What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- pehpsi, on 12/21/2007, -161/+87Well, I sure as hell hope he votes for Mr. Dr. Ron Paul. ***** like this wouldn't happen on his watch!
- mightydavefish, on 12/21/2007, -69/+28Yeah, those Republicans are SO respectful of personal rights.
- DrPaul2008, on 12/21/2007, -20/+49I would disagree, as the Republicans are largely neocon/fascists. However, Ron Paul is a true, libertarian, conservative, and he obviously, and absolutely, respects "personal rights".
This is a crime. Hopefully this man can recover his money.- chsbrgr, on 12/21/2007, -14/+10He isn't a Republican?
- Minarchian, on 12/21/2007, -5/+27Paul is a Conservative Republican. Therefore he is a staunch supporter of the Constitution. Whereas the other candidates are neo-cons who believe in the power of the State to do as it pleases.
- CoolWind, on 12/21/2007, -2/+21Correction: neo-cons do as they please. They aren't hindered by beliefs. Their sole motivation is personal power and greed.
- Hammer7, on 12/21/2007, -4/+3Now THAT's a Republican!
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -24/+9He is a republican and he opposes the civil rights act.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 12/21/2007, -5/+22What good has the civil rights act done lately other than keep black racists like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson in business. A hate crime law is so stupid because it charges someone for their beliefs and not the actual crimes. Thoughts and beliefs should be free for a person to exercise no matter how hateful it is. The motives for a crime should never be punishable. Only the crime itself. Charge people for threatening someone. Charge people for assaulting someone. Don't charge someone for exercising their right to believe whatever they want.
The other thing is the hate crime laws themselves are prejudice because there really isn't any way a white guy could get away with charging a black guy with the same hate crimes white guys often get charged with. Because most juries have a hard time admitting that black people can be racist too. Or they think that because they are black it gives them the right to be racist. Hate crimes do not protect everyone equally where as your basic violent crime laws do. Or at least as equal as humanly possible.
The civil rights act was good at a time when racism was strong in our country. It kept the racist in line and brought us to today where a great majority of the educated nation is color blind. The only thing the civil rights act does now is make white people step on their tip toes around black people so they don't wind up offending one and getting sued for a hate crime or something.
We are so close to eliminating racism. But we need to move out of the 60s mentality and stop using our laws to add racial tensions. We need better education, leaders that speak against exclusive cultures like white people generally getting made fun of for joining the hip hop culture or even black people who jump into the punk rock scene. And we need to get rid of laws and government programs that split us up into races and make determinations based on the races of the parties involved.
Racism will not stop until we stop dividing people into groups. And that won't stop until we evolve our laws to treat ALL people equally. Whether they are in the majority or not. - FredFredrickson, on 12/21/2007, -18/+1Bill, you obviously have no understanding of race relations in the US, so you should probably just stop talking now.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 12/21/2007, -0/+16If you disagree then why don't you actually say something intelligent and productive. This is why there is racial tension in this nation. Anytime someone talks about it they either get labeled a racist or an idiot.
Hate crime laws have brought us as far as they will take us. It's time to evolve our laws and our education or we will never truly be equal. - robbiegadling, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1@ TaoOfBill
Hate crimes aren't about the specific crime, so the laws can't deal with them the same way.
I lived in a small town for several years. When the local hicks beat the ***** out of one of the gay people in town, it wasn't about picking on one gay person, it was also about sending a message to all of us: "You are not welcome, and we will use violence to make you leave."
That's not simple assault. It's terrorism. By definition, it's terrorism. I can agree with you that hate crime laws are flawed and should not exist. These crimes should be prosecuted under existing terrorism laws. - andburn1, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Oh god. I don't even know where to begin. This is sad. First of all, you obviously have no idea what the Civil Rights Act did. It prohibited racial discrimination in places of public accommodation like restaurants and hotels, as well as in employment. It had absolutely nothing to do with hate crimes, and is clearly the most important piece of civil rights legislation in United States history. Without it, private businesses would be free to practice any segregation and discrimination that they wanted to.
Secondly, it's clearly not an outdated piece of legislation because it is used quite often by the courts to prosecute instances of racial discrimination. For instance, recently (the last five or ten years) there was an incident where black secret service agents were not seated at a Denny's, and white patrons who came after them were seated. This was investigated and found to be the case in many Denny's establishments across the country. Without the Civil Rights Act, this would never have come to light, much less have been prosecutable. This is just one of numerous instances of discrimination that occur every year and that are brought to court. This is verifiable through any federal organization. The fact that you think the Civil Rights Act is outdated shows your complete ignorance in regards to race relations in the United States.
Your assertion of a "color blind" mentality as an ethically and logically sound outlook is ridiculous. There is much evidence in academia and in pure common sense to show that race (as well as gender, religion, socio-economic status, etc) has a large bearing - sociologically and psychologically - on issues of both personal and group identity. There's a difference between everyone equal treatment in the law and recognizing differences in groups of people. Race (and other identifiers) should always be considered in a full understanding of our society, and equality cannot be achieved through "blindness."
And, in regards to your comments on racism towards whites, I have a few things to say. First of all, white Americans are the single most privileged group of people in the history of the world. The idea of a white person being repressed because of racism is laughable. Only through an extreme sense of entitlement could one come to think that they should be allowed equal treatment in a culture based largely on racial identity. Disregarding the fact that there are many sucessful and respected white hip-hop artists (no, I'm not talking about Eminem or Vanilla Ice), there's no reason that white people should be angry about the stigma against whites in hip-hop culture. The animosity towards whites is present - and understandable. Blacks have a higher crime rate, lower average economic status, and less average education. Why? Because they are violent, lazy, or stupid? NO! Because of their historic subjugation by whites in the form of slavery! True though it may be that we as current white Americans aren't directly responsible for slavery, we would be ridiculous to ask black Americans to just forgive and forget, because, as I said, part of our racial identity, as a group, is that we have subjugated minorities over and over throughout history, and have risen to be the most privileged race because of that. There are many different groups of people that need to be considered when striving for equality, but white Americans aren't one of them.
I suggest you try and open your eyes to the fact that racism is alive and well in this country. It's not as widespread as it used to be, but think of all the mexican gardener jokes you've heard and then tell me that racism is almost gone. Racism thrives in America, and we need to work hard every day to try and end it. - TheTaoOfBill, on 12/22/2007, -2/+1//Secondly, it's clearly not an outdated piece of legislation because it is used quite often by the courts to prosecute instances of racial discrimination. For instance, recently (the last five or ten years) there was an incident where black secret service agents were not seated at a Denny's, and white patrons who came after them were seated. This was investigated and found to be the case in many Denny's establishments across the country. Without the Civil Rights Act, this would never have come to light, much less have been prosecutable. This is just one of numerous instances of discrimination that occur every year and that are brought to court. This is verifiable through any federal organization. The fact that you think the Civil Rights Act is outdated shows your complete ignorance in regards to race relations in the United States.\
If Denny's is discriminating against you then stop going to Denny's. You don't need laws to end that. You need public action. You can't force people to not be racist through laws. You can only educate them to know better or you can make them see that the public opinion you will get for not seating black people is far worse then whatever consequence you think you might get from seating black people.
Just look at what happened in Jena. Did laws create the controversy? No, people from all over the nation did. Laws can only bring you to a certain point. And we've hit it. It's time to move on an evolve.
I know racism is not dead. I never said it was. But it virtually is in the educated community. I have not met a single university graduate who was racist. So the solution to racism is not laws if you ask me. The solution is education. Racism for blacks and whites is more prone to those who did not make it through high school or had a very poor high school education. That's why I said the great majority of the education nation are color blind. And it's true.
While the laws might be forcing people to treat everyone equally, it's also forcing companies to hire solely on race. It's also forcing people to watch what they say or watch what music they listen to to avoid offending anyone. The laws cause more harm than good. - andburn1, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1You're an idiot. A completely moronic, asinine, RACIST ***** idiot. Laws must protect their citizens. Every citizen has the right to eat wherever the ***** they like. Money is legal tender for all debts, private or public. If a citizen has money, he or she may use the money in exchange for food at any institution that serves food for money. ***** you, you goddamn ass-backwards racist ***** retard. HOW CAN YOU BE SO STUPID!? HOW!? The law DID end the discrimination. Denny's paid all its fines and *****, and now, if you watch a Denny's ad, it's very conspicuously diverse.
And what the ***** you stupid *****, you think educated people aren't racist? You think the Denny's execs didn't go to college? AGH, RETARD.
AND I ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY THE TERM COLOR BLIND IS ***** IDIOTIC AND YET YOU PERSIST TO USE IT.
And you don't even know what affirmative action does. It allows a company or school to consider race as a factor, that's it. If a white person is equally as qualified as a black man, the school is allowed to consider the fact that blacks are less educated in general, and admit the black one, thus contributing to general equality by educating more blacks. Solely on race? You idiot, the applicant must be equally as qualified as a white person they are considering. Never would an under-qualified applicant be accepted or hired just because of their race.
And you say that the laws are forcing us to not listen to music? Really? I'm white. Guess what one of my favorite groups is? Blackalicious. How the ***** does the LAW make us not listen to music? You ass-backwards *****, you deserve to be taken out back and beaten. - TheTaoOfBill, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Wow dude. You have some anger issues. Let me try to sift through the useless name calling and try to address your points.
