with the N trillion pounds the state has poured into these maggots the 
banks, could they not simply have set up their own bank?

Like if a bank failed then everyones savings/wages (guaranteed 
apparently) replaced by the state backed (for example Girobank) holdings?

as it is, if any bank goes the way of CIT then government has to borrow 
even more bankster money to backup the funds guaranteed....

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:03:12 +0000, FrereTuck wrote:

> with the N trillion pounds the state has poured into these maggots the
> banks, could they not simply have set up their own bank?
> 
> Like if a bank failed then everyones savings/wages (guaranteed
> apparently) replaced by the state backed (for example Girobank)
> holdings?
> 
> as it is, if any bank goes the way of CIT then government has to borrow
> even more bankster money to backup the funds guaranteed....

of course it obvious why they are propping up even the holeyist of ships 
because the money will be coming to them (in current liquidation state 
secondary debts which they would not otherwise receive) before the ship 
goes down...

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:22:59 +0000, FrereTuck wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:03:12 +0000, FrereTuck wrote:
> 
>> with the N trillion pounds the state has poured into these maggots the
>> banks, could they not simply have set up their own bank?
>> 
>> Like if a bank failed then everyones savings/wages (guaranteed
>> apparently) replaced by the state backed (for example Girobank)
>> holdings?
>> 
>> as it is, if any bank goes the way of CIT then government has to borrow
>> even more bankster money to backup the funds guaranteed....
> 
> of course it obvious why they are propping up even the holeyist of ships
> because the money will be coming to them (in current liquidation state
> secondary debts which they would not otherwise receive) before the ship
> goes down...

I mean obviously darling wont receive anything like a great wad (yet...) 
he trusts his advisors or is in their pocket, (fuckin 'ell does he look 
like beaker off the muppets or what...)  and like major for instance he 
will land a plum do-fuck-all but waffle on a bit (well no difference 
there then ;) ) job in a while...

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:03:12 GMT, FrereTuck  wrote:

>with the N trillion pounds the state has poured into these maggots the 
>banks, could they not simply have set up their own bank?
>
>Like if a bank failed then everyones savings/wages (guaranteed 
>apparently) replaced by the state backed (for example Girobank) holdings?
>
>as it is, if any bank goes the way of CIT then government has to borrow 
>even more bankster money to backup the funds guaranteed....

ok...i'll 'help'...maybe only a little
if you tell anyone we'll have to silence you

in a fiat (or even a gold based) government
     money cartel, recurrent 'crises' are just part
     of the package...
only removing the cartel would change that...
     and then you'd still be stuck with insuring or losing
     your deposits...

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:29:33 +0100, abelard wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:03:12 GMT, FrereTuck  wrote:
> 
>>with the N trillion pounds the state has poured into these maggots the
>>banks, could they not simply have set up their own bank?
>>
>>Like if a bank failed then everyones savings/wages (guaranteed
>>apparently) replaced by the state backed (for example Girobank)
>>holdings?
>>
>>as it is, if any bank goes the way of CIT then government has to borrow
>>even more bankster money to backup the funds guaranteed....
> 
> ok...i'll 'help'...maybe only a little if you tell anyone we'll have to
> silence you
> 
> in a fiat (or even a gold based) government
>      money cartel, recurrent 'crises' are just part of the package...
> only removing the cartel would change that...
>      and then you'd still be stuck with insuring or losing your
>      deposits...

well, sounds like an HK417 and 200 rounds (plus grenade launcher and 20 
grenades) for every Briton would have been a better investment then... ;)

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:42:24 +0000, FrereTuck wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:29:33 +0100, abelard wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:03:12 GMT, FrereTuck  wrote:
>> 
>>>with the N trillion pounds the state has poured into these maggots the
>>>banks, could they not simply have set up their own bank?
>>>
>>>Like if a bank failed then everyones savings/wages (guaranteed
>>>apparently) replaced by the state backed (for example Girobank)
>>>holdings?
>>>
>>>as it is, if any bank goes the way of CIT then government has to borrow
>>>even more bankster money to backup the funds guaranteed....
>> 
>> ok...i'll 'help'...maybe only a little if you tell anyone we'll have to
>> silence you
>> 
>> in a fiat (or even a gold based) government
>>      money cartel, recurrent 'crises' are just part of the package...
>> only removing the cartel would change that...
>>      and then you'd still be stuck with insuring or losing your
>>      deposits...
> 
> well, sounds like an HK417 and 200 rounds (plus grenade launcher and 20
> grenades) for every Briton would have been a better investment then...
> ;)

fuck its a shitty state when you cant specify a kick-ass British rifle 
for the job...

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:45:08 +0000, FrereTuck wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:42:24 +0000, FrereTuck wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:29:33 +0100, abelard wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:03:12 GMT, FrereTuck  wrote:
>>> 
>>>>with the N trillion pounds the state has poured into these maggots the
>>>>banks, could they not simply have set up their own bank?
>>>>
>>>>Like if a bank failed then everyones savings/wages (guaranteed
>>>>apparently) replaced by the state backed (for example Girobank)
>>>>holdings?
>>>>
>>>>as it is, if any bank goes the way of CIT then government has to
>>>>borrow even more bankster money to backup the funds guaranteed....
>>> 
>>> ok...i'll 'help'...maybe only a little if you tell anyone we'll have
>>> to silence you
>>> 
>>> in a fiat (or even a gold based) government
>>>      money cartel, recurrent 'crises' are just part of the package...
>>> only removing the cartel would change that...
>>>      and then you'd still be stuck with insuring or losing your
>>>      deposits...
>> 
>> well, sounds like an HK417 and 200 rounds (plus grenade launcher and 20
>> grenades) for every Briton would have been a better investment then...
>> ;)
> 
> fuck its a shitty state when you cant specify a kick-ass British rifle
> for the job...

ah... crom cruach (the banker maggots most logical choice of idol) feeds 
on prana, negative energy...

bloody bent one... seems to describe these war-profiteers perfectly.

viewed in that paradigm, current events make a lot of sense...

don't let the sun go down on your anger.... !