Originally Posted by Owain
See, this is why I don't just take people's word for things, even in so august an organization as the KGB. If the evidence was so prevalent, why is it such a big deal to present some?

First, I don't know what evidence you might have in mind. I am not clairvoyant. If you think you have compelling evidence, it is not unreasonable to ask that you present what you have.




http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/23/investing/jay-clayton-sec-confirmation-hearing/index.html (btw Jay Clayton was Goldman Sach's bailout lawyer. Now he's looking to head the SEC. Heh.)

I could keep going, I didn't even link Mnuchin specifically or Bannon - I'm pretty damn sure you know their background without me having to spell it out.

The New Yorker gives a pretty good account of the whole situation, which I just found while randomly googling for links.


Considering Goldman Sachs and their cronies are literally robbing every single one of us, and pulling off the biggest looting spree in literally the history of the world, I don't think more needs really be said. I suppose I could dig up one of Trumps many attacks against Goldman Sachs vis a vis Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton, but why bother. If you actually deny they exist then I will.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)