Anti-Gun Policies Cost Citibank & BOA $600,000,000 in Louisiana Road Projects

Yeah..it's all madeup, and the Louisiana State Bond Commission is in on it.

Wouldn't be the first time a leftist hear tried to run and hide from the EMBARRASSING FACTS of the issue at point.

 

same way discrimination against anybody equates to them losing rights.

so should they be able to refuse to do business with black people?

 

Then what are they sky crying about it for?

 

Well hopefully it starts a cascading event where activists that used to be bankers the arm no longer able to get any of these large contracts.

 

It is also the fiduciary duty of the banks to stockholders not to compromise their business to do some political grandstanding.

 

Who is sky crying? Sounds like Republicans in Louisiana are.

 

Yes I got that.

 

oh so youre ok with everything the way it is. Good. Bout time we punish evil banks right?

 

Only because you , as always try to IGNORE THE FACTS.


"Representatives of both banking firms defended the policies in Thursday’s meeting, saying they don’t believe the policies infringe on Second Amendment rights. Brandee McHale, with Citigroup, said the firearms still are available for purchase and customers can use their individual debit and credit cards to buy such weapons.

Both banking companies filled out paperwork applying for the road financing deal that said they don’t have policies that restrict or infringe on Louisiana citizens’ constitutional right to bear arms. Landry objected to those answers, saying they were “disingenuous at best.”

Edwards’ chief lawyer Matthew Block said the constitutional protections involve government infringement on individual rights and don’t extend to private businesses.

LaFleur said the Bond Commission’s role in choosing financing partners for deals is limited. He said commission members don’t have the discretion to factor in social policy.
Landry replied: “He is wrong.”

House members sided with Landry, Schroder and Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin in voting to exclude the two banks from the financial work. Senators voted with the Edwards administration in opposing the effort.

The Bond Commission didn’t move to rework existing deals with the banking giants.


We see WHO IS CRYING , don't we?

 

Cool.

So a bank with a policy to not lend to blacks should be able to get the government loan if the have the lowest rate?

 

Trumpworld: filing paperwork is "sky crying"... btw, isn't it supposed to be "sky screaming?"

 

Lol.

Stick your head a little deeper in the sand.

600M underwriting is a massive transaction.

 

I don't think anybody is saying they CANT. just that their decision TO has repercussions.

 

BOOM!

 

Not when the rent is awful low. And Louisiana has a really good credit rating. So that doesn't help the interest to go up one bit.

All this is, is the banks getting more spotlight about their choices to draw in their customers.

 

You guys are priceless. because you are enjoying the outcome "bank that doesn't want to lend to gun manufacturers gets punished", you are willing to throw away your core beleifs to make the outcome valid.
A business has made a business decision (up to them to decide if it was a good one or bad one and live w the consequences. they will lose some customers as one poster stated earlier, and they will win some). And you guys are cheering on the government 'picking winners and losers' rather than let the market decide. Politicians activelly conspired to keep a business ineligible because they did not like the politics of a company.
"but, but, but..." you respond "a business should have no place in politics..." ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Remember that your party believes that corporations are people, and that corporations rights to freee speech are so important that you have challenged any resistance to giving corporations unfettered access to politicians. You guys are cheering on the government trying to punish a corporation because it doesn't like its politics. Do you even comprehend how enormous that is in terms of what you r core beleifs are.... I mean were? Clearly any prinicples you had dissapeared the day you decided to support trump.

 

You mean like this?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...urers-stop-biz-gun-industry-article-1.3939919

 

This. Could you imagine the howling from the right if government under Obama would have punished a bank that didn't want to led to gays because of "Christian beliefs"?

Same goes for tariffs. If Obama would have used them they would have said he is communist and against the free market. Now, they defend them with all they have.

The there is the wall, which is also an anti-free market tool. It supposedly restricts competition, thus raising labor prices, in theory. Yet, raise the minimum wage and the same types would again scream about communism.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

 

heres the sky crying I predicted

 

Maybe so. It is because I have a problem with the "virtue signaling" meme.

It is a insidious meme that basically implies that the only reason people do good things is to get a reward for the good deed, in this case the reward being social approval.

Thus, it is used by those who themselves would never do anything without reward, thus they project onto others the same, i.e. there must be some REASON of doing good, it could never be that someone does good because they think it is the right thing to do.

 

While I don’t support such a suggestion from the government, it was just a suggestion. Even if we take King’s word that it’s a veiled threat, it still is just a veiled threat. There’s no penalty; there’s no policy change. It’s just a suggestion, carefully worded so as to not violate the constitution.

The policy in the OP, however, is not just a suggestion. It’s not even just a veiled threat. Hell, it’s not just a open threat. It’s a direct action against corporations due to their political policies that the current government doesn’t favor. Against a private citizen, constitutionalists would surely be protesting such a policy, and rightfully so. Still, I know corporations don’t have as strong 1st Amendment protections as private citizens, so I’m not sure where the line is exactly on that.

So while I don’t support the letter tactics, either, I don’t find it to be a constitutional violation.

 

The truly good person is the person who continues to do good even after he realizes that he is sickened by the fact that he only does good because it makes him feel good.

Swallow that paradoxical irony!

 

I realize that paradox

However, I also realize that, as I get older, I get more joy from doing good for other people without compensation than from receiving a pay raise at work because my work was successful. That's why I am considering retiring early and start volunteering -- and then there is reality with the kids' needs and wants.

 

what are you talking about Louisiana would have been a customer and in this case a customer is deciding not to give money to a company because of their politics that's free market.

go ahead and be political some places are not going to do business with you because of it that's all that's happening here.

a bank is not entitled to a government contract the government can pick whoever they want.

You were just mad because this is a consequence of a bank running its mouth about politics they can run their mouth all day long they can choose who to do business with if they want but they cannot choose who is going to be be in a contract with them if that entity does not want to be in a contract with them.

Bank of America does not have the right to government contract and governments can decide not to be a customer for any reason any other customer can