Originally Posted By fkurucz I think that its fair to say that banks started pushing the toxic loans after 9/11. They didn't do it because they were being nice, or because the gov't made them. They did it because they could make sh*tload of money in fees and comissions, plus they were able to unload the stinky loans on investors worlwide in the form of mortgage backed securities, most of which were falsely graded as AAA quality bonds when in fact they were junk level grade.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Because it's up to you to prove your assertion.>> <No, it's not. If you don't think it's true, you can chose not to believe it, or to state, "I don't think that's true", or something similar. I never said you HAVE to prove it didn't happen. I've simply said that repeating your opinion over and over doesn't make my opinion untrue.> On one level, sure, you can assert anything you like, as with my "JFK pocketed NASA money" example. You asserted the equally unlikely idea that at the root of the mortgage crisis was "political pressure" to lend more money to the poor. Now, I and others DID say, essentially, "I don't think that's true." But then we also asked IF you could back that assertion up. And yes, on one level, you don't have to do that. We can't put a virtual gun to your head. But if you don't, after such a bald-faced assertion, that will be noted by all who read these threads. And, in fact, you asserted it twice; the original in #7, and then claiming incorrectly that "It's been established that there was political pressure to increase lending to the poor - if there hadn't, the bill noted wouldn't have passed." Of course, that doesn't necessarily follow, so nothing was "established," but there's the assertion again. What you don't get to do is pretend you never made the assertion, or that we simply have competing opinions, as YOU introduced the whole idea. You should just man up for once and admit you got caught asserting something you can't back up.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer "I believe it happened the way I said it happened, but I also recognize that no amount of evidence I present will satisfy some here, so there's no point in trying. " I've seen you try this method before too. It's really weak. "Also, I was asked to "prove" things that I didn't assert, not back up what I said." Dabob2 just pointed out: you asserted it twice.
Originally Posted By jonvn Really, isn't it time to stop even attempting to ask for any sort of proof from this guy's assertions? He blatantly makes stuff up, and pretty much never backs up a thing he says about anything. Why is anything said even accorded the respect of a response? It only gives credence to these outlandish views.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***No. I give my opinion. It's not my fault that clueless idiots can't follow it, and instead distort what I said, or launch into personal attacks. How pathetic.*** The pathetic thing is someone who considers anyone who doesn't agree with his opinion to be a "clueless idiot". At one point a few weeks back, Douglas, you actually started, in a small way, to have real CONVERSATIONS about this stuff. That was nice. I guess I got my hopes up too much. Parsing words with you and reading your same retort several times over is not only frustrating, it kills the debate and is extremely boring to read. But you already knew that, didn't you?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Getting hauled before the SEC, accused of crimes, and fined isn't so good for your stock price either.*** Funny thing is, how many companies have we heard about that have been dragged before a committee and accused of ANYTHING? I haven't heard anything. I fact the only person I've heard about being held accountable at all was that scapegoa...er, that "rogue trader" in France. Wow, I guess each and every one of these companies told the whole truth, and did nothing wrong prior to collapsing! How amazing.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***We can't put a virtual gun to your head.*** Oh, I dunno. I think it's high time some people start using virtual guns on the world events board.
