|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 17:33:10 [Permalink]
|
| Somebody call TSA, there's been a hijacking. |
-Chaloobi
|
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 02/02/2009 : 18:14:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Somebody call TSA, there's been a hijacking.
|
Quite baffling, if one reads the title, but then starts at the end. But I'm tempted to wait, wondering if the hijackers have some amazing and delightful destination in mind.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 21:24:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
When Clinton put the CRA on steroids... |
An assertion totally lacking in evidence. Why don't you provide the evidence, instead of just making another worthless "explanation?"| ...more under qualified people got home loans. |
Another assertion totally lacking in evidence.| ...The effect kept going above and beyond the institutions that were required to provide sub-prime loans. |
Name a single institution which has ever been "required" to provide any sub-prime loans.| But. . . without the CRA as a catalyst it never would have happened. |
Except that you either can't or won't provide any evidence at all that the CRA ever catalyzed any of it.| It's pretty basic economics, Dave. |
Sure, but it's basic logic that if your premises are wrong, your conclusion isn't valid. You haven't offered anything but repetition to support your premises, which you simple-mindedly follow through to a conclusion which ignores so much of the economic climate throughout the decades.| Now, what's your explanation, which completely leaves out the influence of the CRA? |
Aside from the issues I've already addressed (which you have not), the crisis seems to be due to a complex interplay of many economic factors, including the "natural" ups and downs of the housing market, a rash of housing speculation, the savings-and-loan bailout, the invention of the subprime loan, the Federal Reserve's response to the dot-com crash, the acceptance of "ninja" loan applications, the SEC's allowance of higher leverage levels than ever before, the securitization of loans of all kinds (not just home loans, but car loans, student loans, etc.), credit default swaps, poor credit-rating practices, the massive influx of foreign cash into the U.S., and non-legislative pressure applied by two administrations to Freddie and Fannie to buy up mortgage-backed securities because home-ownership was declared to be "good" for everyone.
None of which has anything to do with any legislation or regulation related to the CRA. The CRA has never mandated making loans to people who cannot afford to pay them back, while "on steroids" (whatever the hell that means) or not. And the reason that you don't simply cite the CRA itself to prove your point is that you cannot do so.
But my "explanation" isn't the question here. What is under examination is your unswerving loyalty to a hypothesis which even many conservative economists agree is wrong, along with your refusal to offer up any evidence with which to support your argument.Originally posted by HalfMooner
But I'm tempted to wait, wondering if the hijackers have some amazing and delightful destination in mind. |
You'll have to ask Hittman. While I was secure in my ability to show his baloney for what it is regarding climate change independent of any of his other bullshit, he chose to bring his failures with regard to the CRA up again. But his view of climate change, the CRA, and second-hand smoke all share one thing in common: no original thinking, just the parroting of (primarily) libertarian pundits, while sneering at us for not being properly "skeptical." It is that behavior - that sort of shameless hypocrisy - which I find morally repugnant. Hittman disgusts me with his evidence-free but holier-than-thou attitude on a forum devoted to actual skepticism.
And he is obviously projecting his cynicism all over the place. He doesn't understand that if he presents a solid argument, it will be accepted. He instead assumes the worst of liberal tendencies for us, and so doesn't even bother to try. My explanation in the SHS thread that he might be right but his argument sucks so badly that I couldn't tell was rejected without comment. That same attitude extends from me for the CRA thing, but Hittman doesn't seem to be capable of comprehending that repeating himself is not evidence. Nor does he grok that the existence of an alternative explanation for the same set of observations doesn't mean that his explanation must be wrong (the most insidious form of the false dilemma).
It seems to me that Hittman is one of those people who thinks that because he accepts out-of-the-mainstream or "un-PC" positions that makes him a skeptic or a free-thinker. But the reality, from my chair, is that he's just a wanna-be who resorts to distractions and insults when he's called to actually defend the positions he's adopted. He's got such a huge chip on his shoulder that he can't see that "your argument sucks" means "make a better argument" and not just "you suck." He might have the chops to make it as a real skeptic someday (he's not stupid), if only he'd give up the posturing and get busy on all the homework he's ditched while preening.