You're right. People should be able to eat wherever they want. But I also believe that a business owner should have the right to not serve whoever they want for whatever reason they want. It's their business. If they want to turn away paying customers that's their loss. And it's a very stupid choice to make because they will likely be run out of town for being a racist.
I'm not a racist. I despise anyone who thinks they are better than someone based on the color of their skin. My boss right now is a black man and we've had a healthy business relationship for over a year.
I am just very big on freedoms and freedom of choice. I don't think it's right to tell people who they can hire and who they can serve. They own the business they can do whatever they want with it.
If you don't like the way a business handles itself it's your choice as the consumer to no longer support them. That's how a free market world works.
Also I don't recall saying the laws prevented white people from listening to rap music. Maybe if you'd calm down you'd have read what I said better. I said that there should be more leaders and role models discouraging that kind of treatment. And it does happen. Where do you think the word wigger came from. The way to get rid of racism isn't through laws. It's through role models and proper education. Laws only divide races and make tensions worse. - andburn1, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Actually, that's exactly what you said: "While the laws might be forcing people to treat everyone equally, it's also forcing companies to hire solely on race. It's also forcing people to watch what they say or watch what music they listen to to avoid offending anyone." The "it" here is referring to the laws, even though it should have been "they."
Whatever, it's clear you don't understand the role of government in protecting its citizens, and the role of businesses as part of a community that values equality. It's sad you won't see reason, but I'm just glad that neither you, Ron Paul, or any other morons like you will ever become President.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 12/21/2007, -5/+22What good has the civil rights act done lately other than keep black racists like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson in business. A hate crime law is so stupid because it charges someone for their beliefs and not the actual crimes. Thoughts and beliefs should be free for a person to exercise no matter how hateful it is. The motives for a crime should never be punishable. Only the crime itself. Charge people for threatening someone. Charge people for assaulting someone. Don't charge someone for exercising their right to believe whatever they want.
- republicker, on 12/21/2007, -3/+9*Sprinkles crack on him
- chsbrgr, on 12/21/2007, -14/+10He isn't a Republican?
- Spuy767, on 12/21/2007, -5/+21Can we just stop with the horse ***** and agree this this is the worst breach of "Innocent until Proven Guilty" that we have seen in white some time?
- odigity, on 12/21/2007, -4/+27For *****'s sake, mightydavefish, stop thinking in terms of mother ***** parties. Look at the god damn ***** individual, you son of a bitch.
- sv650touring, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Thank you! I'm tired of people supporting their candidates like the captains of their favorite sports team or something. Mindless drones. "Yayyyy!!! [whoever is in my party] in 2008!"
- OwdenBowden, on 12/21/2007, -47/+13ENOUGH. ENOUGH. NO MORE RON PAUL CRAP.
ALL OF THE RON PAUL SUPPORTERS ON DIGG ARE DOING A HELL OF A JOB AT MAKING SURE THERE IS NO VOTES CAST FOR HIM - AS YOU ARE ***** PAINS IN THE G-D DAMN ASS.
SHOVE YOUR RON ***** PAUL BUTTON UP YOUR RON ***** PALL ASSES.
AND PLEASE BY ALL MEANS GO AHEAD AND DIGG ME DOWN ALL OF YOU RON PAUL ***** SUCKING BROWN NOSE ASSHOLES. OTHER WISE DIGG ME UP BECAUSE I AM RIGHT.- copyland, on 12/21/2007, -8/+16enough. enough. no more all caps crap.
all of the allcaps supporters on digg are doing a hell of a job at making sure that no one takes them seriously - as you are obviously in need of therapy and a fresh life.- jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -20/+3WHY DO YOU HATE ON CAPS? WHO CARES HOW THE PERSON TYPES. IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE READING CAPITOLS THEN YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM. I AM NOT ATTACKING JUST YOU I AM SAYING THIS TO ALL YOU POMPOUS ASSES WHO JUDGE PEOPLE BY HOW THEY TYPE. GET A LIFE AND COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMETHING REAL LIKE POVERTY, CRIME, THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR CONSTITUTION, THE ROTTING OF THE UNITED STATES, THE ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF IRAQ, THE FACT THAT WE ARE THE ONLY RICH NATION WHO DOES NOT PROVIDE HEALTHCARE, THE TERRIBLE SCHOOL SYSTEMS AND SO ON. BE CONSTRUCTIVE IN YOUR CRITICISM. STOP TELLING PEOPLE THEY NEED THERAPY BASED ON THE METHOD OF PRINT THEY USE. IF THAT IS NOT THE MOST ASSANINE *****......
- andburn1, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Well, caps means that you're basically yelling. Ok? It's just unnecessary most of the time. That said, I agree with the Owden, caps and all. This story is no place for a ***** political plug. Shameless.
- GreyICE, on 12/21/2007, -3/+9You won't be voting for at least another 6 years. Why the hell should I care who you would or wouldn't vote for?
- OwdenBowden, on 12/21/2007, -6/+4i am not asking you to care who i vote for or not. i am rather sick and tired of seeing the ron paul crap all over digg. you want to support ron paul - fine but could you please stop trying to make everyone on digg drink the kool-ade. as for the copylands comment. you are an ***** - yes i said it and own it - an ass hold who has no clue at what the ***** takes place in the world. all caps means yelling (just in case you did not get that jack ass0 as for being obvious - there is nothing in my comment that reflects any need of mine for "therapy and a fresh life". what you did in your comment is assume and as we all know when you assume you make an ass out of you.
- TopherT, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3If you don't like it, don't digg it. Now get lost.
- andburn1, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1No, topher, ***** you! Disregarding the fact that Ron Paul would effectively bury this country, and is using the language of progressive politics to further a policy that would end every civil and economic protection that minorities and lower-class citizens have gained since America's inception, it's just SPAM. This story has nothing to do with Ron Paul, or the 2008 election. The President doesn't have the power to stop this ***** anyway! So, PLEASE, don't rape our eyes with your propaganda on every goddamn story!
- copyland, on 12/21/2007, -8/+16enough. enough. no more all caps crap.
- Bilabrin, on 12/21/2007, -4/+1You obvoiusly have no clue of what's going on....
- AmICoolNow, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Ron Paul is a pure constitutionalist. He DOES respect personal rights.
- adventchild08, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1As a matter of fact his pure libertarian ideals are why he is so popular among diggers....in a weird way digg is libertarian in design....
- andburn1, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Oh yeah? Did the Constitution apply to black people? Did it allow poor people to vote? No, it didn't. And we amended it as we progressed. Things like affirmative action, the minimum wage, and Medicare are all non-constitutional advancements in the protection of civil liberties. But, just because they're not explicitly in the Constitution, they'd be swept aside. It's absolutely ridiculous, and it would destroy the nation for anyone who isn't rich and white.
- DrPaul2008, on 12/21/2007, -20/+49I would disagree, as the Republicans are largely neocon/fascists. However, Ron Paul is a true, libertarian, conservative, and he obviously, and absolutely, respects "personal rights".
- bigdirtymoose, on 12/21/2007, -47/+15yeah, except that ron paul is against the FDIC, which means that any of the millions of americans who actually keep their savings in banks would risk losing everything if a bank went under. that is so much better than what happened here, right?
- unloud, on 12/21/2007, -14/+22He wants independent banks to be able to issue currency based on the gold and silver standards. Our money would be based on more than paper and banks would be much less likely to "go under" in a stock-market-crash situation due to a more solid currency. Unless the bank is lying to you they'd have no reason to go under.
- OverlordXenu, on 12/21/2007, -23/+8Going back to gold and silver standards would be worse than what we have now! As would individual banks making their own money. We need to go to a standard where the government prints our own money, and not a private bank like the Fed.
- jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -2/+4you are right overlordxenu, the gold/silver standard has it's problems. but the un-constitutional federal researve has to go!
- spinchange, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2The Fed is not a "private bank" and is not unconstitutional.
It was created by congress with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/fed101/hist ...
The federal reserve system is a complex one made up of Fed Banks, member banks, a board of governors, and open market committee and more . Yes, most member banks are "private", but all are regulated by local, state, and federal regulatory authorities. Additionally, when we say "private" that is not to mean secret- it means for non-governmental or for profit. These are banks like Citi, Chase, BofA, the big guys. (Not a secret cabal of cigar smoking tycoons hiding out with the Illuminati.)
http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/fed101/stru ...
When you consider a system of checks (electronic and paper) and commerce conducted throughout a large area, and the fact that we live in a free market, capitalistic, society, it is logical, natural and non-threating that private banks can be members of this overall system. Want the funds wired to you house closing? Want to be able to write a check for that purchase? Want you atm/debit card to work? It's the 'internet' of banking.
On that note and analogy: Do you think the internet would work if no "private" phone companies or private research/educational networks were allowed or involved? It's a public/private partnership.
- brstilson, on 12/21/2007, -6/+22CHANGE BAD!!!!
HULK SMASH!!! - Frei, on 12/21/2007, -8/+6Which is completely nuts.
- bjornski, on 12/21/2007, -6/+18How are we going to get enough gold to switch the entire currency system over?
Invade gold-producing countries? We have a trade deficit, we wouldn't be accruing anything.
