Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure if anyone has seen this movie or not, but this thread is not a movie review - just a question on the premise.
In the film, Dominic Purcell has all his money wiped by a legally corrupt bank, investment scam - then decides to get his revenge 'Rambo' style, by taking out a load of the top brass of the banking world.
So was he right to do this?
He got his revenge and perhaps gave out a message that the bankers should not do this again?
Those who walked away from their mortgage haven't made any gains though.
Where are they living now?
Basically, in the movie, the CEO only wanted to save his bank at the expense of his customers, so he had their money away.
Then came along 'Dave Paxton' and wiped him out, in revenge.
Even the cops let him go in the end because they agreed with him.
Doesn't that show a good moral ending?
I think it does.
ie: if you steal, then you must pay!
So the police allow a murderer to walk free and that is a good moral ending? If you steal you must pay but if you murder you walk free? I guess folks morals are at an all time low here lately. Probably dear leader rubbing off on the nation.
So the police allow a murderer to walk free and that is a good moral ending? If you steal you must pay but if you murder you walk free? I guess folks morals are at an all time low here lately. Probably dear leader rubbing off on the nation.
The hero of the film killed the thieves, that is the moral.
ie: thieves must pay even if they are well connected.
Not sure if anyone has seen this movie or not, but this thread is not a movie review - just a question on the premise.
In the film, Dominic Purcell has all his money wiped by a legally corrupt bank, investment scam - then decides to get his revenge 'Rambo' style, by taking out a load of the top brass of the banking world.
So was he right to do this?
Emotionally, it would feel great for a few minutes.
But it is not the right way to cope.
A proper "legal" revenge would be better
Those who walked away from their mortgage haven't made any gains though.
So a guy that was buying houses in California out of sheer speculation....got caught with 12 homes at the time of the collapse and walked away from them. So he's blameless because his attempt to get rich failed?
A whole bunch of frenzied speculation going on and people saying you should buy as much house as you can afford with as little down as possible.
Blaming the banks is all feel-good and sells well to people wanting some evil fat white guy to blame for the whole thing.
Telling the public that they share a good portion of the blame is unpopular for both politicians and the media.
P.S. Ever wonder why the housing bankruptcies are geographically correlated? Rampant price spikes, wild speculation and then mass walk-aways from upside down properties. FL, NV, AZ etc etc etc.....wierd how it didn't happen all over?
I'm telling you. Progressives are a dangerous bunch! They feel nothing about killing for THEIR personal gain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
