Rug Burn Junky on 24/8/2011 at 19:09
No conditions, you simply said: "i'm agreeable to it."
Besides, "I can't stop being a douche because he won't be nice to me." Isn't really much of a defense.
But evidently, your incentive to threadshit is too strong, and you can't just walk away.
But next time, when a topic has remained dormant for two weeks, and everyone has nearly forgotten how badly you've embarrassed yourself. Do yourself a favor and let it lie.
Next time you feel the urge to vomit up a badly interpreted,already hyperbolic, glenn greenwald argument, filtered through your own unique lens of ridiculous paranoia and ignorance, just resist. Nobody gives a shit. And we're all capable of reading greenwald on our own if we wanted (with the added bonus of displaying a better understanding of the material than you evidently do.)
CCCToad on 24/8/2011 at 23:29
Quote:
The President -- who kicked off his campaign vowing to put an end to "the era of Scooter Libby justice" -- will stand before the electorate in 2012 having done everything in his power to shield top Bush officials from all accountability for their crimes and will have done the same for Wall Street banks, all while continuing to preside over the planet's largest Prison State . . . for ordinary Americans convicted even of trivial offenses, particularly (though not only) from the War on Drugs he continues steadfastly to defend. And as Sam Seder noted this morning, none of this has anything to do with Congress and cannot be blamed on the Weak Presidency, the need to compromise, or the "crazy" GOP.
Well, his summary doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Its the kind of statement that is almost impossible to misinterpret; you can only disagree with it.
CCCToad on 27/8/2011 at 11:42
Found a link isn't going to help everyone's (already abysmal) opinion of Greenspan. He himself (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0liegrixknA)
admits he deliberately spoke so as to confuse Congress
disclaimer: Its a bit sad I have to say this, but I'm providing the link for the purpose of general enlightenment and not to ass off RBJ or dethtoll.
Rug Burn Junky on 27/8/2011 at 13:31
It's already been explained to you that nobody finds you enlightening.
Besides which the "I'm just going to continue to post as if I were oblivious to the fact that anything ever happened"
is just trolling. Especially where you simply link-bomb with things which don't add to the discussion, only because they resonate with your paranoid narrative that this is some big giant government conspiracy. That's not "enlightenment" that's your own conversational masturbation.
Let it lie. Nobody gives a shit.
Shut the fuck up.
Instead, here's a (
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-you-know-you-are-a-fucking-idiot-right,20907/) link that you may find enlightening.
Aerothorn on 28/8/2011 at 01:13
Can I just say that I LOVE that the linked report originates from my college town.
CCCToad on 28/8/2011 at 09:02
Oh, there's no big government conspiracy.
Just rampant, disorganized corruption.
Ghostly Apparition on 2/9/2011 at 20:52
here is an interesting development I just ran across. At long last some of the big banks and investment firms may be finally going to court over dicing up mortgages and selling them as investments.
(
https://rt.com/usa/news/america-wall-street-bank/)
Rug Burn Junky on 2/9/2011 at 23:15
A little it of a sloppy article, but it's not really surprising. The (
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/business/bank-suits-over-mortgages-are-filed.html?partner=rss&emc=rss) NYTimes article is probably a better description of what's going on, but even that is incomplete.
The reason why is that it's glossing over the chain of liability, as though it were as simple as "BofA knew these mortgages were crap" when it's really "BofA
should have known that these mortgages were crap." Granted, the NYTimes addresses this obliquely when it mentions the third party analysis, but it's important to note it. The bankers who actually packaged these loans didn't have anything to do with their underwriting. They were taking it on good faith that the underwriters that wrote the loans were doing their job. And taking it on good faith that their own compliance officers who were supposed to oversee the underwriters were doing their jobs as well. It falls down when because people at the bottom - the storefront mortgage brokers who actually wrote the loans - let all sorts of shit slide, and the steps in the chain above them couldn't or didn't verify enough of it.
That's more of a question of inadequate procedures than actual bad faith. Which isn't entirely an effective legal defense in this instance, but it's a far cry from the narrative that's bubbling with the pitchforks and torches crowd.
At the end of the day? There's going to be some accountability. What is great though, is that this puts the lie to the narrative that "It's all Fannie & Freddie's fault" Not that it'll register with the cementheads who said that in the first place, but those same people will be pointing to this lawsuit without recognizing that those two stories are pretty much mutually exclusive.
Pyrian on 3/9/2011 at 00:01
In my experience, for virtually every case of so-called criminal negligence there are several technical-minded peons who've pointed it out to middle management, which in turn decided to look the other way and even communicate that as unofficial policy. But that's usually difficult or impossible to prove, so "should have known" ends up being the only standard that can be enforced.
Personally, I think it's kind of disgusting that CEO's with enormous compensation packages are so quick to deny any responsibility for what their companies do.