Would he BUY it? With that? Worthless dollars?
And independent banks? I'd trust them as much as I'd trust the S&L's or Enron. Who would regulate them?
The states? On a federal currency? Or would we have state currencies then too?- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -15/+11Don't ask such questions to the Cult of Paul about their dear leader.
- unloud, on 12/21/2007, -6/+3Actually, to be 100% honest, I don't know. I haven't watched up enough of his comments on the state of money. I am still not 100% set on voting for the man, I was just stating the position I knew about in response to bigdirtymoose.
- odigity, on 12/21/2007, -7/+12You know, Ron Paul actually has good answers for all these questions. Unfortunately, you have to go past the sound bite factory aka debates to get them. The fault is yours, though, if you don't actually take the time to find them.
Here, learn: http://digg.com/politics/Lecture_by_Ron_Paul_on_Ex ... - bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -4/+4You could have 1 ounce of gold to cover our money supply, as the amount of gold isn't a factor (as proven by Murray Rothbard). But who says the market would make gold the standard? It could be gold, platinum, silver, or any combination of those or other things that people value. That is how free-markets work. If you read 'The History of Banking in the United States' by Rothbard, I promise it will open your eyes.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 12/21/2007, -3/+4It wouldn't be just gold. It would be any metal that is rare. Gold, Silver, Platinum, Copper. You basically have an unlimited supply of metals on this earth. Maybe not gold but when gold becomes to rare to get more you move on to a new metal, probably Silver. And you just keep on moving to a new metal as it becomes more rare. I don't get how people can say we couldn't get to the level of richness we are at on the gold standard. If that's true then it truly says that we are living way too far beyond our means. But I don't believe that is true. We might have to lower our standard of living for a decade or so but that's going to happen anyway and much harsher btw if we allow our dollar to continue to go unbacked and let it crash.
The only thing backing our dollar right now is consumer confidence. As long as the world accepts that the dollar is strong it will be strong. Unfortunately for us many exporters are starting to not accept dollars anymore. Especially oil exporters in the middle east. And I don't think this trend is going to end anytime soon. And the more people stop accepting dollars the lower it will go. We are looking at a 2nd great depression here if we don't make serious changes to the way our dollar is handled. - spinchange, on 12/21/2007, -1/+9All of us arm chair economists talk go back and forth on this all day. The fact of the matter is that turning back the clock on the current, globally accepted and relied upon centralized banking & money system is well intentioned, but imprudent at best and completely delusional & reckless at worst. The types of concerns espoused by Dr. Paul are fair and have been espoused since the founders. Remember as the President, James Madison allowed the charter on the First Bank of the US to expire, only to find that the country desperately needed it after it was to late to pay for the War of 1812. President Andrew Jackson didn't trust centralized banking either. He went on a prolonged campaign to "break" the Second Bank of the United States, withdrawing most of the countries reserves. In both instances, the US economy suffered and was subject to more volatility, panics, and economic decline or stagnation.
There is a reason fiat currency & centralized banking is the worlds accepted foundation of commerce and medium of exchange. It works and allows for economic growth and flexibility. It invention was born out of necessity, not conspiracy.
- OverlordXenu, on 12/21/2007, -23/+8Going back to gold and silver standards would be worse than what we have now! As would individual banks making their own money. We need to go to a standard where the government prints our own money, and not a private bank like the Fed.
- DrPaul2008, on 12/21/2007, -8/+16Wow, you have a lot to learn. Either that, or you're another liar.
Not that you really give a crap about the stuff you were spewing there, but being pro-FDIC doesn't mean that you don't risk everything if the banks go under. Banks seem to be just fine, and they've robbed everyone of all the value of the US dollar.- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -15/+3Oh Noes the evil banks are making the NWO!
- Tilon, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6Methinks someone needs to actually look into the FDIC and realize they're every bit as retarded as the banks themselves, only having enough on hand to cover like 1%.
Haha. Joke's on you. You've fell for the old Socialist trick of naming something the opposite it is.- bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Actually, the reserve requirements are somewhere between 8-10%, but it truly is a false sense of protection. If there is a bank run, the government will simply print more money to hand out, which will make it that much less valuable.
Paul's position is to allow competing money supplies, at which time the market (that is us, the consumers) will decide what we value most. I'm quite sure some will be backed by gold, but also by silver, plutonium and other valuable things. That is the beauty of the market, we get to decide by the millions and millions of trades we conduct.- imgstacke, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1no its more like 1% -- The FED lends out 1000$ and keeps 100$ in reserve (%10) ---> Bank -- The Bank can now loan out 10,000$ and keep the 1000$(from the FED) in reserve...
100$ creating 10000$ -- That's how our system works.
Yes, seems like I'm making it up but I am not. When you borrow money from a Bank, you are not given existing money, they literally create money out of thin air at the rate of 10:1 and hand that over, not money from the vault or from an existing account.
- imgstacke, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1no its more like 1% -- The FED lends out 1000$ and keeps 100$ in reserve (%10) ---> Bank -- The Bank can now loan out 10,000$ and keep the 1000$(from the FED) in reserve...
- bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Actually, the reserve requirements are somewhere between 8-10%, but it truly is a false sense of protection. If there is a bank run, the government will simply print more money to hand out, which will make it that much less valuable.
- seandaly, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Someone doesn't know much about the savings and loan collapse of the 80's... You think the FDIC is solid? What happened to the FSLIC? Any idea?
They went bankrupt! Total cost to taxpayers to clean up that mess is estimated at $175 billion.
Our economy is on the brink of disaster today. If one, (JUST ONE) of the JP Morgan Chase or Bank of America's collapses, the ripple effect is going to be unimaginable. Instant hyperinflation... The dollar will be worthless and the FDIC would go bankrupt overnight (just like FSLIC did).
The FDIC was an OK idea back when our banks were local / regional and the odds of something happening to more than one at any given time was remote. With all of the consolidation / mergers / acquisitions in the past 15 - 20 years, the FDIC couldn't pay out if even just ONE of the big 5 collapsed.
The truth is, we're likely ***** and no one (not even the omnipotent Ron Paul) can save us.
Years and years of greed coupled with the last 7 years of policies to help support that greed will ultimately end up destroying our economy.
And don't think that those who've made their money screwing you will lose out... They've been quietly moving their money to assets insulated from the dollar so when it does collapse, they're protected and can make money off of you again!
Capitalism... Something that makes this country so great will inevitably be our demise. - andburn1, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Either way, people still need to be protected from banks going under. Just because they're less likely doesn't mean it wont happen.
- unloud, on 12/21/2007, -14/+22He wants independent banks to be able to issue currency based on the gold and silver standards. Our money would be based on more than paper and banks would be much less likely to "go under" in a stock-market-crash situation due to a more solid currency. Unless the bank is lying to you they'd have no reason to go under.
- freff, on 12/21/2007, -33/+29Quick reaction Paul Spam Squad, GO!
- phazon88, on 12/21/2007, -11/+40People never have 2 titles in their name it's either Mr. or Dr. Not both.
- NickSpinner, on 12/21/2007, -20/+5ron paul is the one exception actually. and actuall i dont fully trust him, he might be equally evil. but hes waking people up, thats what matters. hes a goddamn lizard for all i know, but still wakes people up
- EarlOfLade, on 12/21/2007, -33/+23You done sucking RP's dick soon?
- saisumimen, on 12/21/2007, -5/+21Hold on, it's almost your turn.
- shiv68, on 12/21/2007, -7/+13Jesus Christ I had a mouth full of coffee in my mouth when I read that. HAD!
- DarkSamus, on 12/21/2007, -2/+6you sure it wasn't rp's dick?
- EarlOfLade, on 12/21/2007, -8/+4Sorry, but I'm not a convert or a worshiper of RP, quite the opposite. I find the man funny, so funny, I like to joke about the most unelectable person to enter this race.
It's really funny to be able to get a glimpse inside the fantasy world RP's fanbois live in. It's so far from the real world, it's almost like they were in an online fantasy world like WoW.- imgstacke, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Yeah like that time they all thought they raised like 4.3 Million in one day! That was a trip!, OOOOh and i think last week they all thought they raised 6 Million dollars in one day... its so funny.
And get this, they actually believe they had over 100,000 donors in the 4th quarter alone. Like all those peolpe would actually vote after giving money - Pshaw!
I mean when voter turn out is minuscule - those dedicated people mean nothing - right? In their fantasy world?
- imgstacke, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Yeah like that time they all thought they raised like 4.3 Million in one day! That was a trip!, OOOOh and i think last week they all thought they raised 6 Million dollars in one day... its so funny.
- shiv68, on 12/21/2007, -7/+13Jesus Christ I had a mouth full of coffee in my mouth when I read that. HAD!
- saisumimen, on 12/21/2007, -5/+21Hold on, it's almost your turn.
- tao52nyc, on 12/21/2007, -11/+38Ya know...I'm a BIG Ron Paul supporter, and even I am beginning to get annoyed by posts like this, especially over links that aren't even related to electoral politics. We can tone it down, folks...save it for the stories that matter. Ron Paul may be the best candidate around, but he isn't the Second Coming, and to end civil asset forfeiture would require an act of Congress.
- Wartz, on 12/21/2007, -10/+14many of them are fakers trying to make ron paul supporters look bad
- amoirae, on 12/21/2007, -7/+2You wish. They're true believers.
