jjamie12
-
Posts
622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jjamie12
-
-
... whether their candidate appears to be more friendly with the USA. It's the issues that count.
THAT IS A MOTHERF*&^ING ISSUE!!!!!!!
Why can't you see that?
-
What if a crane falls on a gun dealer?
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...
-
Been a bad year for cranes.
We should ban cranes. If we can save even one life, it will be worth it.
-
If I deceived them by telling them they were guaranteed to make money absolutely. That's a slimeball tactic just like in your scenario where the real estate agent told them a house was worth double what is really was.
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.
-
The slimeball "professional" who told me it was worth $200k. Should I do the research? No, that's why I hired the slimeball professional. The only thing I'm guilty of is not doing a better job researching the "professional". If I had the time and the expertise to do all the research to make sure the value was correct why the hell hire the "professional". The industry is in the mess it is now because everyone and their grandmother got into it (RE agents, mortgage brokers) with piss poor training and virtually no compliance and they fed the monster which is the average Joe's desire to get rich quick.
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?
-
they got the loan because of lax or non existant industry oversight.
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?
-
Bottom line is that we disagree. You find it to be ok. I don't. Over and done with.
That's right, BF! You think 2+2 =4. I disagree. I think it's = eleventy. Over and done with. No more discussion, please!
-
One plan that I read which sounds draconian, but may go a long way is to take possession of the empty and partially built homes and demolish them. One year later, there's still too much supply.
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?
-
I only agree with your premise that you wouldn't think about it given the current use of the death penalty -- which is basically nil. I think the reason people don't think about the death penalty is because there's pretty much a zero percentage change that you'll be executed if you murder someone. We have a death penalty in name only. How many people do we actually execute each year, 50? How about if we executed 5,000 per year? Or 10,000? If it was actually forefront in people's minds, I think it would be a significant deterrent.
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?
However, I do agree that punishment and vengeance is a prime motive and should be. People these days are just too pussified to admit that they actually want revenge.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?
-
The primary purpose of a car is transportation, not to injure. The primary purpose of a gun is to injure.
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?
You can argue purpose all day. The results are basically the same.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?
-
I see...so having about 15-20 years on death row, piling up millions of tax payer dollars in the process, sounds like a good, swift form of justice in your book.
When the justice is death, you better damn well have access to as many appeals as possible. Do you not agree with that?
-
Are you suggesting that the current process is satisfactory?
No, I'm suggesting its what we have. Will you answer my question now?
-
If you had to take a wild guess, why do you suppose the death penalty is so "expensive"? (hint: it isn't the execution)
Are you now proposing to take away the apellate process?
-
Does the death penalty serve as a deterrent?
-
... will only feel closure when they are dead.
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'.
-
Platitudes and generalities - The platform of the "intellectual" left.
This is funny, funny stuff.
-
it all distorts the will of the voters.
But, apparently, you don't have a problem with super-delagates 'distorting' the will of the voters?
-
Yet Obama supporters think he should be given the nomination by superdelegates because he has more pledged delegates achieved with less popular votes due to varying caucus rules, even though it doesn't reach the 2025 necessary to win. "We were ahead in the playoffs after the 3rd quarter, so we should be given the game. And don't count some of the points the other team scored, even though we all saw them scored".
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.
-
When's Obama going to catch her on total votes?
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!!"
-
Gee what a shock.
You'll notice that the problem wasn't caused by the 'good intentions' of trying to get money to kids for school. It was caused by ignorant Democrats pushing their anti-business agenda for no particular reason.
Let's hear the lame defense from the usual suspects.
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...
-
-
Didn't read all of the posts so sorry if this has already been covered;
I'm willing to bet that if this hadn't received national attention that they would still be pursuing the money. I also can't believe they only got $1 million from the trucking company. With all the frivolous lawsuits that get huge rewards this seems to require more. This woman will need care for about 40 years and $400,000 won't cover it.
And health care costs for all Wal-Mart employees just got more expensive.
-
Securities firms don't have the flexibility to "hold things to maturity" They have to mark everything to market. The banks have a choice of classifying it as holding for the long term. The banks do have to set aside reserves for potential losses, but if that loan/asset is still paying interest and principal, the banks are not under pressure to write down that asset, while securities firms have to write it down if the market value if that same asset goes down.
That's why it's important to see the distinction in the "losses" that have been taken in the last year. A large portion are paper losses due to market deterioration, not the loss from the asset itself.
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.
Musharraf Is Expected to Resign in Next Few Days
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Edit: Never Mind.