In a rare display of empathy and humility

No, subby. If anything, they didn't go through with it because they knew the backlash would be far too great. Other elements of Wall Street probably leaned on them not to go through with the lawsuit for the same reason. That doesn't require empathy or humility.

dervish16108: In a rare display of empathy and humility

No, subby. If anything, they didn't go through with it because they knew the backlash would be far too great. Other elements of Wall Street probably leaned on them not to go through with the lawsuit for the same reason. That doesn't require empathy or humility.

Pretty much this. Reminded me of another Farker's post ending with:

Human Emotions,

Mitt Romney

dervish16108: In a rare display of empathy and humility

No, subby. If anything, they didn't go through with it because they knew the backlash would be far too great. Other elements of Wall Street probably leaned on them not to go through with the lawsuit for the same reason. That doesn't require empathy or humility.

Exactly.

I can't believe they were even thinking about this - oh wait, no, I guess I'm no surprised it was on the table. Bottom line is the bottom line. shiatheads haven't learned a thing from all this.

Some board directors at AIG are worried about the potential damage to the firm's reputation if the insurer joined the lawsuit,




Ahhhhhh hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hah hah hah hah. *pant* *pant* AHHHHHHH hahahahahahahahah

Cause Senator Warren would have handed them their dick on a silver platter. That Democrat, from Massachusetts no less, is what ever Senator should strive to be.

Some times you just have to tiptoe out and peek over into the abyss.

That doesn't mean you have to jump.

Right now there is an AIG PR person who is black-out drinking out of joy, rather then sorrow.

The AIG board needs to have its balls smashed in a Craftsman bench vise.

Please. Wall Street doesn't know the meaning of either of those two words.

Greenberg should be in jail

cards fan by association: I can't believe they were even thinking about this - oh wait, no, I guess I'm no surprised it was on the table. Bottom line is the bottom line. shiatheads haven't learned a thing from all this.

I can. They were worried that if they didn't join the lawsuit, that their shareholders would sue them in response. I figure they were waiting to see how bad the media fallout would be after announcing their intention to join. Obviously, they found out. But they still have to deal with their shareholders.

Um,

My outrage cannot be contained with just letting them off anymore, man.

It's time to prosecute these fukers and put some of them in jail for devaluing the American economy, house, retirement, and savings by a third with their chicanery.

And that's that.

P.S. Thank you in advance, Mr. President.

I still think Warren should push to repeal all these tax breaks, etc (what were her words - phantom bailout or something?) that AIG is receiving. Even without them suing the US, why are they even receiving them?

This is a chance for Warren to let her true colors shine -- a big talker who is looking for symbolic victories or a true representative of the people? With AIG even considering this (stockholder suggested or not -- they shouldn't have such greedy farking ownership then, I say), Warren would have the public support to go at all the perks AIG is receiving from the government. If she considers this a fair solution (that a company who farks the American people only 98% of the time gets to continue on with business as usual) then I think that is a very bad sign for those who believe in her to really shake things up.

Sen. Warren gets the "Oh Snap!" prize today.

Blaxabbath: I still think Warren should push to repeal all these tax breaks, etc (what were her words - phantom bailout or something?) that AIG is receiving. Even without them suing the US, why are they even receiving them?

This is a chance for Warren to let her true colors shine -- a big talker who is looking for symbolic victories or a true representative of the people? With AIG even considering this (stockholder suggested or not -- they shouldn't have such greedy farking ownership then, I say), Warren would have the public support to go at all the perks AIG is receiving from the government. If she considers this a fair solution (that a company who farks the American people only 98% of the time gets to continue on with business as usual) then I think that is a very bad sign for those who believe in her to really shake things up.

Um,

That's Senator Warren, you disrespectful jackhat.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, Senator...

*)

Indubitably: Um,

My outrage cannot be contained with just letting them off anymore, man.

It's time to prosecute these fukers and put some of them in jail for devaluing the American economy, house, retirement, and savings by a third with their chicanery.

And that's that.

P.S. Thank you in advance, Mr. President.

The most amazing thing I've seen in my life is how Wall Street managed to deflect the public outrage at their shenanigans.