- jaymzdean, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3There are also fakers saying..."You know, I like Ron Paul too, but...blah blah blah..."
- andburn1, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Hahahaha, HOW CONVENIENT. Just because you don't agree with one of your group's actions doesn't mean you can pretend he's not a true believer. ***** you. Just, ***** you. You'll make up ANYTHING to further your cause! Just own up to the fact that some of your number are immature spammers! It makes the rest of you look bad, so discourage it, don't pretend like they're not your kind.
- imgstacke, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1no - its a fake cuz its just two guys in our basements, and I called the other guy and it wasn't him... must be a faker...
- voisine, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5No act of congress needed. The FBI is part of the executive branch. He could just instruct them not to use that power granted them by the congress. The local and state police however would have to be given the smack down by the local voters. This is an extremely appropriate article to mention RP. This is exactly the kind of crap we want to elect him to stop.
- ChildeRoland420, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3We really need a court ruling that declares this the unconstitutional load of crap that it is.
- andburn1, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2I'm sorry, but it's not that black and white. Ron Paul would not magically fix this. And just because a story is political doesn't mean it's ok to proselytize on it. I'm sure many candidates are against this, you don't see their supporters going on and on about it.
- Wartz, on 12/21/2007, -10/+14many of them are fakers trying to make ron paul supporters look bad
- odigity, on 12/21/2007, -6/+11The Ron Paul comment isn't irrelevent. As President, he would be able to direct the energy of the Executive Branch (especially the Attorney General) away from ***** like this.
Here, learn: http://digg.com/politics/Lecture_by_Ron_Paul_on_Ex ...- bulkhater, on 12/21/2007, -3/+4You're still just a spammer. Worse yet, a spammer for a politician!
- aerogant, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Did you even watch the video? It is entirely relevant! Even if you don't agree with Ron Pauls other views, what he says in that video is way more important then some petty ideas of him being a politician or you liking some other candidate.
- aerogant, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Did you even watch the video? It is entirely relevant! Even if you don't agree with Ron Pauls other views, what he says in that video is way more important then some petty ideas of him being a politician or you liking some other candidate.
- KillerStone, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1Buried. This topic has NOTHING to do with Ron Paul. Your preaching to the choir when you make noise about Ron Paul, Digg is undoubtedly one of his largest fan bases.
- aerogant, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2In the video he talks about congress was originally responsible for creating laws, but had given the executive branch generalized authority to create agencies that would create laws/codes on it's own, in which these agencies didn't have to create constitutional laws/codes. Like in this case the FBI for not requiring due processes, and in another case the IRS for also not requiring due processes but also forcing people to testify against themselves, these are things protected by the constitution. This video is entirely relevant, just because it is Ron Paul, doesn't make it any less relevant. This isn't so much preaching to the choir, this is a video I have never seen before, it is a new video as far as I can tell.
- aerogant, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2In the video he talks about congress was originally responsible for creating laws, but had given the executive branch generalized authority to create agencies that would create laws/codes on it's own, in which these agencies didn't have to create constitutional laws/codes. Like in this case the FBI for not requiring due processes, and in another case the IRS for also not requiring due processes but also forcing people to testify against themselves, these are things protected by the constitution. This video is entirely relevant, just because it is Ron Paul, doesn't make it any less relevant. This isn't so much preaching to the choir, this is a video I have never seen before, it is a new video as far as I can tell.
- andburn1, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2PLEASE, just because he disagrees with it doesn't mean it's ok to ***** spam us!
- bulkhater, on 12/21/2007, -3/+4You're still just a spammer. Worse yet, a spammer for a politician!
- Lolerdong, on 12/21/2007, -3/+9AWWW HELL YEAH, Dr. Ronald Paul the first would leg drop those fools until sanford got his money back.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3If Ron Paul tried that, he'd break a hip.
- jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2that made me laugh!
- FredFredrickson, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3If Ron Paul tried that, he'd break a hip.
- CoolWind, on 12/21/2007, -6/+5Why would a bank go under, taking all your money with it? Maybe bad loans, like the sub-prime mortgage debacle. Of course. Under Ron Paul, that would be YOUR problem, not the government's problem. You would lose YOUR money when B of A declares bankruptcy because THEY squandered their money. Go Libertarians!
- andburn1, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Amen brotha.
- scorpokat3, on 12/21/2007, -3/+2*****!!! I just got a car loan through B of A!!! I thought they seemed a little desperate to buy my loan...
- latinjones, on 12/21/2007, -10/+6Seriously Guy....Stop with the RON PAUL *****.Your comment is useless and it's going to end up hurting Ron Paul more than helping him. Do you really think that you are going to help him get votes this way?
This message is coming to you from a Ron Paul supporter. If you want to help the guy, find a local meetup group and get involved and quit spamming every ***** digg article with stupid comments about Ron Paul.
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/- voisine, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3Yeah, it's damn annoying how relevant he is to the hundreds of articles that get posted about government abuse and oppression every day. Quit it.
- cyberoptic, on 12/21/2007, -2/+13Mr. Dr. Mrs. Ms. Sir. Ron Paul M.D PHD. SR.JR. RN. BMW.AMD.
- amoirae, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3BFD
- DavidGX, on 12/21/2007, -14/+4***** ron paul and ***** you. Blocked.
- peteosw, on 12/21/2007, -3/+4I get a good laugh out of the Cult of Paul. Don't take away my comedy goldmine - all this fun will be over after he gets destroyed in the primaries.
- Tylox, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2No my friend, we are taking over the primaries because we have a real candidate, no other presidential candidates have REAL supporters, we are smart, we have real strategies that will work, and your future president will cut your job working for the New World Order spam brigade.
- andburn1, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2LMAO, PETE, (that's my name too!) CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS CLOWN!? I agree, to an extent. We should just let them be, that way, they will have made even bigger fools of themselves when it comes to it. That said, I can't help myself... TYLOX, WTF? How do you think "smart" equals votes? Are you all registered Republicans in Iowa or New Hampshire? ***** no you're not. The polls are in. Paul has little support in those states among the registered Republicans. Pew Research. He also doesn't have enough money to survive losses in these states. He's done.
- Modizzle, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Being blocked by DavidGX is sort of a big deal too. He's actually someone who cares about what other people say. For him to block you, means that you really crossed the line. I'm glad I'm not in your shoes, pal.
- peteosw, on 12/21/2007, -3/+4I get a good laugh out of the Cult of Paul. Don't take away my comedy goldmine - all this fun will be over after he gets destroyed in the primaries.
- cheesecake42, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3generally, people that live in peru don't vote for the u.s. president
- mightydavefish, on 12/21/2007, -69/+28Yeah, those Republicans are SO respectful of personal rights.
- IMJGalt, on 12/21/2007, -9/+564
- socalrob, on 12/21/2007, -23/+6Everything in this country is based on money though. You can kill someone and if you have enough money get away with it. If you dont have enough money, hell its ok you only get a few years in prison. But if you still someones money instead of killing them... Ohh your bad have fun in prison for 40 years.
- Nichiren, on 12/21/2007, -6/+15Despite the holes in your statement, I am choosing to point out to you that it is spelled "steal".
- CoolWind, on 12/21/2007, -11/+2grammar Nazis blow
- AmICoolNow, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1My friend does that. He has a very Californian accent where words like "stealing", and "sailing" become stilling and selling, and somehow it translates into his writing and typing. I don't wanna point it out to him, but I'll gladly point it out to a stranger like socalrob...
Your spelling sucks!
- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Its true. Punishment for money crimes can be as severe and sometimes even more so than violent crimes such as rape and killing. The only difference is probley no death penalties for stealing, but you could rot the the rest of your life away in prison.
- Iconoclast25, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1"You can kill someone and if you have enough money get away with it."
A thought which brings a smile to teddy the Hutt's ugly puss every day.
- Nichiren, on 12/21/2007, -6/+15Despite the holes in your statement, I am choosing to point out to you that it is spelled "steal".
- DangerCollie, on 12/21/2007, -1/+114It's more than just forfeiture of assets, it's the assumption of guilt in their seizure. Guilty until proven innocent. And to what standard and whose satisfaction?
Seizure without some evidence of wrongdoing is theft. And the lame old justification of finding "drug residue" on cash is a crock of *****. You can find drug residue in almost any amount of cash.
And don't get me started on freezing someone's assets, that's a whole 'nuther level of abuse. Once you sell out rights they're hard to get back.- dougmc, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6In the case of asset forfeiture, it's the asset that is charged, not the owner. And since the asset is not a citizen, not a human, it does not have the usual Constitutional protections, like `innocent until proven guilty'. And yes, it's beyond screwed up ...
- eridius, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4They didn't even say they found "drug residue", they simply found marijuana in the guy's home, completely unconnected to the cash.
- rbanffy, on 12/21/2007, -27/+5Actually, if he has 400K in a safe at home and this money is unexplainable and undeclared to the IRS, he should be accused of tax evasion. Of course, since he can't prove he made the money, I assume he did not pay any taxes when he made the 400K.
- mindwalker, on 12/21/2007, -1/+18If he can't prove he made the money, then the IRS probably can't prove he made the money either.
