MichaelA:
Ha, ha, ha.
And to think I went to search this...

MichaelAarethun:
Yea, you said it...and they continue to advance.

Now, who is Alfred Ninestein? I checked rather quickly and couldn't pull anything up on him.

well her Ethics included the moral case for property rights in invention-which CATO works pretty diligently at dismantling

That is also your opinion.
I disagree.
You have your observations about a part of the bank's training that you call "empirically confirmed facts" and you ignore the looter basis of their business without which they would not exist, another "empirically confirmed fact."
I accept your observation, but I do not give it as much weight as their operating a looter business.

You have an opinion, I don't have an opinion in this matter, I have empirically confirmed facts. When are you filing your law suit against the Fed?

You have your opinion.
I don't agree.

He has no reason to prove anything to you. Go to a branch and ask to see the training manuals and see Ayn Rand's ethics concretized in this world. then write him a letter of apology.

"He created, in this world, a business that offers honesty in trading services to the people who need it most , the producers."
While they continue to steal from those producers and everyone in the economy by creating legal tender backed by your productivity and mine and other true producers, not theirs.
When Allison proves his ethics are sound to me then he will get my support. You are convinced. I am not.

Justice requires that a rational individual reward the good for being good as well as oppose evil. In this culture which attacks the good for being good it is critical if it is to change to find and reward the good people so they know they are not alone. John Allison is one of those people. He understood that being good meant applying the ideas of Objectivism in practice to the field of producers trading values. He understood that traders need honest brokers and lenders to do business. He created, in this world, a business that offers honesty in trading services to the people who need it most , the producers. Learn justice and celebrate the good.

I meant I hoped I would have reason to move closer to your thinking, jb.

In general, we are very much in agreement. BB&T is the one subject we have disagreed upon. Regarding conditions moving our thinking closer together on this issue, that would take BB&T actively endorsing President Zero's and the Federal Reserve's agenda. I actually am not so sure that I want that to happen. That really would me a total collapse of the system. In some ways I am ready for that, and then other times I kind of wonder whether I am or not.

No worries, jb. Hopefully conditions will move our thinking closer together in the future. I'd prefer to admire them as allies than to show disdain for them as enemies.

Actually Rearden caved, too, just not in the kangaroo court. You and I will agree to see differently on the idea that all banks operate under the same principles.

I think we are settled. I have nothing more to say.

I see that articles have been written with US officials concluding that Snowden must have had the data in his possession and that the Russians and Chinese would have taken all they could. However, in this case I have little faith in the words from US intelligence since they have every reason to distract us from their actions and build a case in the media against Snowden.
Snowden was smart enough to get the data. Was he smart enough to hide it where he could access it later and not have it in his possession for others to pilfer? Could he have had some data on his person to be pilfered that would not reveal vital secrets to the enemy ? Did he really need to "pay" the enemy? Was supporting him to embarrass the US payment enough ?
I have lots of questions but no solid source of data for answers. Based on available data I can't conclude he is a traitor, but I can conclude that his act as a whistle blower is admirable. If you have specific links, I am interested in the source data for your conclusion.

How is a statement from a person, who chose to be a bankster as a career, supposed to convince me of his innocence when his career as a bankster says he is not? If Allison acts with integrity and ethics in the future I may change my opinion of him. Allison is not Rearden. Rearden did not make a career of looting under the guise of loaning money created from nothing in a Ponzi scheme for his own benefit. Rearden spent years creating a new product that beat everything in existence, then fought all the looters to get it to market, then refused to accept their 30 pieces of silver under duress. Rearden fought them in their own kangaroo court and won. Allison caved. Allison could have refused to comply. It might have meant the BB&T directors would have fired him, but it was what Rearden would have done. Allison could have brought public attention to the situation, but he chose to keep his "career" as a bankster instead. While I applaud the secondary acts of the training program, I do not accept those acts as a get of of jail free pass for BB&T. That is the point I make. It is possible that BB&T is marginally better than other banksters because of their training program, but because of their primary business of looting they do not get my admiration.

The source is a public statement from the bankster manager without corroborating evidence.
I usually require more reliable data than an unsupported story from the accused.
Are you saying they threatened Allison's family?

They exist solely because of the fed res act which banksters created for their own benefit, full knowledge that it would eliminate any competition, and and that it is a Ponzi scheme that steals from the entire society and can be manipulated to cause collapse profitable to the banksters. Management chooses to continue that sordid business practice. If we continue to accept such reprehensible acts as "rationality, honesty, and integrity" then the looting will continue. I choose to expose them for the looters they are regardless of their propaganda distractions.
"Of course all the honest people can quit and who does that leave you to do business with?"
No, the question is:
Who does it leave the banksters to do business with? Even their cartel can't survive if we oppose their evil actions in the market.

Hello Freedomforall,

See my answer to DB bellow.

Dear DB,

The only thing I know is what has been published: that Snowden shared his collections with the Chinese and Russian officials. It seems to me that they would be unlikely to show him the hospitality that they did without a quid pro quo. What else could he offer them?

Treason, as a term, has a long and complicated history. I am using the definition below.

"Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor."

From the very beginnings, I have been of the opinion that there is a religious war between the West and the Islam. I have read the Koran and believe it to be an evil book.

I believe that our government has a very important obligation to protect us in this war, particularly in light of the tactics which the enemies have chosen: terrorism. I certainly understand that people disagree on what are appropriate tactics for our side to adopt.

Privacy is not a right defined in our Constitution, unfortunately. I very much cherish my own privacy. But I really can be sure of it only in my own head. Whenever I speak out or act, I risk someone "unauthorized" learning something about my private thoughts. I believe that my home is legally protected from unauthorized invasion. It takes a search warrant, I believe.

I never thought that telephone conversations are reliably private, even though there are some legal protections in that area.

I have been on computer connections since the beginning. Remember AOL? I never thought that Internet is anything but public "yelling". I spend significant money to maintain a top notch firewall to protect my LAN. So called "social media" have zero privacy. Most user, in fact, do not seem to want it. I never used them and never will.

I apologize for the length of this. My only excuse is a very strong desire for others to know "where I am coming from" and scrupulously avoid misunderstandings.

I hope that I answered your questions.

All the best.
sincerely,
Maritimus

What evidence do you have for that accusation? And why don't you blame the real traitors, the ones who created and run the unconstitutional, immoral spying on US citizens?