The Proof this whole mess was the Bush admins fault

http://www.dechert.com/library/FS17_12-06.pdf

Congress enacted GLB in 1999, but , dispite mulitiple efforts, the SEC had not adopted the rules implimenting section 3(a)(4)(B).



They held back the broker definitions for YEARS.

Just telling me Im wrong because your smart doesnt trump the facts super.
 
Last edited:
The hate bit was for YURT you guys.


They were alllowed by the owner to change my posts contents , change my sig line, retitle my posts as insults and were completely dishonest. When I asked the owner for help he told me to fuck off.

There is NO rules for some people over there and the rules for people they can not push out with the idiot behavior are hyper sensitive.

Its how cons see fair and balenced.
 
cawacko said:
I'm sure you will not be surprised by this in the least. I checked out the other board that Desh posts on and ended up in a conversation with her. Several others chimed in with comments of save your time in talking to her, half the board has her on ignore and the other half just gave up talking to her.

It's one thing that on one board some personalities might clash etc. but when two completely different boards have the same opinion, essentially that she does not know what the hell she is talking about, that is not a good sign for her. Other there, as she did/does here, Desh argues that she is right and everyone else is wrong. This is not to say of course that in a given discussion/argument that because a majority of people agree on somthing they are correct. However when you consistently find yourself as the only person arguing a position it might be telling you something.
Click to expand...

So if you can't attack the argument, you attack the poster? What does this post do other than try to discredit Evince?
Very manly of you.
 
Superfreak said:
No Desh, as I stated, I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. YOU DO NOT. YOU ARE PRETENDING YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FINAL RULING PERTAINS TO. BUT YOU KEEP DISPLAYING BULLSHIT THAT TELLS OTHERWISE.



yes, businesses are supposed to be profitable. Just as you wish to be profitable when renting out homes to other people. But again, this has nothing to do with this issue.



I do not disagree with the above. It is clear that very few people, if any, understood the complexity of some of the CDO's. They all knew the types of loans that were in them, but they didn't understand the risk factor did not change just by lumping a bunch of subprimes together. The ratings agencies should be held accountable for that.

But AGAIN... THIS WAS GOING ON LONG BEFORE 2007 DESH. IT DID NOT JUST MAGICALLY START OCCURRING IN 2007. IF YOU HAD BOTHERED TO READ THE ENTIRE PIECE YOU LINKED US TO, YOU WOULD NOTE THE BANKS DID NOT HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THE FINAL RULING UNTIL AFTER THEIR FIRST FISCAL BUSINESS DAY AFTER SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2008.



again, I do not disagree with the above... but AGAIN, THIS ALL WAS OCCURRING BEFORE 2007 AS WELL AS AFTER.



Again Desh, I DO understand.... it is you who does not. You cannot even tell us about the 'broker' mentioned in the final ruling. Do you even know who that refers to?
Click to expand...

In this post superfreak claims to know exactly what is goning on. In another he admits that he doesn't understand how CDOs really work. In fact no on really understands them including whoever created them, and they were certainly far too complex for the rating agencies who simply rated them tripple A, enabling the greatest theft in history to occur, under bush's watch, which is Evince's primary point.

The style of argument used by Superfreak in this thread, and I noticed in others as well is known as "claiming the expert", meaning if superfreak says something, that is all the proof he needs, since we all know what an expert he is. In fact it is just a form of bullying, nothing more. I am not trying to say superfreak is not well versed in these matters, none the less that is what is occuring here.
In some instances he claims to have answered her questions, yet his answer consists only of "no, that isn't true Desh, then he demands of her links which a high level federal employee would likely have difficulty providing.
 
evince said:
http://www.dechert.com/library/FS17_12-06.pdf

Congress enacted GLB in 1999, but , dispite mulitiple efforts, the SEC had not adopted the rules implimenting section 3(a)(4)(B).

They held back the broker definitions for YEARS.

Just telling me Im wrong because your smart doesnt trump the facts super.
Click to expand...

Again DESH.... tell me.... WHAT is the definition of 'broker' in this case? DO YOU KNOW?

Again DESH... tell me... WHY did CLINTON not take care of this in 1999 or 2000? You continue to blame Bush, but refuse to accept the FACT that it was CLINTON that put this all in place, it was CLINTON who also did not do whatever it is you are suggesting should have been done.

Again DESH... tell me... do you understand that before the 'final ruling' that there were 'interim final rules' in place? do you understand that the SEC has been modifying the 'ruling' for the past ten years? Do you realize that in the end, the damage was done because GLB abolished the barriers between retail banks and investment banks? Do you realize that these barriers are STILL non-existant even though you had your dream scenario of a Dem in the White House and super majorities in the two Houses of Congress?

Again Desh... tell me.... do you actually UNDERSTAND what was IN THE LINK YOU PROVIDED? Because thus far, you have not shown any comprehension of it.
 
Rep. Joe Wilson R said:
In this post superfreak claims to know exactly what is goning on. In another he admits that he doesn't understand how CDOs really work. In fact no on really understands them including whoever created them, and they were certainly far too complex for the rating agencies who simply rated them tripple A, enabling the greatest theft in history to occur, under bush's watch, which is Evince's primary point.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what is going on with regards to WHAT caused the economic meltdown. The complexity of the CDO's was one of the things that caused it. The poor ratings system was another. But bottom line, the trigger to the economic crisis was the repeal of Glass Steagall.... as I have said for several years now.