- bbtweb, on 12/21/2007, -4/+0think about the implications of what you just said. so then back to square one, the money didn't just come out of a beer fart.
- Nichiren, on 12/21/2007, -18/+4I'm actually more surprised by the fact that no one's mentioned how stupid it is to not keep that much money in some sort of financial institution. It's not the 18th century anymore.
- Spuy767, on 12/21/2007, -11/+3I have no Idea why you're being buried. I generally consider my father to be a retard for a number of financial reasons. 1) He utterly and steadfastly refuses to use online banking. 2) He doesn't use direct deposit. 3) Every paycheck, he takes a few hundred dollars an puts it in a goddamned brown envelope in his closet. Sooooooo, at any given time, my father will have several thousand dollars in a brown paper envelope in his closet? What in the ***** is the problem with a savings account?
- jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4because the banks steal money and because some people understand that when the market crashes and all these people who have their money in the banks are assed out, those who chose to keep their money at home will be in a much better position. some people especially the elderly don't trust banks and with good reason.
- Nichiren, on 12/22/2007, -2/+1I have no idea why am being buried either. A safe is not all that "safe" to keep your money in. And for people arguing that banks are only FDIC insured up to $100K, there are multiple solutions for that such as other bank or investment accounts. Why keep your money at home when it's losing value to inflation (especially these days) when you could let it appreciate elsewhere? And contrary to other comments on this thread, banks don't "steal" your money. You don't log into your account one day and find out that your money is no longer there.
- Iconoclast25, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Your father wants the comfort of knowing he has a nest egg unknown to the JBTs. It gives him freedom which may be unavailable to others. It gives him freedom to make an opportunistic large cash purchase without obtaining permission from anyone else. How many times have you seen / heard of situations where someone offers to sell a vehicle / jewelry or other asset for a steep discount to its true value because of a need for cash? If somebody has the bucks at hand, it is a good deal for you and a relatively good deal for the seller whose next step might be a pawn shop or to have the asset taken by one of the thieves in suits.
- CoolWind, on 12/21/2007, -7/+2maybe he needed the cash to finance his next drug purchase
- Ricky8765, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7Plenty of people don't keep money in banks. Don't be so ignorant as to assume EVERYONE has to use banks. At least a safe doesn't charge you stupid fees for holding your money. Plus many average banks only insure up to $100,000. The laws are stupid in this case, not the man.
- Nichiren, on 12/22/2007, -2/+1So you're telling me that you keep all of your money at your house? Also, keeping $100k in a bank checking account is stupid when you could let it appreciate better in value through investments. Lastly, you lose your money's value if you keep your money in your house due to inflation, especially with the way things are going now.
- Ricky8765, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Wooooshhhh
*Nichiren looks up*
My comment went right over your head didn't it? Not once did I say that I keep all my money at my house. At any one time I probably have ~$100 sitting around somewhere. I do keep my money in a bank. Bank checking account? Where the hell are you pulling this ***** from. I never said anything about keeping $100k in a checking account. I'm not even sure how to respond. Do you think you earn THAT much interest at a bank to overcome inflation? Please! Now investing in stocks and funds will certainly keep you ahead of inflation, as long as you pick a good stock that is.
The main point of my comment was that banking is not some universally good force in the financial world that everyone should use. Some people prefer not to, and that doesn't make them stupid.
- compconsultant, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6Spuy767,please give me your Dad's address. Thanks!
- jaxcs, on 12/21/2007, -5/+1fdic banks insure up to 100k per account. Your money is actually pretty safe.
- bbtweb, on 12/21/2007, -4/+1you should not be buried, you raise one of the best points here. where I live...hell, there's no way I'd have that kind of money just lying around.
- Ricky8765, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5And where other people might live there's no way they'd let a bank have their money. It's not stupid to keep money out of a banks hands. It is stupid to assume EVERYONE must let a bank hold on to their money.
- jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3the money was not just lying around, it was in a safe and notice the would be robbers didn't get it, the ***** feds got it.
- Iconoclast25, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Money in the bank is money "the man" can track. Same idea with checking accounts and credit cards. We are not talking criminals here - there are plenty of people in this world who have near -0- trust in any gov't . . . and with good reason. With all the data mining / privacy invasion, etc., too many organizations know all too much about us. Using cash and staying "off the grid" to the greatest extent possible suits a lot of honest people.
- Spuy767, on 12/21/2007, -11/+3I have no Idea why you're being buried. I generally consider my father to be a retard for a number of financial reasons. 1) He utterly and steadfastly refuses to use online banking. 2) He doesn't use direct deposit. 3) Every paycheck, he takes a few hundred dollars an puts it in a goddamned brown envelope in his closet. Sooooooo, at any given time, my father will have several thousand dollars in a brown paper envelope in his closet? What in the ***** is the problem with a savings account?
- teh_techie, on 12/21/2007, -0/+26If he made the money throughout his lifetime, he was already taxed. You can't double tax!
- brufleth, on 12/21/2007, -2/+14Yeah that's just it. I'm pretty sure the IRS would be able to pull his income for however many years and it should be clear if he made that much or not. Some simple math to figure out rough cost of living estimates would tell them if he must have had undeclared income or something. The whole thing seems odd to me.
- odigity, on 12/21/2007, -1/+9You have a great career ahead of you as an IRS agent! Tip: invest in a bullet-proof vest, and pray to god there is no hell.
- asaturn, on 12/21/2007, -5/+1what is the tax on weed and crack anyway?
- AriaStar, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1You're taxed when you get your check, and then taxed when you spend it. And registration fees and such are more taxes. We're more than taxed twice.
- brufleth, on 12/21/2007, -2/+14Yeah that's just it. I'm pretty sure the IRS would be able to pull his income for however many years and it should be clear if he made that much or not. Some simple math to figure out rough cost of living estimates would tell them if he must have had undeclared income or something. The whole thing seems odd to me.
- protogenxl, on 12/21/2007, -0/+13As the Joker once said. "I may be crazy enough to take on Batman, but the IRS? No thank you!"
- BlacklabelSAR, on 12/21/2007, -0/+23Why would you assume that he didn't pay taxes on that money? You have zero information yet you make an assumption. So there's a logic problem. Add to that the fact that under the law, we are innocent until proven guilty. This is a great example of why we need to regain our freedoms in the country.
- CoolWind, on 12/21/2007, -14/+1duh. if he had paid taxes on it they wouldn't have confiscated it. logic check completed.
- Neiby, on 12/21/2007, -0/+8I think your idea of logic differs from ours.
- jaxcs, on 12/21/2007, -5/+0it was seized because of drugs not taxes. logic check fail. He will get it back if he can show that he made the money legally.
- PaleGhost, on 12/21/2007, -15/+1
- GreyICE, on 12/21/2007, -0/+8Police officers don't arrest innocent people? What rock have you been living under?
For reference, here's a guy who is a real, genuine hero, and who was treated as a criminal by law enforcement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell
Here's a man who was imprisoned for 8 years, and was innocent.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=940 ...
There's thousands of stories like this. - gerrylazlo, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4I found that comment so profoundly ignorant that I had to check out your commenting history. It is the litany of a troll. It's funny how many of your comments I can't find in the actual thread any more because they've been removed for offensiveness.
- GreyICE, on 12/21/2007, -0/+8Police officers don't arrest innocent people? What rock have you been living under?
- MrWhite7, on 12/21/2007, -0/+12"Police officers don't arrest innocent people. If this guy can nopt prove/doesn't want to prove he is a drug dealer/made his money legally, he isn't entittled to it back."
Ignorance like that sir is why we no longer have a complete right to habeus corpus. Your statements make me ill. - edmcguirk, on 12/21/2007, -0/+12Police officers don't arrest innocent people? What planet do you live on? We wouldn't need courts if that were true.
Even if he did get the money illegally, if the government can't convict him of a specific crime, they should not be entitled to take his money. Sorry but sometimes the criminals do win. It's the price we pay to make sure that the innocent are not unjustly convicted of crimes they didn't commit.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
- CoolWind, on 12/21/2007, -14/+1duh. if he had paid taxes on it they wouldn't have confiscated it. logic check completed.
- mindwalker, on 12/21/2007, -1/+18If he can't prove he made the money, then the IRS probably can't prove he made the money either.
- DestroyFascism, on 12/21/2007, -1/+57FBI Federal ***** institution...
How can you forfeit something based on an assumption...what happened to DUE PROCESS Mofo's?- PaleGhost, on 12/21/2007, -27/+0
- SSUK, on 12/21/2007, -3/+10You're.... You are. Good job.
- rspeed, on 12/21/2007, -5/+5I think you mean "moran"
- BlackBob, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1You suck.
- bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -0/+8Same that happened to habeas corpus.
- Garbagio, on 12/21/2007, -1/+8If you actually do want to know what happened to due process look no farther than the Patriot Act. Habeus Corpus bye bye.
- Garbagio, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Actually, my mistake it was the Military Commissions Act (MCA) that suspended Habeus. Report in the link.
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0212-24.htm
- Garbagio, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Actually, my mistake it was the Military Commissions Act (MCA) that suspended Habeus. Report in the link.
- PaleGhost, on 12/21/2007, -27/+0
- ucg1, on 12/21/2007, -1/+20True, I have heard about cases where the people just have a large sum of cash on them (e.g. $100k) and it is automatically seized because it might have been used in an illegal drug transaction, even though there were no drugs found and person does not have any prior convictions or anything.
