jjamie12

Edit: Never Mind.

THAT IS A MOTHERF*&^ING ISSUE!!!!!!! Why can't you see that?

Good point. We can set up a gov't agency that would allow cranes to be used in areas where it would be 'okay' for people to die. Abortion Clinics, Gun Dealers, Homes of people making over 200k / year, Outside of the Fox News studio, etc...

We should ban cranes. If we can save even one life, it will be worth it.

What if that person was a real estate professional? (or in your scenario, what if you were selling a stock pick to a fund manager and told him: "It can only go up!" He would laugh you out of the room, or at least, he better!) This is my point: The people who were out there buying these things were ABSOLUTELY people that should have known better! We aren't talking about widows and orphans being hoodwinked by the slick salesman from the city. These were professional money managers, managing hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars! These people, in their quest for return, bought up everything they could get their hands on, even though none of it made sense. Why were some 'AAA's' priced so much wider? Doesn't that raise a red flag to anyone? Ultimately, these people should have been much more responsible with the cash than they were. They COMPLETELY let down their investors. That's the whole thing with a bubble, though, right? People can't seem to help themselves, they just pour $$ into an investment even though it doesn't make sense.

OK... We have fundamentally different views, I guess. It's a legit discussion, though. Do you get the blame if your client loses money on a particular trade, Chef?

I don't completely agree with this. I believe that they got the loan because investors were not doing their due dilligence properly. The only way that these loans could be originated would be if they could get sold. Investors, in their search for yield, never thought to stop and ask about this stuff, they just chased a higher 'return'. "AAA's at 20 bps higher than other AAA's? I'm in!" They took the ratings at face value and went with it. Some would argue that the rating agencies are to blame; afterall, they were rated AAA! how can they go bad?!? I liken that to the following example: A realtor and appraiser tell you that a certain house is worth 200k. You don't know where it is, and you haven't seen it, but you buy it because the 'professionals' told you it was worth it. Turns out, you can only resell the house for 100k. Who's to blame for that messed up purchase?

That's right, BF! You think 2+2 =4. I disagree. I think it's = eleventy. Over and done with. No more discussion, please!

I read that in The Economist, too... Fundamentally, I don't think it makes sense, though. I *think* it is a prisoner's dilemna situation. It might be better for *everyone* if *everyone* demolished the housing excess. However, if I wait for other banks to demolish their homes, I get to keep my asset and make a profit on it, while those that demolished their homes lost their asset value. Unless, of course, the proponents of this idea would have the gov't incent the banks to demolish homes...

I guess I don't understand how anyone can read that and defend it. S'nR are you defending him? I can't really tell. Your points are taken but: Is this really the way that you want your President to act? Shouldn't he be more dignified than that? Honestly?

Inherent in your comments is the idea that people committing murder, or child rape or whatever other heinous crime are acting rationally with regard to the death penalty. It seems very obvious to me that people doing those things are clearly not rational... Outside of 'crimes of passion' you have drug dealers and the like out on the streets gunning down other drug dealers (and sometimes innocent civillians). These folks are living under the threat of death every single time they walk out of their homes... you really think that somehow a 'death penalty' is a deterrent to them? While people might be too 'pussified' to admit that they actually want revenge, can't we all agree that 'revenge' shouldn't be the motivating factor in determining what penalties we mete out in our justice system?

Not necessarily in this case. I would argue that the primary purpose of this gun is 'defense'. This was a pretty narrow victory here, PJ, you should read the opinion. We're really talking about the ability for someone to legally have a handgun in their own home. Isn't everyone in agreement on this? Shouldn't anyone (within reason) be allowed to legally have a gun in their own home? How is this objectionable? Also true. PJ- If you're truly concerned with the welfare of 'innocent people', couldn't you make a much bigger dent in society by banning bars or restaurants that serve alcohol? If people couldn't drink at bars, wouldn't that stop much (not all) of the drunk driving problem?

When the justice is death, you better damn well have access to as many appeals as possible. Do you not agree with that?

No, I'm suggesting its what we have. Will you answer my question now?

Are you now proposing to take away the apellate process?

Does the death penalty serve as a deterrent?

Implicit in your continuing line of 'closure' is the idea that 'closure' for the victim is (and / or should be) a reasonable and just goal of the penal system (or, at least, of the specific penalty of a particular crime). Following this line of reasoning sends us down a path of victims determining the appropriate punishment, which we can all agree is not something that we should aspire to. While the victims here certainly get all of the sympathy in the world from me (from anyone and everyone, I would imagine), we simply cannot make laws and punishments in the interest of ANYONE needing 'closure'.

This is funny, funny stuff.

But, apparently, you don't have a problem with super-delagates 'distorting' the will of the voters?

Very funny stuff. Let's go and continue with your painful analogy, and make it even moreso. Obama supporters are arguing that the game should be decided on the field. They are arguing that the referees shouldn't decide at the end of the 3rd quarter that they are going to call 'holding' on every single play that Obamamania (since we all know holding could be called on every play) runs against Hillaryitis, and, further, to start calling defensive holding on every single play in which Obamamania is on defense (because you can call holding on every play) While, technically, this is well within their rights, and legal, it just doesn't seem right, fair, or equitable to most people outside of the fans of Hillaryitis. No one is saying there shouldn't be referees, just to let the game be decided by someone other than them, even though it is well within their rights to do so.

I love this! This is like an NFL team missing the playoffs but petitioning the league with "... but if you add our pre-season record in, we've actually won more games than them!!"

To be fair, they were trying to make it more affordable (ie lower borrowing costs) for people to go to college. I don't (and didn't) view that as an 'anti-business agenda', but I do agree with you that it was extremely ignorant. Unintended consequences and all that...

Wall Street Journal Article. Unfortunately, this is typical. Linky Goodness

And health care costs for all Wal-Mart employees just got more expensive.

And, I might point out, losses that *may* never happen, too. If you own a AAA mortgage bond right now, you have, most likely, taken a huge hit due to mark-to-market. You have also been getting your principal and interest payments every month, on time. No actual losses... yet.