And because our overarching mission here is to encourage skepticism, I don't really care which threads I have to stomp all over to get these points across to Hittman. Sure, it'd be nice to stay on-topic (and most threads do), but the forums here exist to serve our mission, not the other way around. If Hittman decides to change his ways, it'll be a win for everyone he interacts with, no matter how much collateral damage is done to the discussions here. If he doesn't, it'll still be a win for everyone who didn't understand how to deal with his crap before he started coming around SFN.
In my opinion, it's not enough to simply state a position many skeptics would agree with to call oneself a skeptic. One has to be able to articulate why. That's why I've got no feelings of guilt with regard to the role I played in beskeptigal's leaving us (for one example), and no regrets about the way I've treated Hittman to date. People who dogmatically assert the truth of some position I agree with may be useful politically, but they're no more skeptical than those who dogmatically assert the truth of a diametrically opposed position, and our goal here is not to create a chorus of like-minded drones. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 23:00:09 [Permalink]
|
| IMO people are causing global warming. |
 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 02:13:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
IMO people are causing global warming.
|
Tell me who they are! I'll drive right over to them and give them a piece of my mind.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 03:23:18 [Permalink]
|
| Arnold Schwarzenegger |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/04/2009 : 03:56:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Arnold Schwarzenegger
|
Conservative Republicans; they produce enough hot air to heat up an atmosphere far larger than ours.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 05:46:24 [Permalink]
|
| I don't mind the warming. In fact, it's 6 degrees F outside right now and I don't like it. That said, the whole acidification of the ocean thing is kinda scary. Everyone seems to be freaking out about that right now. While on the one hand I enjoy snorkeling corral reefs, on the other hand I don't care much for sea food. So if the jellies replace all the tilapia, what's it to me? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 08:45:04 [Permalink]
|
Technically, tilapia are freshwater species (although there are a few farms -especially in the US- in brackish and salt-water environments, mostly cultivating more resistant hybrids).
And, no, I don't have a point beside that.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 11:04:09 [Permalink]
|
| Name a single institution which has ever been "required" to provide any sub-prime loans. |
This is the type of dishonesty I've come to expect from you.
The Real ID Act, if it's ever implemented as written, will be "voluntary." Anyone who doesn't comply will not be able to get a driver's license, board a plane, get a passport, or collect social security, or any number of other ordinary, everyday things, but it will be "voluntary." The CRA was just as voluntary.
Clinton made the CRA score a big deciding factor in allowing bank mergers, acquisitions, and expansions. Any bank that wanted to expand (and how many don't?) had to comply. But not requiring it from every bank allows Big Brother apologists like you to pretend it had no effect.
| Aside from the issues I've already addressed (which you have not), the crisis seems to be due to a complex interplay of many economic factors, including the "natural" ups and downs of the housing market, a rash of housing speculation, the savings-and-loan bailout, the invention of the subprime loan, the Federal Reserve's response to the dot-com crash, the acceptance of "ninja" loan applications, the SEC's allowance of higher leverage levels than ever before, the securitization of loans of all kinds (not just home loans, but car loans, student loans, etc.), credit default swaps, poor credit-rating practices, the massive influx of foreign cash into the U.S., and non-legislative pressure applied by two administrations to Freddie and Fannie to buy up mortgage-backed securities because home-ownership was declared to be "good" for everyone. |
Yea! You finally attempted an answer! Congratulations!
