Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Remember when peeps were saying my questions were about a position no one was taking?

You had a position? When?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

You had a position? When?

cletus, Club, I won this one right? he did exactly what you all said no one would say should happen. mother fucker.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

cletus, Club, I won this one right? he did exactly what you all said no one would say should happen. mother fucker.

I'm not sure how you think you can "win" when you don't actually state your view.

Although I will grant you, on this particular issue, I think a "view" is a bit premature. It's a mess, and largely a mess than no one really understands, or has much reason to care about (aside from Cletus and Sebby, apparently). But your typical obfuscation is hardly a win.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not sure how you think you can "win" when you don't actually state your view.

Although I will grant you, on this particular issue, I think a "view" is a bit premature. It's a mess, and largely a mess than no one really understands, or has much reason to care about (aside from Cletus and Sebby, apparently). But your typical obfuscation is hardly a win.

if you're right they won't say that you've taken the position i predicted. if I'm right, well i am.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

if you're right they won't say that you've taken the position i predicted. if I'm right, well i am.

Well, no reason to worry about the latter, especially because you haven't said anything to be right about.

It's clearly a mess. The sponsor banks clearly fucked up. It's probably the originator's banks fault initially, but regardless, we are where we are. The choices seem to be (1) eh, fuck it, the homeowner owes money to someone (hopefully), so let's just hand the house to whoever files first, or (2) maybe we need to make sure the banks actually can support their sworn statements to court, even if that might mean that delinquent homeowners might gain a few windfall months in their house.

That you seem to think, but as usual are unwilling to say, that the windfall is the tragedy of it all is, once again, telling.

Weep for the poor (well, maybe not poor), sad banker, hank. Therein lies true human tragedy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Well, no reason to worry about the latter, especially because you haven't said anything to be right about.

It's clearly a mess. The sponsor banks clearly fucked up. It's probably the originator's banks fault initially, but regardless, we are where we are. The choices seem to be (1) eh, fuck it, the homeowner owes money to someone (hopefully), so let's just hand the house to whoever files first, or (2) maybe we need to make sure the banks actually can support their sworn statements to court, even if that might mean that delinquent homeowners might gain a few windfall months in their house.

That you seem to think, but as usual are unwilling to say, that the windfall is the tragedy of it all is, once again, telling.

Weep for the poor (well, maybe not poor), sad banker, hank. Therein lies true human tragedy.

what scares all of us most is some functioning company hired you. did someone help you with the application?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

what scares all of us most is some functioning company hired you. did someone help you with the application?

I know, Hank, everyone should just have you same knee-jerk in favor of what fox news says, covered in the clever obfuscation of a few critical "questions."

Can you imagine how that would work? "Your honor, I'm not saying aliens aren't invading, but if they are, how do we justify not killing all the crazy homeless people to eliminate the distraction while productive members of society ride the subway?"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I know, Hank, everyone should just have you same knee-jerk in favor of what fox news says, covered in the clever obfuscation of a few critical "questions."

Can you imagine how that would work? "Your honor, I'm not saying aliens aren't invading, but if they are, how do we justify not killing all the crazy homeless people to eliminate the distraction while productive members of society ride the subway?"

smh

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

smh

Shake, away, hank, shake away.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

cletus, Club, I won this one right? he did exactly what you all said no one would say should happen. mother fucker.

He means well, but you can't take him seriously. He doesn't live in the real world.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Shake, away, hank, shake away.

Somehow you've come to believe being nasty and attacking people on a personal level is how one wins arguments. To you carry this style into your professional life?

I'm not angry with you. I actually feel sad that you cannot engage in civil discourse.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Somehow you've come to believe being nasty and attacking people on a personal level is how one wins arguments. To you carry this style into your professional life?

I'm not angry with you. I actually feel sad that you cannot engage in civil discourse.

You don't seem to get it. Observing that you haven't taken a position isn't an attack.

That said, agreement from Mr "whatever the WSJ op ed says, no matter how demonstrably untrue" doesn't really help you cause.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

He means well, but you can't take him seriously. He doesn't live in the real world.

You mean the real world in what's best is that courts just take for granted anything the banks say?

That is certainly appealing from an efficiency perspective. And might even be right 90+% of the time.

The questions are (1) whether it's okay for banks to say "fuck it, we're right most of the time, (2) whether it's okay for our legal system to say "eh, 10% (or whatever) might be wrong, but that's close enough for government work."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

civil discourse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[Tyrone Slothrop]

whoops