• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,884 Gaming the system

About nuckin_futz

  • Rank
    Canucks Third-Line

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Travel, financial markets,... chicks, cars and the 3rd world war.

Recent Profile Visitors

8,535 profile views
  1. This thread lol. I'd just like to add that as someone born in Britain who resides in Victoria. I could not have given a rat's arse to go downtown today. Not really into idol worship.
  2. He'd probably shoot all the animals.
  3. And what contending team has $14 million in cap space and decent assets to give up?
  4. Noting it's the House Oversight Committee and not just congress is to make note of the seriousness of the request. Your stance is weakening your own argument. Digress away Roderick.
  5. Where do you get this from? My post had nothing to do with her actions. The subpeona was served upon the FBI. It's about Comey and his actions in redacting information. I made no comment on his actions because I have no idea what information he redacted. The amount of time Comey and the FBI have to comply with this subpeona has nothing to do with hypocrisy. It has to do with time. Hope that clears it up. If not, I can't help you.
  6. Wall St. is betting this deal won't get regulatory approval. The takeover price is $128 per share of Monsanto. It's an all cash deal with no Bayer stock involved. Monsanto is currently trading at $103.62. If there was any confidence in this deal it would be trading in the mid 120's. No worries for Monsanto though as the deal includes a $2 billion breakup fee. Deal doesn't go through they get $2 billion for their troubles.
  7. It's not congress that issued this subpeona. It's the House Oversight Committee. Curious how long the FBI has to comply with this subpeona? Typically it's 90 days. Given the confrontational manner in which it was requested I'd say they'll take the full 90 days. Which would put it well past the election. If you're looking for something to effect the election this isn't it.
  8. This is the correct answer.
  9. His resume from 15-30 years ago is indeed impressive. However, his recent behavior is alarming. He acts like an angry lunatic at every campaign stop and the other day dropped this pearl of wisdom for everyone: Oftentimes Donald Trump’s remarks do not match up with things the rest of us know to be true, but thankfully Rudy Giuliani has stepped up to act as an interpreter. For instance, last week the former New York mayor revealed that in his own alternate reality, Trump disavowed birtherism two years ago. Giuliani was at it again Sunday on This Week, explaining that there was nothing offensive about Trump’s recent argument that the U.S. should have seized Iraq’s oil, because, “If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn’t have ISIS, because ISIS formed with the power and the wealth of that oil.” George Stephanopoulos asked if that’s legal, to which Giuliani replied, with a laugh, “Of course it’s legal. It’s a war.” He added, “Until the war is over, anything’s legal.” As CNN notes, that’s not true outside Trump World, and that argument is actually pretty ironic: The Geneva Conventions prohibit countries from seizing others’ property, even in war – the exact justification the United States used during its 1990 invasion of Iraq, after Iraq had seized Kuwait’s oil. There's been a lot of truly dumb things said during this campaign. This might be the dumbest and most frightening and that's really saying something. According to Giuliani logic, raping, looting, murdering is all fair in war. That's not even mentioning his idiotic campaign for president in 2008. Where he went from front runner to bowing out of the race after 4 primaries due to employing the dumbest strategy ever. Or him saying in the 8 years before Barack Obama there were no Islamic terrorist attacks inside the United States. Conveniently forgetting about 9/11.
  10. The original link was to a story from March 15th. I guess the OP edited his post to fix that.
  11. And 7 months ago too.
  12. Federal prosecutors investigate Wells Fargo's sales practices: WSJ Federal prosecutors are in the early stages of an investigation into sales practices at Wells Fargo & Co, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter. Wells Fargo said last week it would pay $185 million in penalties and $5 million to customers that regulators say were pushed into fee-generating accounts they never requested for. Prosecutors, who have issued a subpoena for Wells Fargo's documents and materials, are yet to decide if any case, if pursued, would be along civil or criminal lines, the Journal reported. The investigation is being conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of California, the WSJ said. Wells Fargo investor Tim Smith said earlier on Wednesday it was "inevitable" that the company would face critical shareholder resolutions after the giant bank agreed to a $190 million settlement with regulators. Wells Fargo could not be immediately reached for comment. ************************* Rest assured no one will be going to jail. The Federal government got massive settlements in cases regarding LIBOR, home lending and CDS, CDO's. This is just them lining up to get their own payday.
  13. There's so many I had forgotten about a lot of these.
  14. I heard she died 3 weeks ago and was replaced by a robot and was really a Republican plant all along. Am I doing this right?