Even I'm wondering how much of the immoral, corrupt, and lowdown actions done by Wall Street were actually against the law. A huge chunk of it was stuff that wasn't even regulated properly, wasn't it?

meat0918: Indubitably: Um,

My outrage cannot be contained with just letting them off anymore, man.

It's time to prosecute these fukers and put some of them in jail for devaluing the American economy, house, retirement, and savings by a third with their chicanery.

And that's that.

P.S. Thank you in advance, Mr. President.

The most amazing thing I've seen in my life is how Wall Street managed to deflect the public outrage at their shenanigans.

Even I'm wondering how much of the immoral, corrupt, and lowdown actions done by Wall Street were actually against the law. A huge chunk of it was stuff that wasn't even regulated properly, wasn't it?

Yeah, it wasn't regulated properly, and it still isn't, really. That doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't be able to bury them in class action lawsuits with the entire American people as plaintiffs, no? Let's do this.

Indubitably: meat0918: Indubitably: Um,

My outrage cannot be contained with just letting them off anymore, man.

It's time to prosecute these fukers and put some of them in jail for devaluing the American economy, house, retirement, and savings by a third with their chicanery.

And that's that.

P.S. Thank you in advance, Mr. President.

The most amazing thing I've seen in my life is how Wall Street managed to deflect the public outrage at their shenanigans.

Even I'm wondering how much of the immoral, corrupt, and lowdown actions done by Wall Street were actually against the law. A huge chunk of it was stuff that wasn't even regulated properly, wasn't it?

Yeah, it wasn't regulated properly, and it still isn't, really. That doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't be able to bury them in class action lawsuits with the entire American people as plaintiffs, no? Let's do this.

P.P.S. Wait. NVM. I prefer jail time for some bankers. Fines and monetary loss won't "effect change," but jail time for bankers in regular pens will. Let's do this squared.

But I just bought a new pitchfork and my torch is burning at just the right temperature.

Wont someone think of me ?

These fukers flaunt their arrogance and have since Paulsen bailed his friendlies and will until time immemorial unless we say "Enough!"

Madame Giffords and Astronaut Kelly, I concur and ride meme.

Enough!~

OMG...someone, a company, actually did something RATIONAL???!!!

The end of the world must be coming!!!

Blaxabbath: I still think Warren should push to repeal all these tax breaks, etc (what were her words - phantom bailout or something?) that AIG is receiving. Even without them suing the US, why are they even receiving them?

This is a chance for Warren to let her true colors shine -- a big talker who is looking for symbolic victories or a true representative of the people? With AIG even considering this (stockholder suggested or not -- they shouldn't have such greedy farking ownership then, I say), Warren would have the public support to go at all the perks AIG is receiving from the government. If she considers this a fair solution (that a company who farks the American people only 98% of the time gets to continue on with business as usual) then I think that is a very bad sign for those who believe in her to really shake things up.

If she gets the perks removed, I'll vote for her for president. No lying.

Dinjiin: cards fan by association: I can't believe they were even thinking about this - oh wait, no, I guess I'm no surprised it was on the table. Bottom line is the bottom line. shiatheads haven't learned a thing from all this.

I can. They were worried that if they didn't join the lawsuit, that their shareholders would sue them in response. I figure they were waiting to see how bad the media fallout would be after announcing their intention to join. Obviously, they found out. But they still have to deal with their shareholders.

Guess we should take back the money and let them go bankrupt then.

cards fan by association: I can't believe they were even thinking about this - oh wait, no, I guess I'm no surprised it was on the table. Bottom line is the bottom line. shiatheads haven't learned a thing from all this.

It was something that had to be dealt with. Long term, it is the right decision.

Call me when the asshat pushing the suit goes to jail for what he did, or pays for it in pretty much any significant way at all.

"...alleges that the rescue provided by the U.S. government in September 2008 to AIG was made on unfavorable terms to the insurer. "

Serious? Beggars can't be choosers, right?

HellRaisingHoosier: Cause Senator Warren would have handed them their dick on a silver platter. That Democrat, from Massachusetts no less, is what ever Senator should strive to be.

What the fark are you clowns talking about? Senator Warren had absolutely zero to do with this. On what could you possibly base that?

These guys had to make appearances like they were considering the suit, in an actual board meeting, to reduce the chance of the d-bags actually bringing the suit (Greenberg et al) from suing them for neglecting their fiduciary duty.

AIG management (the majority of whom came to the company after te bailout) know full well that the company wouldn't exist if not for the bailout, and that the negative reputational impact of joining this suit would far outstrip any potential gains from the suit.

Pretty funny they even considered this in light of their latest PR campaign

cards fan by association: Dinjiin: cards fan by association: I can't believe they were even thinking about this - oh wait, no, I guess I'm no surprised it was on the table. Bottom line is the bottom line. shiatheads haven't learned a thing from all this.

I can. They were worried that if they didn't join the lawsuit, that their shareholders would sue them in response. I figure they were waiting to see how bad the media fallout would be after announcing their intention to join. Obviously, they found out. But they still have to deal with their shareholders.

Guess we should take back the money and let them go bankrupt then.

Umm, we made $22b on the bailout of AIG.

HellRaisingHoosier: Cause Senator Warren would have handed them their dick on a silver platter. That Democrat, from Massachusetts no less, is what ever Senator should strive to be.

Caucasian Native American?

mongbiohazard: Call me when the asshat pushing the suit goes to jail for what he did, or pays for it in pretty much any significant way at all.

He lost billions of dollars when AIG got bailed out. He was the largest shareholder in the company. Hence his numerous op-Ed columns whining about the bailout and this silly lawsuit.

Plus, what did he do that warrants jail time, exactly? He did something that IMO warrants jail time, but I suspect you think something else.

mongbiohazard: Call me when the asshat pushing the suit goes to jail for what he did, or pays for it in pretty much any significant way at all.

Amd what will you say?

jaybeezey: HellRaisingHoosier: Cause Senator Warren would have handed them their dick on a silver platter. That Democrat, from Massachusetts no less, is what ever Senator should strive to be.

Caucasian Native American?

Does it matter?

Deviolence.

Blaxabbath: I still think Warren should push to repeal all these tax breaks, etc (what were her words - phantom bailout or something?) that AIG is receiving. Even without them suing the US, why are they even receiving them?

This is a chance for Warren to let her true colors shine -- a big talker who is looking for symbolic victories or a true representative of the people? With AIG even considering this (stockholder suggested or not -- they shouldn't have such greedy farking ownership then, I say), Warren would have the public support to go at all the perks AIG is receiving from the government. If she considers this a fair solution (that a company who farks the American people only 98% of the time gets to continue on with business as usual) then I think that is a very bad sign for those who believe in her to really shake things up.

What are they receiving? What are the perks and special tax breaks that have you so worked up? I'd hate to think that you'd state an opinion on it without any knowledge of the details, merely harrumphing the grandstanding words of a politician of your party.

Still should have let them go under. Just kicking the can down the road pretending this ill-conceived, government sponsored fiasco of privatizing profits and socializing losses is a damnable precedent and is unsustainable. It will happen again and again, just like the savings and loan scandal in the 90s, a new crop of banking-robbers will show up and flash some cash at regulators and politicians who will then bend John Q. Taxpayer over a barrel to pay for their foolishness.

meat0918: Indubitably: Um,

My outrage cannot be contained with just letting them off anymore, man.

It's time to prosecute these fukers and put some of them in jail for devaluing the American economy, house, retirement, and savings by a third with their chicanery.

And that's that.

P.S. Thank you in advance, Mr. President.

The most amazing thing I've seen in my life is how Wall Street managed to deflect the public outrage at their shenanigans.

Even I'm wondering how much of the immoral, corrupt, and lowdown actions done by Wall Street were actually against the law. A huge chunk of it was stuff that wasn't even regulated properly, wasn't it?

Lots of terrible things can be legal if you pay enough money to the right people. It's called corruption. And with so little investigative journalism being done, it's why America is screwed.

Pharmdawg: Still should have let them go under...

Problem was they underwrote a hell of a lot of the economy.

Publicy stoning Hank Greenberg? where do I get in line?