Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by TheOriginalBadBob 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    While I would normally agree that any individual or entity has the right to do business with whom they choose, I would have to object in any case where a government charter is required to practice. This would also apply to any utility with a virtual monopoly that is assigned a region by government.
    The moment that you accept government support you obligate yourself to the general public and should not be allowed to choose your customers.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by giallopudding 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    Banks are private institutions, and as such have the right to decide who their customers will be. But in my opinion, denying service based on political affiliation is business suicide. Does Chase really want to lose half or more of its clientele? I'll bet the people behind this stupidity will be walking the streets soon looking for work.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by rainman0720 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      When I read the article, my first impression was the same (they're risking losing half their customers). But when I saw who some of the victims were, I realized what they were doing.

      The state of Colorado doesn't have to try and put every single Jack Phillips out of business; no, they only need to put a few Jack Phillips out of business, which they hope will cause the rest of them to either cave in or shut down.

      Likewise, Chase has closed the accounts of a couple media personalities, the leader of an alleged white supremacist group, and probably a few others, and hopefully watch the rest of us draw our heads into our shells.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    "If conservatives are too complacent and lazy to address the challenges"
    Conservatives aren't complacent or lazy.
    There are only a handful of conservatives who represent the people in con-gress in either party.
    The GOP is full of CINOs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    "Do we need to build our own banks, too?" from the article didn't have an answer. Perhaps we should and mirror what is happening on the liberal front, denying liberals. I'm still with Chase, but only due to a merger. The last payback I got from the previous bank was about $8000 a year in interest on my checking and savings accounts. Today I make so little that I don't even have to put it on my income tax filing. Why should anyone stay with them, today they pay nothing for using your money. Until then can anyone recommend a decent, and "fair", bank, or should I find an old coffee can?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    I reserve the right to do business with whom I choose and respect that same right among others. If they want to be stupid and lose my business, that's up to them but I don't support more laws on the banking industry about who they can do business with. I would, however, support a law which allows me to sue them (for punitive damages) for cancelling a business contract for spurious reasons, i.e. those associated with otherwise legal conduct on my part - such as my political affiliation, race, color, religion, etc. And I would put the onus on the bank to prove that they cancelled the account for non-spurious reasons.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CaptainKirk 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      Yes, this is the dilemma.
      I wont create software to allow people to track down and kidnap children, even if that isn't how they describe it to me.

      It's a fine line. I can suffer legal liability to writing software that ENABLES certain laws to be violated. Even if that was NOT the intent I had when I supplied the software, if they can convince the jury I should have realized it.

      So, I agree, I have to be able to say NO to anyone for any reason I see fit. What I do is Creative by nature.

      But like others have said. A bank is in a special category, and FB and Twitter and Google, et al EITHER need to give us an Internet Bill of Rights (as long as what we are doing is not illegal), then they have to back off.

      OR, we need some other level of protection. When does DISABLING her account become synonymous with FREEZING her assets? Because you have no account, you cannot access your funds. SORRY. We will keep them in a safe place until you are re-personed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        "I can suffer legal liability to writing software that ENABLES certain laws to be violated."

        Napster?

        "When does DISABLING her account become synonymous with FREEZING her assets? Because you have no account, you cannot access your funds. SORRY. We will keep them in a safe place until you are re-personed."

        And this is precisely the problem. Unless there is conviction (or at least a court order based on probable cause) for illegal behavior, the bank has no right whatsoever to terminate someone's access to their own money. They are a temporary trustee of those assets and incur a legal liability for their proper management.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    I pulled any investments I had with Chase, years ago. Aftter meeting with the investment banker, telling him I had a broker, he admitted they took money from the Fed. Reserve, and really did not need investors money! More recently, PatPal stinks after cheir cngeing to Chase. Half the time, an nvoice never sppears for you to pay it. So, now that they have become less than the go to pay method, they want to screw over conservatives.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    I never liked chase. They keep giving me $300 credits for starting a bank account, and I just wont take them up on it. Probably ever
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    There are some industries of such size and power that should have something like 'common carrier' rules applied to them. This idea may not meet with wide approval in the Gulch. How about government sets rules for customer relationships, and accepting is voluntary? A business that accepts would recognize it is a good marketing strategy. Acceptance would be under a Deed - legally enforceable.
    All government agencies would be subject to those rules - eg. police, post service, law courts, education, fire fighting, customs, ..

    Some businesses, such as bakeries and religious colleges, would enhance their market position by publicly not accepting those rules. Property is used as the owner desires. I do not think this view can be applied to government agencies or to businesses like airlines or banks, at least those of the largest size where there is a monopoly. Monopolies do exist tho' not so often as thought and even then would rarely deserve government action to supervise.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      Its one of the things that happens when you think things like "too big to fail". Of course the large banks could have "failed", which just means reorganize and divest of some assets. Instead of getting smaller they got larger.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo