A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: Carbon on 5 Aug 2010 19:12 On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:52:30 -0500, Moderate wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > news:alangbaker-87744B.13383405082010(a)news.shawcable.com... >> In article <i3f78e$nn3$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" >> <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: >> >>> If you want to call me a liar you better be able to prove it. >> >> I can. >> >> You said "Only that three people were waterboarded". The lie is in >> the underlying implication that you had the requisite knowledge to >> make that statement. You've just admitted you didn't and that your >> support is only "there is no evidence that anyone else was >> waterboarded". >> >> The lie is speaking as if it were a certain fact when you know that >> you can't know it is a certain fact. > > It could only be a lie if more than three people had been water > boarded. > > Clearly I have made my point. You have no evidence of anyone else > being waterboarded and your insinuation that there were more is simply > blustering and you cover that with more blustering. > > You are the worst troll ever :-) LOL Trolling is one thing, but I'm beginning to wonder if you have any idea what you did wrong. Honestly, that's way worse.
From: Howard Brazee on 9 Aug 2010 18:56 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:02:59 -0700, "zox625" <a46668(a)webnntp.invalid> wrote: >Still unable to argue the points. Typical lib non-thinking. > >If they had to KEEP all the mortgages they wrote, do you tihnk banks would >have written all that bad paper? They only did it because 1) CRA >practically forced them to and 2) they knew they could sell them. I don't know about 1, but certainly 2 is correct. The companies who bought them weren't "practically forced" to buy them. The operative term is "short term". Make the money now and then it's someone else's problem. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: John B. on 9 Aug 2010 20:22 On Aug 9, 6:56 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:02:59 -0700, "zox625" <a46...(a)webnntp.invalid> > wrote: > > >Still unable to argue the points. Typical lib non-thinking. > > >If they had to KEEP all the mortgages they wrote, do you tihnk banks would > >have written all that bad paper? They only did it because 1) CRA > >practically forced them to and 2) they knew they could sell them. > > I don't know about 1, but certainly 2 is correct. The companies who > bought them weren't "practically forced" to buy them. > > The operative term is "short term". Make the money now and then > it's someone else's problem. > > -- > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace > to the legislature, and not to the executive department." > > - James Madison I know about 1. It's false. CRA didn't force any bank to make any loan.
From: Carbon on 9 Aug 2010 20:31 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:22:07 -0700, John B. wrote: > On Aug 9, 6:56 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:02:59 -0700, "zox625" <a46...(a)webnntp.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> Still unable to argue the points. Typical lib non-thinking. >>> >>> If they had to KEEP all the mortgages they wrote, do you tihnk banks >>> would have written all that bad paper? They only did it because 1) >>> CRA practically forced them to and 2) they knew they could sell >>> them. >> >> I don't know about 1, but certainly 2 is correct. The companies >> who bought them weren't "practically forced" to buy them. >> >> The operative term is "short term". Make the money now and then >> it's someone else's problem. > > I know about 1. It's false. CRA didn't force any bank to make any > loan. The true believers don't care. It's an article of faith in the new Fascist mythology.
From: William Clark on 9 Aug 2010 20:47
In article <4c609df4$0$12465$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:22:07 -0700, John B. wrote: > > On Aug 9, 6:56 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:02:59 -0700, "zox625" <a46...(a)webnntp.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Still unable to argue the points. Typical lib non-thinking. > >>> > >>> If they had to KEEP all the mortgages they wrote, do you tihnk banks > >>> would have written all that bad paper? They only did it because 1) > >>> CRA practically forced them to and 2) they knew they could sell > >>> them. > >> > >> I don't know about 1, but certainly 2 is correct. The companies > >> who bought them weren't "practically forced" to buy them. > >> > >> The operative term is "short term". Make the money now and then > >> it's someone else's problem. > > > > I know about 1. It's false. CRA didn't force any bank to make any > > loan. > > The true believers don't care. It's an article of faith in the new Fascist > mythology. And they seem to continue to overlook the fact that Goldman among others was making these sub-prime loans, while at the same time making money by betting that they would fail. |