I can’t post links either. Maybe there’s a secret code you need to know.

I just cut the “h t t p … w w w” part of the URL and post the rest. People can cut and paste.

On a side note, Krugman rocks.

It was Krugman showing that Reich was a lobbyist for the banking industry just 5 years ago. Go to his blog at nyt to see the damning photo.

Oliver could I have my link back?

Wow.”

You forgot…

People defend fox.
Attack duck for quacking.

Wow.

I should also point out that John Reich deregulated the industry. So him blaming someone else, anyone else, is hardly an unbiased, expert opinion. He is absolutely to blame here.

Sean: “Providing yet another example of CSS knowing what I think better than I do, despite my specifically saying what I think.”

Actions speak louder than words. And when what you do is different from what you say…

By the way, you completely ignored all of my points. Everything. Is this your way of admitting you were wrong? Or do you still think I’m the one that needs to do the research to counter someone else’s baseless speculation?

Providing yet another example of CSS knowing what I think better than I do, despite my specifically saying what I think.

CSS: Are you sure you are not a Republican?

Yes. I’m positive. But don’t let that stop you from telling me I’m wrong.

Haplo9: “…tell me – how long was IndyMac in violation of its reserve requirements? Months? Years? Or had they very recently hit a tough spot where the reserves had dipped below the 10% mark?”

Anyone who thinks Haplo9 was merely requesting information and was not make a point is a moron. Sorry to be blunt, but it is the truth. He was clearly making the point that Schumer didn’t need to raise the alarm, since the problem might have been very recent and therefore not an issue. I disagree with that point, but that is immaterial here.

Secondly, I don’t need to come up with evidence with regards to how long IndyMac was in violation of banking regulations, because Haplo9 never provided any evidence. You can’t use speculation to force the other side to do your research for you.

These are two simple points that no unbiased individual can disagree with.

Sean: “In terms you seem to best understand: Bullshit, Liar. I have commented on the postings of others as well…”

You attacked me for doing exactly what Haplo did. That is evidence of bias. The fact that you also responded to other posts is immaterial because you never attacked Haplo for doing what you claim I am doing. And this isn’t the only example, you did the exact same thing in “Cons Finally Admit What They Believe” thread.

Sean: “Oh, good lord. He asked a question. As you said, he was speculating. Do we now have to reach the CSS-required burden of ‘proof’ before a question can be asked?”

He didn’t merely ask a question, he raised the question to make a point. If you can’t figure that out, you shouldn’t be part of this debate. You can’t handle this debate.

And attacking me for the “CSS-required burden of ‘proof’” is further evidence of bias. Any unbiased person knows the nature of the claim determines the level of proof needed. If you say something happened at least once, you need to show at least one time it happened. If you say something happens nearly every time, you have to show it happens nearly every time. You can’t come up with two examples and think you’ve fulfilled your burden of proof.

CSS: “Again, further evidence of a bias.”

Sean: “Far be if from me to try to talk you out of your persecution mindset, but not pointing out every single example of something isn’t necessarily an indication of bias. More likely an indicator that a point need not be belabored.”

And when two people do it only pointing out one person over and over again? Haplo did it first, but you attack me, even though I’m not the one ignoring the point being made.

Same thing in the “Cons Finally Admit What They Believe” thread. Jay does something, I point it out, you attack me for doing what Jay did.

Sean: “OK, not going to hijack this thread and further than this. You can have the last word, CSS. Done with you again.”

Translation: I was caught making an ass of myself, and now I’m going to run away and pretend it never happened.

Face it, you can’t defend your actions in this thread, so you are going to run away.

Are you sure you are not a Republican?

In terms you seem to best understand: Bullshit, Liar. I have commented on the postings of others as well (one need only look at other postings I’ve made in this thread re: Haplo9 to see what a liar you are) and have frequently specifically NOT commented on a posting of yours because you’re just not that worth getting into it with.

Css: He threw up a smokescreen by speculating that they might have been in violation for a short time. However, he offered no proof. He didn’t even offer weak evidence. He merely suggested it was a possibility.

I DON’T HAVE TO FUCKING ADDRESS PURE SPECULATION!

Oh, good lord. He asked a question. As you said, he was speculating. Do we now have to reach the CSS-required burden of “proof” before a question can be asked?

And for someone who supposedly doesn’t have to address such speculation, you spend a considerable commentary doing just that.

CSS: Again, further evidence of a bias.

Far be if from me to try to talk you out of your persecution mindset, but not pointing out every single example of something isn’t necessarily an indication of bias. More likely an indicator that a point need not be belabored.

But, given your own bias against me I wouldn’t expect you to ever consider that I might have a better idea of what I think than you.

OK, not going to hijack this thread and further than this. You can have the last word, CSS. Done with you again.

Sean: “Actually, my opinion of you is pretty close to neutral.”

Bullshit. You go after me for things others do. That is evidence of bias.

CSS: “Haplo9 speculated about the length of time IndyMac was in violation WITHOUT OFFERING ANT FUCKING PROOF. Now you two think I should do the research and prove him wrong.”

