"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I wasn't offering up a comparison. I was giving an example of what I feel should be the limit with respect to accommodation of religious tradition.

A more apt analogy would have been the Branch Davidians, or perhaps the KKK. Sharia is a disgusting social infrastructure which cannot co-exist with the state, and that's what makes it uniquely dangerous.

Are you aware of the sanctioning of wife beating or honor killings in Judaism or Modern Christianity? Even in the most rabid fundamentalist churches, you will not find people calling for stonings and bloody jihads. I hate to use a slippery slope argument, but Sharia is the world's most dangerous gateway drug. People who wish to live like barbarians should not be welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury or anyone else.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
More accurately, some Muslims are bothered by the fact that there are people who are not following God's law. Fortunately we don't have anybody like that in America to take the ludicrous position that our government should conform its laws to some kind of "natural law."

Translation: any time someone criticizes a stupid proposal by a Muslim, I will just point out that Christians have stupid proposals too. Because I'm logical that way.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I think his point was that the Archbishop of Canterbury is both an ass and a dhimmi.

If so, then 2.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Translation: any time someone criticizes a stupid proposal by a Muslim, I will just point out that Christians have stupid proposals too. Because I'm logical that way.

I'm surprised you even bother with that "argument." It's basically a concession. Hank's usually the only one who takes that bait. Late a night, into his second bottle.

But then, it is Friday...

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What about sacrificing chickens?

I would need more facts. Given that there aren't any flat-out laws prohibiting sacrificing chickens, unlike smoking peyote, I would have to know what law was involved, the manner of sacrifice, the purported public interest, and who is going to blow me for dealing with all this shit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm surprised you even bother with that "argument." It's basically a concession. Hank's usually the only one who takes that bait. Late a night, into his second bottle.

But then, it is Friday...

i keep count of wins and loses, so it wa slike finding a dollar, and I did admit I was playing the Generals on that one.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I would need more facts. Given that there aren't any flat-out laws prohibiting sacrificing chickens, unlike smoking peyote, I would have to know what law was involved, the manner of sacrifice, the purported public interest, and who is going to blow me for dealing with all this shit.

God, can you still get mescaline? Do they even make it in mass marketable quantities anymore?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by John Phoenix
A good friend of mine is on the buy side at a big financial institution. Before everything went to hell, he would tell me how he had started working with a guy who was a "quant" guy, and how all he wanted to do was model things, and not focus on the basics. My friend was the opposite, thought that quant analysis could be helpful, but that the basics and old school analysis was critical. When everything went to hell, and reports came out that quant guys thought that they had made a paradigm shift, but were wrong, I called up my buddy. He was not displeased about the personal come-uppance. Well, he was upset about the overall performance, of course, but you know what I mean.

It seems to be a trend in recent years. Yale, I think, is teaching quant theory heavily in in its management school. A friend of mine went there and fwiw, anecdotally speaking, I wouldn't give her next week's grocery money to invest.

I've never understood these battles between competing schools of thought in any scientific, legal or finance endeavor. Clearly, unless you're an imbecile, the best approach is always a combination of various forms of data and intuition. Yet you'll find eight million different papers from all sorts of people arguing one is better than the other and trying to "win" the debate, as though a person could ever say with any credibility, "The results are in and our narrow approach, of the millions of approaches one could take, is unequivocally the right one." Seems like a lot of eggheads acting like litigators.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So no Peyote smoking, Antonin?

FTR, FYI, and all that, peyote isn't generally smoked.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
FTR, FYI, and all that, peyote isn't generally smoked.

Good thing to know next time I'm hanging on a reservation. Wouldn't want to look like a dork.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Are you aware of the sanctioning of wife beating or honor killings in Judaism or Modern Christianity? Even in the most rabid fundamentalist churches, you will not find people calling for stonings and bloody jihads. I hate to use a slippery slope argument, but Sharia is the world's most dangerous gateway drug. People who wish to live like barbarians should not be welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury or anyone else.

No need to look as extreme as honor killings.

Perhaps the Archbishop actually agrees that 37 year-old mothers should be dragged off to jail and strip searched for drinking a latte?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3321637.ece

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No need to look as extreme as honor killings.

Perhaps the Archbishop actually agrees that 37 year-old mothers should be dragged off to jail and strip searched for drinking a latte?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3321637.ece

i promised wonk we wouldn't post the reality.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by John Phoenix
I just read that the economic stimulus will "temporarily raise the limit on Federal Housing Administration loans and the cap on loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy to $729,750." Whoo hoo!

I love Washington. I, of all people, am potentially , in the face of all the past shitty lending practices, going to get to refi my current 5/1 ARM at 4.75% to something lower because the Fed panicked and I will no longer be a "Jumbo." It seems, though, that I will be completely phased out of any tax rebate.

LessinBangkok

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No need to look as extreme as honor killings.

Perhaps the Archbishop actually agrees that 37 year-old mothers should be dragged off to jail and strip searched for drinking a latte?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3321637.ece

to be fair, the archbishop never agreed sharia is a good thing, he was saying it's inevitable in the UK, if they want everyone to stick together and be part of one country. see, it makes sense.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by bling trade
The smart bankers and brokers knews the flaws in their models. The problem is that the business guys make a lot of money by selling companies financing and selling investors securities, whether the stuff sold is good or bad in general, at the price sold, or for the particular issuer/investor. And that since Reagan, the regulators haven't really been willing to use their powers to control the bankers, brokers, etc. The Fed, the Comptroller, the SEC, and FASB could do a lot to control things, but they generally don't seem to have the political will or backing to do so.

And as for the lemming analysts at the banks, those guys are in the entertainment business. A big part of the reason the bank has them is to cheerlead, so clients want to do transactions, and the bankers and brokers get paid for executing them.

I may be missing something, but I was referring to the banks themselves taking these huge losses, i.e. betting and losing their own money on this most recent of false so-called paradigm shifts. I was not referring to them making money by doing issuances or earning commissions on their clients trading on their analysts' "advice."

I think the lemming analogy is best. Like the frenzy proceeding the dot-com bust, it was professional suicide to be a bear at the time. Similarly, it was short-term stupid to not be on the crappy mortgage-backed investment "devices" bandwagon, but long-term stupid to be on them. And the rest of the world is enjoying buying America at bargain prices, and I do not foresee a change in bank personnel compensation even though shareholders should demand it.

LessinBangkok