Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As it is though, you're not doing any of that.> No, I'm not. And I've explained why. You can accept that, or you can continue to waste time by attacking me.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< No, I'm not. And I've explained why. >>> More of the techniques at work. Say that "I've already explained it" without citing specifics. That leaves the reader to a) having to go back and figure out where he did so, or b) just assume that he did so. <<< you can continue to waste time by attacking me. >>> Ah, the reference to the personal attack, and almost always without a reference to what specifically was considered to be the attack. Once again, the reader is left to go back and figure out what you're talking about, or more likely the desired affect of just accepting at some level that you have been personally attacked.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So now pointing out what someone is doing is "attacking them"?> It certainly isn't discussing the issue.
Originally Posted By Mr X Of course you did. It's right there in the last few messages. Douglas: I said what I believed, and I explained why I believed it. Mr. X: No, you used well known debate techniques and rhetoric to avoid the actual discussion while at the same time making yourself out to be the intellectual superior. If you actually want to say what you believe, and explain why, and where appropriate point to sources to back up your arguments, I'd be more than happy to have a discussion with you. As it is though, you're not doing any of that... Douglas: No, I'm not. And I've explained why. You can accept that, or you can continue to waste time by attacking me. Mr. X: So now pointing out what someone is doing is "attacking them"? Douglas: It certainly isn't discussing the issue. Mr. X: Nor is it attacking you. So, you lied. Douglas: No, I didn't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I didn't lie, I'm not lying, and you're still not discussing the issue.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< and you're still not discussing the issue. >>> Looking back on your posts, your most recent 10 posts on this thread have nothing to do with the issue. You very frequently make posts to this and many other threads that have nothing to do with the issue at hand but talk only about an aspect of other posts that don't relate to the subject. Yet, when others do the same to your posts, you immediately brand them as personal attacks and act as if it's unreasonable for anyone to make a post that's not directly related to the subject being talked about.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Looking back on your posts, your most recent 10 posts on this thread have nothing to do with the issue.> No, they haven't. I've been responding to unfounded accusations against me. If you'd like me to stop, stop making them.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer That's all he's got, guys. He can say he's not a troll, but he sure acts like one, derailing things and not really responding. He still hasn't backed up his assertion about the banks responding to political pressure, notice. SuperDry, you nailed him.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He can say he's not a troll, but he sure acts like one, derailing things and not really responding.> Trolls attack, and by attacking derail. I'm not the one doing that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Douglas, is it simply your opinion that banks were under political pressure to lend to poor borrowers, an educated guess or a hunch, or do you have some actual data or evidence to support it? If it's just your opinion, that's fine. Just say so. If you have some data to back up that opinion, that's great, just please provide it.
Originally Posted By dshyates This back and forth has gone on for over 200 posts. Can we get back to the Capitolism for the profits, socialism for the risk. Or Capitolism for the poor and socialism for the rich topic. One way to help the people caught up in the forclosure crisis is to have forclosures drop off your credit report after 3 years instead of 7 years. That way the conservitives can still be overjoyed that the unsophisticated borrowers were punished for falling prey to preditory lenders while helping the economy. Because we all know it was the poor people who tricked the banks into these toxic loans. I am wondering how the poor organized this attack on the american economy though. I didn't get any notices about the meetings.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Douglas, is it simply your opinion that banks were under political pressure to lend to poor borrowers, an educated guess or a hunch, or do you have some actual data or evidence to support it?*** My guess would be "none of the above". Sounds to me like something Rush Limbaugh would come up with as fodder for repetition. It certainly doesn't make a lick of sense when you look at it beyond the catchy surface level of the comment. Yeah, all these companies destroyed themselves (HUNDREDS of them, most with sharp as tack CEO's) due to undue political pressure. Uh huh.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***One way to help the people caught up in the forclosure crisis is to have forclosures drop off your credit report after 3 years instead of 7 years.*** I don't think that's fair to the lenders, do you? Don't they have a right to know about the person they are lending money to? ***Because we all know it was the poor people who tricked the banks into these toxic loans.*** Of course not, but it takes two to tango, if it seems to good to be true it probably is, and the buyer (or lendee in this case) needs to beware and UNDERSTAND what they're getting themselves into. Frankly, someone who isn't capable of reading and understanding a contract (or in some cases even bothering to read it at all) they are signing really has no business being a property owner anyway. There's a lot of responsibility that goes with that, and I'm NOT just talking about paying the mortgage on time.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Trolls attack, and by attacking derail. I'm not the one doing that. >>> Yet another personal attack from DouglasDubh, and yet another off-topic post.
Originally Posted By dshyates "needs to beware and UNDERSTAND what they're getting themselves into." But it is very diffcult for first time buyers to be savy especially when the lenders are being, shall we say, less than forthright with info, or even flat out lying. Here in America we call it a scam. That, yes, preys on the ignorant. And the major problem with that is that mainstram leanders is where we go to become educated in financial matters. And this time they were the perpetrators.
Originally Posted By Mr X I agree with you dsh, as far as it goes. I do believe some predatory lending occured. I don't, however, believe it was the bulk of what was going on. The evidence I've seen leads me to believe that a great number of those people signed up because it sounded too good to be true (but they didn't actually read on down the document...NOT predatory imo). Just goes right back to my other statement, "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is". Lots of people should've at least been about to figure THAT part out.
Originally Posted By Mr X In other words, for this whole thing to be one big predatory scam, one would have to assume that we live in a world full of idiots. And that might be a fair statement p), but doesn't excuse the fact that a true "scam", or predatory situation, would be largely based on trying to "trick" someone into getting into a bad situation. In this case, for the most part, there were no particular "tricks" on paper, everything was spelled out. You should NEVER sign something you don't understand. And that's not really the fault of the document makers, now is it? I mean, if the document was actually clear and to the point, and didn't contain any lies or half-truths or anything like that (thus, in some cases, I'm sure predatory scam enters into the equation, but not with most of the "big guys", who I'm sure made sure those docs were nice and legal). The customer should've spoken up. And the first thing they should've said was "why does this seem too good to be true?".
