Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bailout Bonanza for Top Execs
As Radley Balko notes below,
financial institutions that have received some $188 billion in the
federal bailout have kicked $1.6 billion to their top 600
employees this last
year.[*] Some details, via the AP:
Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, country club memberships and professional money management.
The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines....
The average paid to each of the banks' top executives was $2.6 million in salary, bonuses and benefits.
Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company's top five executives received a total of $242 million. This year, Goldman will forgo cash and stock bonuses for its seven top-paid executives. The New York-based company on Dec. 16 reported its first quarterly loss since it went public in 1999. It received $10 billion in taxpayer money Oct. 28.
John A. Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $83 million in earnings last year. Thain, a former chief operating officer for Goldman Sachs, took the reins of the company in December 2007, avoiding the blame for a year in which Merrill lost $7.8 billion. Since he began work late in the year, he earned $57,692 in salary, a $15 million signing bonus and an additional $68 million in stock options. Like Goldman, Merrill got $10 billion from taxpayers Oct. 28....
The program set restrictions on some executive compensation for participating banks, but did not limit salaries and bonuses unless they had the effect of encouraging excessive risk to the institution.
My immediate responses to this are a) Of course the bailout's limits on executive compensation wouldn't work, and b) this is all an outrage, and c) why should any of us care what anybody anywhere is making?
The second-beat answer to c) is one of the reasons to be against this or any other bailout: When you shovel tax money, public money, at something, its inner workings do legitimately become the public's business. Certainly this is the case with public schools or civil service employees, where compensation is a public matter. And now it is on Wall Street and various other parts of the economy too. I recognize that any industry has to set its compensation scales, especially of those at the top, to be competitive in ways that outsiders won't always understand. I also think the owners of a company, whether privately or publicly held, should be answerable only to the business's owners (and employees). But here's one more way the bailout muddies everything.
[*] Correction: As several commenters have pointed out, I originally and inaccurately wrote that the compensation packages were for 2008 when in fact they were doled out last year, in 2007. Apologies for my confusion.
|12.22.08 @ 9:58AM|#
I pray that every penny of these obscene handouts has been invested in the Madoff fund.
ed|12.22.08 @ 10:01AM|#
An ambulance-chaser of the financial ilk is already hinting that maybe farmers in Indiana should bail out the wealthy Palm Beach nincompoops swindled by Bernie Madoff. I have a better idea: hang the bastard from the Times Square ball mast on New Year's Eve. What better way to ring out the bad old year? I'm serious. A $50 billion swindle should be a capital offense, and a public hanging is not something the other pin-striped gangsters on Wall Street would likely forget. Televise it live and stick a copy on YouTube for posterity. Who's with me?
|12.22.08 @ 10:05AM|#
obscene handouts
This reminds me of the motorcycle helmet laws. Since the people pay
increased healthcare costs, the safety of riders is their
business.
The problem, same as with the bailout, is that the public shouldn't
be footing the bill in the first place. Elementary, sure, but it
bears repeating considering the current lynch mentality about any
bailed-out exec making more than minimum wage.
|12.22.08 @ 10:11AM|#
Who's with me?
Um, not me. I get the sense you're not hyperbolizing, and that's
just spooky.
|12.22.08 @ 10:13AM|#
I also think the owners managers of a company,
whether privately or publicly held, should be answerable only to
the business's owners (and employees).
Is that what you meant?
Corporate governance has become a total disaster, because
management doesn't really give a shit what the actual owners of the
corporation think, and "captive" boards work for management, as
co-conspirators, in an ongoing transfer of wealth from owners to
employees.
Billy!|12.22.08 @ 10:19AM|#
"The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover
bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted
tax dollars to boost their bottom lines...."
I have to say i don't understand what this means. So John Thain's
paycheck is as much as 10 or 20 Ma and Pa s&l's are taking in
taxpayer funds? I guess that means something..... but i sure as
hell don't know what.
(Except that if i was John Thain, et. al. I'd think about
purchasing a well run small s&l or two for my own
portfolio.)
|12.22.08 @ 10:19AM|#
"My immediate responses to this are a) Of course the
bailout's limits on executive compensation wouldn't work, and b)
this is all an outrage, and c) why should any of us care what
anybody anywhere is making?"
Gillespie obviously isn't one of the people I'm about to talk
about, but it really gets me when the handwringing over executive
compensation is coming from people who supported the bailout.
...as if they supported having me robbed at gunpoint--it's what the
robbers spent it on that was wrong.
|12.22.08 @ 10:31AM|#
They should all be getting shitcanned, not a bonus or even a paycheck. Maybe even seize their personal property as proceeds from criminal activity- fraud.
Fluffy|12.22.08 @ 10:34AM|#
I'm outraged at some of the bonuses, but not others.