Originally Posted By Mr X One thing I will say is that I have no reason to doubt the fact that politicians (probably Democrats) did bleat "MORE LOANS FOR THE POOR!! IT'S UNFAIR!!". I don't doubt that for a second, and if Douglas actually wanted to bother looking it up, I'm sure he could find plenty of examples. What I do NOT believe, though, is that this became "political pressure" to force all those poor companies to engage in predatory lending. If anything, I would say they used it as an EXCUSE to engage in worse and worse behavior. And that, too, might be a big part of the reason why these criminals don't seem to be getting in trouble now that the crap has hit the fan. Great system, eh?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The pathetic thing is someone who considers anyone who doesn't agree with his opinion to be a "clueless idiot".> No one does that. The clueless idiots are the ones who distort his opinion, ask him to prove things he didn't claim, and endlessly repeat their own opinions. <Douglas, you actually started, in a small way, to have real CONVERSATIONS about this stuff.> I keep trying to have real conversations, but I can't do it alone.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer Oh please! "The clueless idiots are the ones who distort his opinion, ask him to prove things he didn't claim, " You claimed it twice. It was even reprinted! And you're still trying to claim you didn't claim it?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Look at what I said, and then look at what Dabob asked me to show. If you can't see that they are two different things, then you are not capable of understanding basic ideas.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer "Look at what I said, and then look at what Dabob asked me to show." Okay, sure. You said: "The banks responded to political pressure by lowering the barriers to credit". Dabob2 asked you to show that it was political pressure that led to this. He asked you to show exactly what you claimed. Then you said "It's been established that there was political pressure to increase lending to the poor - if there hadn't, the bill noted wouldn't have passed." Dabob2 pointed out that that's logically flawed; the bill could have passed for other reasons, especially heavy lobbying from financial companies. I'd say that was an implicit challenge to show what you claimed, even if not explicit at first. Anyway, I've quoted what you said exactly, and that's what you were challenged to show. "If you can't see that they are two different things, then you are not capable of understanding basic ideas." And then a personal insult. If I can't "see" that they are two different things (which clearly they are not, as I've just quoted you) then I'm "not capable of understanding basic ideas." I think the problem is that I understand you all too well. So does Dabob2, so does jonvn, so does fukurcz, so does Mr. X, so does Kar2oonman, so does dshyates. But I'm sure rather than take stock of yourself and your methods, and "man up for once" as Dabob2 put it, you'll just claim some sort of persecution.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I don't need you to paraphrase what was said. The posts are still there, and anyone who wants to go back and read them can see you are distorting what was said, and what the response was.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer Unfortunately for you, that last part is true. Anyone can see exactly what went down. Unfortunately for you. How can I distort what you said when I quoted you exactly? Perhaps you can SHOW where Dabob2 or anyone else asked you to show something you didn't say? But I can almost predict the answer: "I could but you wouldn't believe it." Put up or shut up, Bub. Show us what you said about "political pressure" and then show it was distorted or how anyone asked you to prove what you didn't say. None of this "I could but I won't waste my time" or your usual methods. If you're so sure it happened, surely you know where, and can cut and paste the relevant posts.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Unfortunately for you.> No, not really. I'm fine with any clear thinking person reading it, and drawning their own conclusions. <How can I distort what you said when I quoted you exactly?> I didn't say you distorted what I said. I said you distorted what was said. I'm not surprised you didn't notice the difference. <Put up or shut up, Bub.> Again, I'm under no obligation to prove anything to you. I stated my opinion. I still believe it. If you don't like it, you can dismiss it, or disagree with it, or try to prove me wrong. But endlessly demanding that I prove it won't get you anywhere. <None of this "I could but I won't waste my time" or your usual methods.> Why not? What are you going to do if I won't? Demand it again? Insult me? Try to claim I don't have any credibility? Those things would only matter if I cared what you said or thought. I don't.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer "I didn't say you distorted what I said. I said you distorted what was said. I'm not surprised you didn't notice the difference." Cheap and arrogant insult aside, how did I do that, then? How did I "distort what was said?" "But endlessly demanding that I prove it won't get you anywhere. " Well, that's probably right on one level, as it's obvious you can't prove it. It was a baseless opinion to begin with. You can still hold the opinion, of course, but one would think that one would not want to hold a baseless one. But you can. "If you don't like it, you can dismiss it, or disagree with it, or try to prove me wrong." Several people here have done the latter. I'm not surprised you didn't notice. (eye roll). "Try to claim I don't have any credibility? Those things would only matter if I cared what you said or thought. I don't. " You might care that, if recent comments from half a dozen people are any indication, that you don't have any credibility among any of them. You probably don't care. You have your tunnel-vision and your arrogant attitude that you know best, and your refusal to look at yourself honestly. Time and time again you're shown to have no clothes, and you just come back with "Yes, I do." And you somehow think that's sufficient or an argument of anything like equal weight. It's very adolescent, and I don't let my teenagers get away with that crap, which is what it reminds me of. But jonvn is probably right about you. I'm probably just feeding the troll.
Originally Posted By dshyates "I'm probably just feeding the troll." Hey, that gives me an idea for a "boutique" park.