- principle, on 12/21/2007, -0/+17This is yet another inequity of the law in relation to drugs. Under this system, the suspect is guilty until proven innocent.
- gernblansted, on 12/21/2007, -0/+12In many cases, drugs don't even come into it except for the rational. Unlike this case many people have cash stolen by the government simply because they can't prove their money innocent of drug activity, even though there are no drug charges or even evidence of drug activity present. Note that point - it's the money (or the house or the car whatever) that is suspected of illegal conduct, and therefore must be proven innocent. The money/house/car is considered an individual in that thin little case, except that that particular individual has no rights to redress, because everyone knows a stack of money or whatever doesn't have rights. They play both ends, it makes no sense logically, but they wind up pocketing the money. The DEA (which usually gets a cut of whatever law enforcement steals) is very secretive when it comes to how much money they have stolen from America.
The reason the government can get away with torture/murder/protecting corporations who commit gang rape against our own citizens is because we all sat around and let them get away with the kind of criminal behavior in this article for decades now. If we let them get away with what they're doing now, expect thing to get even worse. One excess leads to another.
- gernblansted, on 12/21/2007, -0/+12In many cases, drugs don't even come into it except for the rational. Unlike this case many people have cash stolen by the government simply because they can't prove their money innocent of drug activity, even though there are no drug charges or even evidence of drug activity present. Note that point - it's the money (or the house or the car whatever) that is suspected of illegal conduct, and therefore must be proven innocent. The money/house/car is considered an individual in that thin little case, except that that particular individual has no rights to redress, because everyone knows a stack of money or whatever doesn't have rights. They play both ends, it makes no sense logically, but they wind up pocketing the money. The DEA (which usually gets a cut of whatever law enforcement steals) is very secretive when it comes to how much money they have stolen from America.
- Ricky8765, on 12/21/2007, -0/+10See, who says we need an income tax when we have the FBI to "secure funds" from those "shady" folks who don't trust modern banking?
- jaxcs, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5This is one of those cases where perception creates reality. How dangerous are drugs to society and how vigorously should we try to eliminate them from society? Your answer determines how sensible this law is. That said, I don't think there were a great deal of drugs found in the house or he would have been charged with possession. But, the law seems to have nothing to do with the amount of drugs found, only the forfeiture of assets when found with drugs. There is some chance that he will be able to get his money back but he needs the help of a good pro bono attorney. He's fortunate that his house wasn't also seized.
- dinAlt, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1This has absolutely nothing to do with how you view the "War on Drugs." The asset forfeiture law invoked in this case is a blatant violation of the the Fifth Amendment: "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
How is this NOT depriving him of his property without due process?
While we are at it, this also looks like a violation of the Fourth as well: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
- dinAlt, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1This has absolutely nothing to do with how you view the "War on Drugs." The asset forfeiture law invoked in this case is a blatant violation of the the Fifth Amendment: "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
- canUdi9it, on 12/21/2007, -0/+14This is an example of how the war on drugs has turned the Constitution on its head. The government is the criminal in this case. They are using these laws to move us towards a cashless economy. If he had had that money in a bank, there would have been no forfeiture. Large amounts of cash are assumed to be from illegal activities, no evidence required. That is blatantly unconstitutional. He should sue the police and the FBI for violating his civil rights. He should ask for damages 10 times what he lost.
- weloveronpaul, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1here, here
- akphidelt, on 12/21/2007, -9/+13 Things Here...
First of all don't ever wear a cowboys hat
Second off, if you have $400K lying around a ghetto house, 99% of the time that money is illegal some how
Third of all, if you think it's illegal to seize someones money it most definitely is not. Holding cash is no different then having a bank account and if the FBI sees $400K in your bank account, they will contact you and freeze it until you prove that you made it legitamately. It is absolutely no different when it comes to cash.- l00s3r, on 12/21/2007, -0/+9So let me sum up what you are saying: The Feds can take everything from you without charging you with a crime because they've done it before?
- gooniegoogooz, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Funny I read an article this morning about how Wall Street exec bonuses are up 14% this year... Already averaging 2.5 million each. I wonder if the same thing would happen to them? Oh wait, they don't live in the ghetto, and only wear cowboy hats when there's blow and hookers involved.
- akphidelt, on 12/21/2007, -2/+0They also pay taxes on them!!
- Narpas, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Legally, the FBI can do this. Constitutionally, they really shouldn't. Fair process, if we're going the not-paid-taxes route, is for the FBI to leave for the time being, get the IRS to pull up records, and seize after obtaining proof of wrongdoing. Being suspicious doesn't constitute proof.
- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1"Second off, if you have $400K lying around a ghetto house, 99% of the time that money is illegal some how"
I dont like to play race cards, but thats mildly racist. So there is something suspicious or criminal about this guy having money and not loading up his truck and moving to beverly. - dinAlt, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1The man is of retirement age. It's not unreasonable to save a large sum of money for retirement.
That aside, have you ever heard of 'presumption of innocence' or read the Bill of Rights? The relevant part of the Fifth Amendment says, "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" Just because they have done it before does not make it right or constitutional.
- shitthisfook, on 12/21/2007, -4/+13Welcome to the United Snakes. Land of the thief, home of the slave.
- cmburns69, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Wow, did you think that up for yourself?
- TnTBass, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3You MUST keep your money in the bank, otherwise the powers that be have to search your home to confiscate all your money instead of just having a bank glitch "wipe out" all your savings.
Basically, you are making it hard to steal all your money if you keep it in your own safe. Keep it in my safe instead, that way I can just take it without all the hassle of having the cops search your home to find it. Trust the Bankers, the Police, and your government, what could possibly go wrong?- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3They will take care of us and let us know what we need, when we need it and what we don't. I feel so safe and protected here like a mothers womb. Gurgle, gurgle, burp.
- FadieZ, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Innocent until proven guilty my ass.
- crazycracker911, on 12/22/2007, -3/+1It's the law to report $10,000 and over to the IRS.This guy is probably sh*it out of luck.
- RobsaysHello, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5The banks must report transactions over that amount, it has nothing to do with how much money you keep under your mattress.
- socalrob, on 12/21/2007, -23/+6Everything in this country is based on money though. You can kill someone and if you have enough money get away with it. If you dont have enough money, hell its ok you only get a few years in prison. But if you still someones money instead of killing them... Ohh your bad have fun in prison for 40 years.
- Iconoclast25, on 12/21/2007, -12/+58Ruby Ridge, Waco . . . JBTs . . . .
- GafferXL, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6So much for being assumed innocent, and proven guilty...
- EditorResponse, on 12/21/2007, -173/+16I agree it is heavy handed. However, he should be able to prove he made the money. Anyone with $400K lying around in their HOME should have records to be able to prove that they legally made the money. That should be pretty easy task for anyone with that sort of cash on hand.
- mightydavefish, on 12/21/2007, -7/+151So guilty until proven innocent?
Yep, there's that right wing stupidity.
Does it ever even occur to you that the policies you advocate are the opposite of what our nation was founded on?- DangerMouse9, on 12/21/2007, -2/+25He just doesn't care. I'm sure he would have no problem being strip searched for running a red light, after all he has nothing to hide.
- 5urr3al5am, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1I don't run red lights
- CedEx, on 12/21/2007, -1/+0If it was Alessandra Ambrosio conducting the search, I'd run every red light possible.
- Narasil, on 12/21/2007, -1/+23Actually that kind of stupidity is "wingless". When the democrats ran Lousyanna they had a similar law there where people where people were getting their cars confiscated right and left (no pun intended). The cops were selling them at auction and taking ski trips to Aspen. It got so bad that people actually started to DRIVE AROUND THE STATE instead of risk loss of their vehicle for no reason whatever.
Thankfully they finally had to repeal the law....but believe me this is not a left/right issue.- 5urr3al5am, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3how can you say that it wasn't a left/right issue when the democrats ran the state and ran everything into the ground?
- Aticper, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Well, see, now the Republicans are doing the same thing to the entire country.
- 5urr3al5am, on 12/21/2007, -8/+1I think he MIGHT have been guilty when he had an illegal drug on hand
- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Guilty of what? Having pot. Yeah mabey. But apparently he's not charged with that, and what does that have to do with his money anyway?
- Soave, on 12/21/2007, -6/+3"Right wing stupidity" huh? Seriously, this has nothing to do with parties or political views. Stop generalizing.
- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Sometimes it does have to do with politics. But its funny how lefts and rights will both support the same ***** for different reasons. Generalizing can be helpful to focus on a bigger picture, but I agree that on this subject its a distraction from the details.
- patpl22391, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Wait, what about the woman who accused Halliburton workers of raping her. You all are assuming her charges are true. What's the difference? Trust me this isn't a right/left wing issue. It's a common sense issue.
- DangerMouse9, on 12/21/2007, -2/+25He just doesn't care. I'm sure he would have no problem being strip searched for running a red light, after all he has nothing to hide.
- wpi97, on 12/21/2007, -2/+98What?!?! Never mind the presumption of innocence, the guy is not even charged with any crime, and the money is not used as evidence of anything! So if I have a gold-plated toilet in my house, the FBI can confiscate it and demand full accounting on how I payed for it, without even charging me with anything? And if I can't furnish the documents, they will sell it and use the money for "law enforcement purposes"?!?! Sorry, dude, but I must unfriend you now.
- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1You would be spread eagled on the floor before you could wipe your ass.
:)
- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1You would be spread eagled on the floor before you could wipe your ass.
- DrPaul2008, on 12/21/2007, -4/+49Without regard to the other problems I have with you sentiment there, do the words, "It's none of your damn business" mean anything to you?
- Scrappy1850, on 12/21/2007, -2/+12why?
- chocolateblunt, on 12/21/2007, -0/+40dude, you have issues
why would anyone save things like that for 40 years ?
i work in the medical field and we're only required to keep records for 3
i wouldn't be able to pull receipts to show what i've made in the past year, let alone the past 40- varmit, on 12/21/2007, -10/+2If you make money doing something, then you have to file taxes showing you made that money. You can get your tax forms from the IRS with a simple phone call and show how much you made and prove that the money is yours. He has to do the same thing. If he can't prove that he made the money, and filed his taxes to show he made it, it is most likely that he got the money through illegal activities which any criminal would not file taxes for.
- edmcguirk, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5That would be fine if they charged him with tax evasion. If they do not charge him with anything, they can't confiscate his money.
- compconsultant, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1You really think the IRS is going to hand over tax records?
- jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2you do not have to file federal taxes. there is no law.
- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4I would like to come to your house and make you prove to me that you own everything I find there. If you cant prove that you legally own and paid taxes on your grandmas antique china then you probley stole them and I can confiscate them.
- dinAlt, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2The man is of retirement age. If we assume he worked for 40 years, he would have had to put away about $10,000 per year to accumulate $400,000. This is definitely suspicious, but not impossible. Perhaps he's just a responsible kind of guy; perhaps not, but this is not the issue!
The Feds deprived him of his property without due process, a violation of the Fifth Amendment, seized property without a warrant, a violation of the Fourth, and then there's the whole presumption of guilt thing.
As a side note, you are only required to keep tax records for seven years. It is just a tad bit unreasonable for the government to implicitly expect you to keep all your receipts for you entire lifetime, don't you think?
- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2wrong comment
- varmit, on 12/21/2007, -10/+2If you make money doing something, then you have to file taxes showing you made that money. You can get your tax forms from the IRS with a simple phone call and show how much you made and prove that the money is yours. He has to do the same thing. If he can't prove that he made the money, and filed his taxes to show he made it, it is most likely that he got the money through illegal activities which any criminal would not file taxes for.
- blackinthmiddle, on 12/21/2007, -0/+35EditorResponse, think of what the FBI is asking this guy to do. I've graduated college in '96 and have been working since. Two of the eight companies I've worked for have gone belly up in that short span of time. Another one has changed drastically. So if your thought would be, "Well just call the company you worked for", that won't fly.
This man is over sixty years old and has been working longer than I've been alive! Do you think he's got pay stubs? Even if you hold your stubs for seven years like you're supposed to, he still couldn't account for how he has over 3/4 of his money.- compconsultant, on 12/21/2007, -5/+1If he got the income from a job, he would just need to show his social security statement, which gets mailed to his home every year.
- jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -0/+9plenty of people in this country work for cash, plain and simple. you cannot judge someone based on the method of currency they choose to use. it seems to me like many of the people here on digg are ready to convict this man simply because he carries cash. slippery slope people, slippery slope.
- aerogant, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4There are also people that work in trade for something.
- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Good point Jennifer. I wonder how long before cash is illegal.
- Iconoclast25, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2@ compconsultant:
Beep! Fail! Plenty of ways to make money - legally - without paying social security. Capital gains on real estate, securities, any asset, really. Gifts, inheritances, . . . . Social Security only applies to employment income.
@ aerogant:
Theoretically, one reports the 'fair market value' of trade items as income. Sorry
@ robthom
The Gestapo would REALLY like us all to use little plastic chips so they can track every transaction, every movement.
- compconsultant, on 12/21/2007, -5/+1If he got the income from a job, he would just need to show his social security statement, which gets mailed to his home every year.
- altgeeky1, on 12/21/2007, -6/+42If I go by what you say here, and ignore my suspicions (unproven) of the man's income generation, it sounds like you are saying "You have stashed more money at home than is legally permissible.".
VERY interesting... so what's the threshhold -- $400k as you say? So if you were a DA, we would be OK with $300K? What if all the money is in gold because you don't trust paper? What about old relatives who reportedly kept TENS of thousands in boxes over the years (which I think is crazy, I don't keep more than $200 lying about, but who am I to judge someone who lived through the Depression?).
I really think what you are saying is, if you BELIEVE someone is guilty, it's OK to make them guilty even if (right or wrong) you don't have the facts to prove it, and therefore THEY should prove their innocence.
I don't deny that it's unlikely he earned it, any more than I can judge people guilty of crimes from a newspaper report. But a just process is based on laws, not personal viewpoints, as personality doesn't mix with justice.
The legally fair thing to do in my view is have the IRS audit the man, and at the end of it be possibly charged with tax evasion. That's a hell of a lot better than you advocating a slippery slope of "I know guilty when I see it. Prove otherwise.". Are you from Russia or something?- norman619, on 12/21/2007, -6/+8Why is it unlikely? You have information we don't have? People like you are dangerously ignorant.
- edmcguirk, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Yes, it's unlikely. That's a lot of money to have outside of the standard record keeping world.
The only way to have that kind of money is to have a reasonably successful cash business. Even a cash business will leave behind some obvious records to at least point towards a likely order of magnitude of cash.
On top of that there are dates on the bills. Do you really think someone who keeps cash out of banks will also go to the trouble of rotating out old bills?
The money was probably collected through some shady dealings but nevertheless, the government is not justified in taking the money unless they can prove a crime was committed.
- edmcguirk, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Yes, it's unlikely. That's a lot of money to have outside of the standard record keeping world.
- Travelsonic, on 12/21/2007, -0/+16"I really think what you are saying is, if you BELIEVE someone is guilty, it's OK to make them guilty even if (right or wrong) you don't have the facts to prove it, and therefore THEY should prove their innocence."
Funny, shouldn't the one who is alleging guilt have the burdon of proof?- DangerMouse9, on 12/21/2007, -1/+14Silly, silly man. This is America. Maybe in your ***** up country you're innocent until proven guilty, but in the greatest nation in the entire ***** universe it is the other way around and that's what makes it so great.
- DangerMouse9, on 12/21/2007, -1/+14Silly, silly man. This is America. Maybe in your ***** up country you're innocent until proven guilty, but in the greatest nation in the entire ***** universe it is the other way around and that's what makes it so great.
- norman619, on 12/21/2007, -6/+8Why is it unlikely? You have information we don't have? People like you are dangerously ignorant.
- norman619, on 12/21/2007, -1/+48Really? You miss the part where he broke no laws? He was the VICTIM and now the FBI is trying to rob him. Why not take his home and ask him to prove he paid for it using money he earned? This is 100% *****.
- Soave, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4Don't you guys get it? As of now, the FBI is innocent, and it's HIS job to prove that the FBI is guilty!
See? Innocent until proven guilty ftw.
- Soave, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4Don't you guys get it? As of now, the FBI is innocent, and it's HIS job to prove that the FBI is guilty!
- DangerCollie, on 12/21/2007, -2/+29Okay, we're going to freeze your bank accounts and seize your car, cash and property until you can prove you earned it. Shouldn't be a problem, right? We can probably get your accounts unfrozen at the preliminary hearing...in three months. In the meantime you have no money, no car, no credit cards and nowhere to live. You can't make your mortgage or utility payments and you can't pay your lawyer.
These right wing ***** think it's all so easy until it's their assets in the evidence locker.- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Its not just right wingers doing this stuff. The right wing want too take your money and give it to themselves. The left wing want to take your money and send it to africa. Either way your still broke and in debt.
- tao52nyc, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5dugg down for rampant cluelessness
- Narasil, on 12/21/2007, -0/+16Ever heard of innocent until PROVEN guilty? The onus is NOT on him to prove he made the money legitimately, the onus is on the FBI to PROVE he didn't.
- CoolWind, on 12/21/2007, -9/+1Then how come they have the money and he doesn't? Am I missing something, or are you talking out your butt?
- Narasil, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Yeah, you might be missing one of the foundations of American jurisprudence...it's called "In dubio pro reo" or the presumption of innocence.
You may educate yourself about it here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innoce ... - robthom, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2,said the butt.
- Narasil, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Yeah, you might be missing one of the foundations of American jurisprudence...it's called "In dubio pro reo" or the presumption of innocence.
- CoolWind, on 12/21/2007, -9/+1Then how come they have the money and he doesn't? Am I missing something, or are you talking out your butt?
- hagnar, on 12/21/2007, -2/+8
- jbennett1128, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2hhahahahahhahaha nomnomnom hahahahaha
- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Lol
- boogface, on 12/21/2007, -0/+8omg... that's HIS property. The FBI just stole $400k from this guy and we put the blame on him?
- bolognium, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1then you should move to china
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -2/+1Don't make a big deal out of this, guys, EditorResponse being a douche bag is nothing new. Bury his comment and move on
- mightydavefish, on 12/21/2007, -7/+151So guilty until proven innocent?