Many of the "executives" who get bonuses at financial firms are
glorified salespeople who have been given officer titles for
prestige and to convince potential customers/clients that they're
dealing with a "person of import" and not a flunky.
A lot of the "bonuses" and "perks" are, in fact, salesperson
commissions by a different name.
And telling a company in financial trouble that what they should do
to get out of it is get rid of the commissions they pay to their
top salespeople is just silly.
It's like when outrage was universal that AIG went ahead with a
sales conference at a high end resort after they got their bailout.
Hey, maybe it's outrageous but if they stop paying their
salespeople AIG is out of business and the bailout funds will never
be repaid.
In addition, a lot of these bonus amounts are set by employment
contract. If I'm not a top guy at Goldman, and am not executive #7
but am executive #55, if I have an employment contract and the
company isn't in bankruptcy I want my fucking money. And if some of
that money came from the taxpayers, well - silly taxpayers. Next
time don't elect representatives that will do stupid things like
give your money to Goldman so they can turn around and use it to
meet the terms of my contract.
Disclosure: I was against the bailout.
ed|12.22.08 @ 10:35AM|#
I get the sense you're not hyperbolizing
And you are correct. Public executions used to be commonplace in
America.
It's time again for a little old-fashioned frontier justice.
The thought of that smirking son-of-a-bitch living the high life in
his Manhattan penthouse turns my stomach. He'll probably be dead
before he ever comes to justice.
Let's hope he pulls a Ken Lay, but slowly and painfully.
|12.22.08 @ 10:57AM|#
The program set restrictions on some executive compensation
for participating banks, but did not limit salaries and bonuses
unless they had the effect of encouraging excessive risk to
the institution.
A really good way to avoid "encouraging excessive risk" would be to
let the firms and people who engage in excessive risk-taking suffer
the consequences of their fuck-ups, instead of bailing them out and
allowing them to keep their jobs.
Also, devising a system in which rewards are based on long term
success rather than big payouts on the front end would be good.
|12.22.08 @ 10:58AM|#
Many of the "executives" who get bonuses at financial firms
are glorified salespeople
Confirmed. I was once (c. 2002) an "executive" with the world's
largest bank according to my business cards. I worked in a strip
mall and made $31k/year.
It's time again for a little old-fashioned frontier
justice.
Mmmkay. Have fun with that.
|12.22.08 @ 11:15AM|#
If you want to visit violence on somebody, you should probably be more focused on the people who actually gave the money away as opposed to receiving it: the politicians.
|12.22.08 @ 11:21AM|#
I realize ed is talking about Madoff, not the random execs BTW. I still think he's batshit crazy.
classwarrior|12.22.08 @ 11:44AM|#
The problem of high level compensation is that it is determined
by committee within the context of an old boys network. In this
environment, it would be considered positively rude to offer below
average compensation, whereas trying to bargain down you and me
during the course of salary negotiations is just good business
practice.
I'd love to see the day when candidates for these positions have to
propose their own compensation packages, knowing that they're in
competition with others, and the one that offers the best value
wins. THEN there will be a genuine market in executive pay, rather
than the rigged farce we have now.
cunnivore|12.22.08 @ 11:46AM|#
When you shovel tax money, public money, at something, its
inner workings do legitimately become the public's business.
Certainly this is the case with public schools or civil service
employees, where compensation is a public matter.
Unless the civil service employee is a professor at a
public university who doesn't want to go to sexual harrassment
training, apparently. Then Reason is OK with someone sucking at
the public tit with no strings attached.
|12.22.08 @ 11:56AM|#
did not limit salaries and bonuses unless they had the
effect of encouraging excessive risk to the institution.
Whatever the fuck that means.
cunnivore|12.22.08 @ 12:00PM|#
RC,
Exactly. And isn't the bailout encouraging excessive risk more than
any bonuses ever could?
|12.22.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Am I the only one who read the first line of the article?
"Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top
executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other
benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals."
This money was not part of the bailout package -- this is what
these people were paid last year...
Rmasey|12.22.08 @ 1:03PM|#
M. Sletten, since money is a fungible good, the money spent last
year on irresponsible executive compensation is money that could
have been banked and kept as cash on hand, used to prevent an
economic collapse that necessitated federal intervention.
Sort of like having something in savings for an emergency.
I think that the disconnect between the rank and file investor and
the corporate board is largely responsible for this growth spiral
in exec pay.
Paul|12.22.08 @ 1:12PM|#
dealing with a "person of import" and not a
flunky.
I wish I were a highly paid 'flunky'...
Anyhoo... fuck 'em, public sector employees. All of 'em.
Kolohe|12.22.08 @ 1:24PM|#
and professional money management.
