and no I really can't stand Ayn Rand
 
2012-10-22 02:49:35 PM

BigNumber12: jigger: BigNumber12: I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged

Sorry to hear that. You'll get through it. Eventually.


I'm currently working my way through You-Know-Who's 56-page speech near the end.


Oh, you're on the home stretch.

The only reason I read it, which was only about 3 years ago, btw, was because people kept talking about it and to say anything about it, I wanted to know what I was talking about. To say it was a chore is an understatement. It took me quite a while to get through it, mainly because it's not very well written and it's extremely boring and I can usually tear through the average 300-400 page book in a few sittings. It made me never want to read another thing by Ayn Rand. Then a few months later I went ahead and read The Fountainhead like an idiot. That one was better and easier to get through, but after that...no, no more Ayn Rand. Not worth the time.
 
2012-10-22 02:49:43 PM

LasersHurt: mr lawson: LasersHurt: But you characterize anything you thing is a step too far as "tyranny," so it makes you hard to negotiate with.

life is hard

I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't jump right on board with Libertarianism with such thoughtful discussion.


It's unfortunate. I think it takes a somewhat eccentric person to buck the norm and look for other solutions than the blue/red monopoly, and when they come across liberalism they see the good ideas put forth by rational people and cling on and shout it out to their friends in a self-righteous manner making the whole party look nutty. And the major parties and business interests that support them have no problem pushing that perception further.
 
2012-10-22 02:51:05 PM

Kazan: i know. you're pretty much the only reason i do not say "all Libertarians i've met" on most things.


individual freedom and civil liberties comes before cutting taxes. I am not sure how anyone can call himself libertarian and prioritize the latter over the former
 
2012-10-22 02:51:31 PM

Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....


There would be a lot more money in the banking system if the banks didn't treat depositors as a cow to milk. Banks make a majority of their money from charging fees to their customers. What idiot would have their money in a bank right now?
 
2012-10-22 02:53:37 PM

SquiggsIN: "My viewpoint is better than yours"

"No it isn't, your viewpoint is for idiots"

"Idiots like me are better than idiots like you"



Does this sum up this almost all of the content on every thread so far?


Yeah.
 
Displayed 50 of 402 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report