The style of argument used by Superfreak in this thread, and I noticed in others as well is known as "claiming the expert", meaning if superfreak says something, that is all the proof he needs, since we all know what an expert he is. In fact it is just a form of bullying, nothing more. I am not trying to say superfreak is not well versed in these matters, none the less that is what is occuring here.
In some instances he claims to have answered her questions, yet his answer consists only of "no, that isn't true Desh, then he demands of her links which a high level federal employee would likely have difficulty providing.
Click to expand...

What are you rambling about now? Do point out which of her questions I have not answered. Then point out what 'demands of her links' I have made that are so tough.
 
evince said:
I have been unbanned and my posts on there have been removed or put back to my control.


Having cons hate me and deny facts happens everywhere there are cons.

Yeah the cons hate me and its becaue they dont like facts that prove them wrong.
Click to expand...

I am sure it is not you they hate; it's your blatant ignorance.
 
Rep. Joe Wilson R said:
So if you can't attack the argument, you attack the poster? What does this post do other than try to discredit Evince?
Very manly of you.
Click to expand...

This coming from the person who spends every waking moment attacking people on this forum; got irony?

Good lord, you cannot fabricate the level of ignorance it takes to be such an obvious hypocrite.
 
Superfreak said:
I know exactly what is going on with regards to WHAT caused the economic meltdown. The complexity of the CDO's was one of the things that caused it. The poor ratings system was another. But bottom line, the trigger to the economic crisis was the repeal of Glass Steagall.... as I have said for several years now.



What are you rambling about now? Do point out which of her questions I have not answered. Then point out what 'demands of her links' I have made that are so tough.
Click to expand...

No need to defend yourself dude against a sh*t disturbing troll. IA is a beautiful thing.
 
Superfreak said:
Why didn't they resolve it before Clinton signed it into law?

Next.... WHAT exactly is the 'it' you keep referring to? Explain it to us since you have 'facts' on your side. Explain to us what this 'final ruling' did.

Bottom line.... this ruling HAD NO EFFECT ON THE FACT THAT THE REPEAL OF GLASS STEAGALL BY CLINTON caused the financial mess.
Click to expand...

This is not an answer, just another question.
 
Superfreak said:
PLEASE... link us up to where you are getting this from Desh.



Please.... link us to the training programs these brokers went through.



Nope... the path was put in place long before Bush ever became President.
Click to expand...

Let's see you find these links Super.
 
Superfreak said:
Again DESH.... tell me.... WHAT is the definition of 'broker' in this case? DO YOU KNOW?

Again DESH... tell me... WHY did CLINTON not take care of this in 1999 or 2000? You continue to blame Bush, but refuse to accept the FACT that it was CLINTON that put this all in place, it was CLINTON who also did not do whatever it is you are suggesting should have been done.

Again DESH... tell me... do you understand that before the 'final ruling' that there were 'interim final rules' in place? do you understand that the SEC has been modifying the 'ruling' for the past ten years? Do you realize that in the end, the damage was done because GLB abolished the barriers between retail banks and investment banks? Do you realize that these barriers are STILL non-existant even though you had your dream scenario of a Dem in the White House and super majorities in the two Houses of Congress?

Again Desh... tell me.... do you actually UNDERSTAND what was IN THE LINK YOU PROVIDED? Because thus far, you have not shown any comprehension of it.
Click to expand...

Now go prove what rules were in place while they postponed the rules IN glass steagal for this issue.
 
evince said:
The hate bit was for YURT you guys.


They were alllowed by the owner to change my posts contents , change my sig line, retitle my posts as insults and were completely dishonest. When I asked the owner for help he told me to fuck off.

There is NO rules for some people over there and the rules for people they can not push out with the idiot behavior are hyper sensitive.

Its how cons see fair and balenced.
Click to expand...

I think you have evidence of the opposite here, Desh. But I think you can believe what you want. I think they are less likely to ban that DU, and usually they do it for better reason. I can't say what happened to you because I haven't been there in a while, but they usually have better reason than they have at DU before they ban you...
 
Rep. Joe Wilson R said:
This is not an answer, just another question.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I was answering her in every single one of my posts. There are posts where I was trying to get her to clarify her points to show that she understood what was going on. She has yet to tell us what she thinks the 'final ruling' means when it comes to defining 'broker'. Her posts about banks hiring 'shitty people' that 'knew nothing' would indicate that she is way off base, which is WHY I asked her to clarify.

Now, if you care to post one of her questions that I did not answer, please go right ahead. If I missed one I will gladly apologize and answer it.
 
evince said:
Now go prove what rules were in place while they postponed the rules IN glass steagal for this issue.
Click to expand...

Also, I can't help but notice that once again you FAILED to address ANY of the questions posed to you. Yet you continue to proclaim you have the 'Facts' on your side and continue to pretend you understand the issue.

Again DESH.... tell me.... WHAT is the definition of 'broker' in this case? DO YOU KNOW?

Again DESH... tell me... WHY did CLINTON not take care of this in 1999 or 2000? You continue to blame Bush, but refuse to accept the FACT that it was CLINTON that put this all in place, it was CLINTON who also did not do whatever it is you are suggesting should have been done.

Again DESH... tell me... do you understand that before the 'final ruling' that there were 'interim final rules' in place? do you understand that the SEC has been modifying the 'ruling' for the past ten years? Do you realize that in the end, the damage was done because GLB abolished the barriers between retail banks and investment banks? Do you realize that these barriers are STILL non-existant even though you had your dream scenario of a Dem in the White House and super majorities in the two Houses of Congress?

Again Desh... tell me.... do you actually UNDERSTAND what was IN THE LINK YOU PROVIDED? Because thus far, you have not shown any comprehension of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top