Sean: “Actually, no he wasn’t. He was responding to YOUR comment that IndyMac was already violating the regulations and asking YOU to support that by, essentially, providing proof of how long that had been the case.”

You can be a fucking idiot sometimes.

He never challenged the fact that IndyMac was in violation of the regulations. Anyone who can do basic math knows they were.

He threw up a smokescreen by speculating that they might have been in violation for a short time. However, he offered no proof. He didn’t even offer weak evidence. He merely suggested it was a possibility.

I DON’T HAVE TO FUCKING ADDRESS PURE SPECULATION!

I don’t have to offer proof that his speculation is wrong when he has offered none that his speculation is right.

In other words, Haplo9 dodged my point and in doing so did exactly what you claimed I did. And now you are attacking me for something he did.

Again, further evidence of a bias.

Now, you can either admit you were wrong, or this can become another ‘per 100,000′ debate.

Actually, my opinion of you is pretty close to neutral. I disagree, often, with how you present your case and think you occasionally hide behind complaints that the other guy isn’t proving proof (something you’ve failed to do yourself at times) rather than address their points, but I actually agree with your views more often than not. But don’t let that stop you from telling me what I believe.

Css: Haplo9 speculated about the length of time IndyMac was in violation WITHOUT OFFERING ANT FUCKING PROOF. Now you two think I should do the research and prove him wrong.

Actually, no he wasn’t. He was responding to YOUR comment that IndyMac was already violating the regulations and asking YOU to support that by, essentially, providing proof of how long that had been the case. You even quoted his question in your reply and then didn’t answer the question you were quoting.

Not particularly. But (obviously I would have thought) neither was my original note about the Repubs. Nor should my making it have been construed as defacto proof that I support the Dems. I’ve certainly described them in a nutshell as spineless political idiots.

Sean: “Yes, but you didn’t really address the question (a fair one) actually asked, did you?”

I know you don’t like me, that much is obvious from your actions, but try and keep up with the debate.

Haplo9 speculated about the length of time IndyMac was in violation WITHOUT OFFERING ANT FUCKING PROOF. Now you two think I should do the research and prove him wrong.

Fuck that.

His claim. He should provide the evidence.

Is the man who is supposed to regulate the industry but failed at his job.

You are taking the word of the man who is supposed to prevent collapses like this from happening. He was caught not doing his job, and he is blaming the person who caught him. Yet you see no reason to doubt his claims that Schumer is to blame. Experience and qualifications mean little when covering your ass.

“..And yet you guys give Schumer’s claims more credence, why? Because…”

I’ve taken economics courses in university and I know the negative consequences of not having enough liquid assets to cover a minimum level of deposits. There’s a reason regulations are in place.

“And you still can’t read CSS. I never said the bank would have for sure been fine. I said it *could* have been fine.”

And it could have been much, much worse. Now let’s get the fuck out of fairyland and deal with the real world.

>The Republican philosophy in a nut shell. The crime isn’t in breaking eh law. The crime is in getting caught.

Thats a pretty trite generalization, and the only way I can see it logically follow mine is if you misread my comment to be claiming that Schumer was responsible for the whole mess. Or maybe you really believe that, in which case let me offer a similarly worthless generalization: The Democratic philosophy in a nut shell – The desire for totalitarian power hiding under a veneer of feel good nonsense. Terribly insightful isn’t it.

>It’s making the evidence fit the conclusion.

Pointing out that one party has real world banking experience while the other does not is rearranging evidence? I will cop to giving Schumer’s experience somewhat short shrift, but that is more because I have no respect for a politicians experience on a Senate committee than some sort of dastardly desire to rearrange facts. To use an analogy, you don’t ask a hospital administrator for medical advice, you ask an actual doctor who does the job. Similarly, you don’t ask a politician who resides on a committee related to the industry about banking, you ask a banker who has actually done the job of banking. One plays politics for a living, the other has actually done something of relevance.

Are you even interested in discussing the merits of Schumer’s actions, or are you just being argumentative? In either case, time for me to go enjoy the sun while its out. The last word is yours.

Missed my point and provided another example of it at the same time. I do NOT assume Schumer is more credible and you are wrong to assume I do. I have given no opinion on either side over the other. I was pointing out only that you provided lopsided info and (not unique here in this regard) declared what other’s positions are because that “supported” the view you want to take.

It’s making the evidence fit the conclusion.

We’ll have to agree to disagree apparently, though I find it very unlikely that if Schumer was an R you’d be granting him the same amount of deference.

I agree, we’ll disagree. But I point out that while you may find it “unlikely” the fact is that many of my posts here (particularly recently) have been critical of OW, Democrats, etc. and supportive of Jay, McCain and some on the right. I would, in fact, grant a Repub Schumer exactly the same amount of credit (I don’t grant deference to any politician) if folks tried to say that commenting publicly on the situation is what caused it.

>There you go again, just declaring the position of everyone else because it’s the only way to support your view.

Groan. Fine Sean. Please tell me why runs on banks are a good thing, or, at least, aren’t a bad thing. Also please tell me why it was necessary for Schumer to go public.

There you go again, just declaring the position of everyone else because it’s the only way to support your view.