- ThirstyJon, on 12/21/2007, -7/+290Other than the information presented in this article, I am unfamiliar with this mans case. The principle is clear though. It is WRONG for the government to take his money without proving him guilty of a crime for which a $400,000.00+ fine is an appropriate punishment, and then the fine needs to be sentenced by a judge.
EditorResponse, you have missed the point on this one. Even if your opinion (or the government's opinion) is that he should be able to prove where he got the money, he shouldn't have to. The government has no right to know where anyone has gotten any of their money unless they have a warrant - as specified in the Constitution.
ThirstyJon
http://freedomthirst.com- bosssmiley, on 12/21/2007, -0/+51The FBI should either press criminal charges, or return this (as yet innocent) man's money. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways. That way tyranny lies.
- tao52nyc, on 12/21/2007, -2/+14But that's not how civil asset forfeiture works. All they need to do is find a baggie of weed in your house, they claim "intent to sell", and you lose your house. Object lesson: if you're going to do drugs in the current police state, make sure you (1) keep your cash offsite, and (2) rent.
- cawpin, on 12/21/2007, -19/+1You are an idiot.
- CoolWind, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2ironic
- jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2why is he an idiot?
- wakananda, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Cawpin thinks that tao52nyc is an "idiot," either because he does not believe civil asset forfeiture exists (think "we do not torture" - same type of denial. Many people laugh this off when they first hear of it, as being impossible in America), or Cawpin thinks finding a way around this evil, anti-American piracy, instead of fearfully submitting to it, is "idiotic."
- ScottyMcBaggs, on 12/21/2007, -0/+22You think he's an idiot? He's 100% correct. Any cash or goods you have on site with drugs will be taken and you will never see it again. That principle extends to all sorts of unimaginable *****. I am intimate with drug laws. I've had a car seized from me that was paid for with legal money by a RELATIVE, I had a full time job making good money... but they found some drugs on me. They instantly said "this car is ours" and I never saw it again, or the 2 grand in music and electronics that was in the trunk and backseat (I had just moved AND had borrowed a bunch of music and videos off of one of my buddies). I went through all the ***** to get it back, and guess what? You don't get it back. Last I heard from my lawyer it's still rotting in some state lot. This happened years ago. They tried to do it a second time but couldn't find any drugs in the car and I was still paying this one off. They made sure to try to break off some panels and ***** on the inside too.
What happened to me is jack ***** compared to what happened to this guy. Even if he made the money selling drugs, they can only prove tax evasion, because the article doesn't say anything about scales/baggies/weight. I hope this guy gets all his money back and then some. But, we all know that won't happen... - CoolWind, on 12/21/2007, -0/+8Dugg for use of the phrase "in the current police state".
- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1So true. I'm not even a drug dealer and I've gotten in the habit of keeping my assets hidden and unassociated. In fact a drug dealer once told me something very wise, " If you dont want to get your money stolen, dont show it to anybody". And as we can see that includes the FBI and federal government.
- cawpin, on 12/21/2007, -19/+1You are an idiot.
- tao52nyc, on 12/21/2007, -2/+14But that's not how civil asset forfeiture works. All they need to do is find a baggie of weed in your house, they claim "intent to sell", and you lose your house. Object lesson: if you're going to do drugs in the current police state, make sure you (1) keep your cash offsite, and (2) rent.
- ellecon, on 12/21/2007, -1/+27Sorry, Mr.Kennedy, apparently most of your family fortune comes from illegal bootlegging,so I'm afraid we'll have to seize all your assets...
- CoolWind, on 12/21/2007, -3/+4is that you Mr. Cheney?
- ellecon, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Gee...maybe it's time to take a new profile picture.
- johngr, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Cheney and Kennedy both work for the same employer.
- jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5HAHA funny and clever! what about the bush families fortune?
- ellecon, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Slave labor and war profiteering are arguably worse than booze, but few old money families can claim to be innocent of these moral transgressions either.
- jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2true, so very true.
- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Dugg!
- ellecon, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Slave labor and war profiteering are arguably worse than booze, but few old money families can claim to be innocent of these moral transgressions either.
- CoolWind, on 12/21/2007, -3/+4is that you Mr. Cheney?
- NickTheMan, on 12/21/2007, -13/+1asset forfeiture is stupid but you're also dumb because if you don't explain where you got the money then you're dodging income tax anyway so they have him on that
- Neiby, on 12/21/2007, -0/+7You don't understand two things:
1. Due process
2. Innocent until proven guilty - abnoctos, on 12/21/2007, -0/+04th amendment to the constitution
- Neiby, on 12/21/2007, -0/+7You don't understand two things:
- MadEnvoy, on 12/21/2007, -1/+11Didn't you hear? The Constitution is just a piece of paper!
- wakananda, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6Anytime you hear retards and their globalist handlers putting down the Constitution as a "fluid document" or worse, start talking about slavery or Jefferson's mistress or some ***** whenever the Constitution is mentioned - THIS is why. A Constitution that is respected and strictly interpreted is the biggest impediment to the global slave state they have in store for us all. Just as previous generations were taught to study and venerated the Constitution, recent generations have been taught to ignore and denigrate it. There IS a reason for this.
- ashlocke, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Not just a piece of paper, a stupid one at that!
- robthom, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1And the UN is a sewing circle, unless they agree with us.
- akphidelt, on 12/21/2007, -11/+1It is not wrong whatsoever... like I said before, it's the exact same thing as having money in a bank account. I guarantee you if you have a $35K salary then all of a sudden you have $400K in your bank account the feds wouldn't let you touch it til you prove you made it. There is absolutely no difference between cash and bank accounts. Especially since we know he didn't pay taxes on making that money. But regardless, it is not illegal whatsoever and no where in the constitution does it protect this mans money.
- wakananda, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6Again, two bedrock principles of a free society: presumption of innocence, and due process. No one knows that this man's money entered his safe "all of a sudden" or that he paid no taxes on it. And he's not having his account frozen - he's had it EMPTIED. And good luck getting anything back from a civil asset forfeiture, even when you've been found innocent - it just doesn't happen. THIS IS ROBBERY AT GUNPOINT. Hanging is too good for the oathbreakers who participate in this, America's shame and degradation.
- akphidelt, on 12/21/2007, -3/+0Dude, it's the same exact thing as freezing. You can't freeze cash, you can take it away and then give it back. Just like freezing a bank account... you take the ability to move the money around til you prove it's yours. This has nothing to do with the constitution... it's as legal as driving a car as long as you have a license.
- Narasil, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Sorry you can't be deprived of ANY property, including money, without due process.
- akphidelt, on 12/21/2007, -2/+0Sorry you can't own money with out proof that you own it!
- Narasil, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3And here is where we invoke the second bedrock of a free society...presumption of innocence. YOU don't have to prove you're innocent or not in possession of "illicit funds", the accuser DOES.
- bungoman, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2That'd be just as wrong for them to do as well. Even if the Constitution doesn't explicitly protect this mans money there is, as far as we know, no reason to believe he committed a crime. Having lots of money is NOT a crime. Especially in this dudes case since it was cash and there is no telling how long it took him to accrue that much money (I'm guessing his whole life if he earned it legally). The point is, he should either be charged with something or be audited, they should not seize his money just because he has a lot of it.
- akphidelt, on 12/21/2007, -4/+0Money is not a God given right. It's not water or food. It's created and there are laws and regulations behind it. Quit acting like you are free to do whatever you want. You are not free to carry loads of cash in your house if there is no trace or record of it. That is STEALING from the government. So you are a criminal if you do that. It's quite simple... I just don't get how you do not realize it.
- Narasil, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Just a semantic quibble here. In order for you to steal something from someone they first have to be in possession of it. The government doesn't produce my wage, and I can't steal something from them that they never had.
Evading taxes is more like "failure to pay for services rendered". To be sure both are crimes, but there is a difference. - temsi, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2You don't have a "god given" right to food or water either.
Having cash in your house is "stealing from the government"?!? Are you on crack or are you just trolling?
- Narasil, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Just a semantic quibble here. In order for you to steal something from someone they first have to be in possession of it. The government doesn't produce my wage, and I can't steal something from them that they never had.
- akphidelt, on 12/21/2007, -4/+0Money is not a God given right. It's not water or food. It's created and there are laws and regulations behind it. Quit acting like you are free to do whatever you want. You are not free to carry loads of cash in your house if there is no trace or record of it. That is STEALING from the government. So you are a criminal if you do that. It's quite simple... I just don't get how you do not realize it.
- ChildeRoland420, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1"Especially since we know he didn't pay taxes on making that money"
And how exactly do you know that? - abnoctos, on
- wakananda, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6Again, two bedrock principles of a free society: presumption of innocence, and due process. No one knows that this man's money entered his safe "all of a sudden" or that he paid no taxes on it. And he's not having his account frozen - he's had it EMPTIED. And good luck getting anything back from a civil asset forfeiture, even when you've been found innocent - it just doesn't happen. THIS IS ROBBERY AT GUNPOINT. Hanging is too good for the oathbreakers who participate in this, America's shame and degradation.
- bosssmiley, on 12/21/2007, -0/+51The FBI should either press criminal charges, or return this (as yet innocent) man's money. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways. That way tyranny lies.