I'm sure that was the gift that kept on giving.
|12.22.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Rmasey: I get that, but Mr. Gillespie opens his comment with the statement, "...institutions that have received some $188 billion in the federal bailout have kicked $1.6 billion to their top 600 employees this year." If that's the case, where is he getting his information? The above statement is clearly at odds with the opening sentence of the article at Cincinnati.com.
Elemenope|12.22.08 @ 1:30PM|#
It's time again for a little old-fashioned frontier
justice.
No, it really isn't.
ed|12.22.08 @ 1:51PM|#
Drag his ass out of his penthouse and lynch him.
Madoff has forfeited his right to exist.
|12.22.08 @ 2:09PM|#
I don't recognize ed. Does he have a history of this? Either
way, I'll bite.
Execution of people whose behavior "turns your
stomach", would have to be carried out by the justice system.
The same system that has a
nasty history of botching prosecution.
So do we only hang the varmints if they confess? 'Cause that pretty
much guarantees two things: no more voluntary confessions, and lots
more involuntary confessions.
But I still think you are exaggerating for effect, since in your
last post you suggest we just take it upon ourselves and murder him
without any trial at all.
I'm right about you exaggerating, ...right? ...Please?
oat willie|12.22.08 @ 2:50PM|#
"Drag his ass out of his penthouse and lynch him.
Madoff has forfeited his right to exist."
I think that tarring and feathering Madoff, live on TV, would be a
cathartic experience for the nation.
|12.22.08 @ 3:23PM|#
I think that tarring and feathering Madoff, live on TV,
would be a cathartic experience for the nation.
Make it a regular feature.
For week 2, I would have the top execs of GM, Chrysler, and the
UAW.
For week 3, the SEC official in charge of the NY financial markets.
Although you might want to time this one to coincide with the
hearings on his promotion to the top job.
DUCK FUCK POT LUCK |12.22.08 @ 11:10PM|#
DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK DUCK FUCK POT LUCK
Untermensch|12.23.08 @ 9:13AM|#
One problem with executive compensation in publicly traded
financial institutions is that being publicly traded concentrates
the rewards for executives and dilutes the risk (by spreading it
out across shareholders). So yes, the owners of the company should
determine compensation, but really, what say did an investor in
Goldman Sachs have in compensation for the executive? By diluting
the ownership it makes it hard for the owners to have a real say
(with so many of them who have competing interests). As long as
stock prices kept going up all the owners got what they
wanted.
What they didn't realize was that the very structure of publicly
traded financial companies almost encourages fraud (or something
dangerously like it) since the executives' desire for gain is no
longer balanced by fear of loss (it's not their money they are
playing with, but it's their gain). Privately held investment
houses, i.e., those where it was the executives tended to be the
owners and had their own money in the pot, tended to act very
differently and have not been hit the same way.
Granted, while things were going well and the executives were
delivering good returns, things looked good and people didn't mind
their compensation, but when things go bad and they're still
rewarded, it starts showing the problems. Sort of like investing in
houses that people couldn't afford because they thought the markets
would keep going up.
For a good explanation of the problem, see
this article from Portfolio.
It raises an interesting question for libertarians. While we
usually deride regulation, what do we do when the system is
structured in a way that incentivizes problems. Is there a place
for regulation of executive compensation (at publicly traded firms
only) to try and replace the fear of loss that is not there for the
executives when it's not their money on the line?
ed|12.23.08 @ 10:47AM|#
But I still think you are exaggerating for effect
You think so? Anyway, the lack of outrage over this swindle is
astonishing. My theory is that the huge chunks of dollars being
tossed about like so many bales of hay has desensitized America. A
billion dollars has become an abstract, not a concrete. But I'd be
willing to bet that if Bernie Madoff had been a cop who busted down
the wrong door, this crowd would be getting medieval on his
ass.
ed|12.23.08 @ 2:37PM|#
As evidence, I submit this, from Radley's inevitable
cops-shoot-dog thread above:
What kind of coward kills a dog? Murderous arrogant Nazi
bastards. All of them.
If one of my dogs got out, and the greasy guys opened fire, I
would be returning fire.
The problem with that is that even casual interactions with my
local cops make me want to take a shower afterward.
Id be in jail right now because I would have killed every
single cop on my property.
Whether it's one cop or one thousand, you're dead-no fair
trial; you die in the gas chamber, in a cell, or in a "suicide" in
police custody. If you're going to be the walking dead, make the
most of it. The first one is the only one to cost anything, the
rest are free.
I wouldn't trust a cop. I consider them criminal gangs with
state issued permits to be criminals.
If anything, they should charge the police with animal cruelty.
Another reason why I hate the fucking pigs.
--------------------------------------------
Madoff steals $50 billion? Meh.
Cops shoot a dog? Kill the jack-booted thugs!
I rest my case.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245