Of course, most of that happened post Clinton CRA pumping, and was either caused by or directly influenced by the spike in home prices, which was caused mostly by the CRA. But. . . you gave it a shot. About time!
| a rash of housing speculation |
Driven by the spike in housing prices – caused by….
| the savings-and-loan bailout |
Nonsense. Resolved and done with, very little, if any, effect on the current situation.
| the invention of the subprime loan, |
Bingo! Any why was that invented?
| the Federal Reserve's response to the dot-com crash, |
Defiantly a factor – keeping interest rates low helped fuel the problem. It didn't create it, but helped fuel it.
| the acceptance of "ninja" loan applications, |
Again, because of the creation of sub prime loans, a direct result of the CRA.
| the SEC's allowance of higher leverage levels than ever before, |
Leverage of what? Would that be. . . mmm . . . sub-prime loans and their instruments?
| the securitization of loans of all kinds (not just home loans, but car loans, student loans, etc.) |
First I've heard of this – and it smells fishy. Why would securing loans caused the meltdown? The meltdown was caused when the collateral (homes) became worth less than the loan.
This was a HUGE contributor to the problem, probably the biggest one. That was a financial instrument designed to get around insurance regulations and was made possible by . . . wait for it . . . sub-prime loans.
| poor credit-rating practices, |
A big part of the problem. And what instruments were getting unrealistic ratings? Well, that would be. . . sub-prime loan instruments.
| the massive influx of foreign cash into the U.S., |
Attracted by un-realistic returns on. . . . sub-prime loan instruments.
| and non-legislative pressure applied by two administrations to Freddie and Fannie to buy up mortgage-backed securities because home-ownership was declared to be "good" for everyone. |
Which were bad securities because. . .
But thanks for trying. It was about time you made an effort.
| Hittman disgusts me with his evidence-free but holier-than-thou attitude on a forum devoted to actual skepticism. |
Excuse me all to hell for not living up to your personal definition of a skeptic and your pathetic analysis of me. If I valued your opinion more than, say, a bucket of warm spit, you might have hurt my widdle feelings. At least I'm not living up to your example. (My favorite so far – repeating "Liar" over and over and over like a Three Dog Night cover band. Most impressive.)
So thanks for giving it a shot, Dave. Next time you might want to do that right away so you don't look so silly.
| Tell me who they are! I'll drive right over to them and give them a piece of my mind. |
Let's not forget Mr. Global Warming himself, Al Gore, with a carbon footprint the size of twenty families for just one of his three mansions. Of course, that's OK, because he purchases indulgences offsets. To his own company, but what the hell, it's the thought that counts, right?
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 11:31:20 [Permalink]
|
Hittman said:
Let's not forget Mr. Global Warming himself, Al Gore, with a carbon footprint the size of twenty families for just one of his three mansions. Of course, that's OK, because he purchases indulgences offsets. To his own company, but what the hell, it's the thought that counts, right?
|
Another Gore hater... who'd of thought.
Al Gore's personal lifestyle or carbon footprint has absolutely nothing to do with the fact of anthropogenic warming.
Before you accuse him of hypocrisy, maybe you should examine and compare his "carbon footprint" to that of other people who are in his income bracket.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 12:50:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
| Name a single institution which has ever been "required" to provide any sub-prime loans. |
This is the type of dishonesty I've come to expect from you. |
That's funny, because it's exactly the same sort of thing as your own "name three people who have died from second-hand smoke" challenge. Apparently, when it's done to you it's dishonest, but when you do it it's perfectly fine....The CRA was just as voluntary.
Clinton made the CRA score a big deciding factor in allowing bank mergers, acquisitions, and expansions. Any bank that wanted to expand (and how many don't?) had to comply. |
Your unstated assumption, that requiring banks to offer credit to poor people is the same thing as making subprime loans is the main premise I reject, Hittman. You're asking me to believe that it's true without offering me a shred of evidence. Despite being asked, numerous times, for the evidence, you still refuse to pony anything up.| But not requiring it from every bank allows Big Brother apologists like you to pretend it had no effect. |
Wow, talk about dishonest.| Yea! You finally attempted an answer! Congratulations! |
But you've still decided to refuse to answer the questions posed to you. Go figure.| Of course, most of that happened post Clinton CRA pumping, and was either caused by or directly influenced by the spike in home prices, which was caused mostly by the CRA. But. . . you gave it a shot. About time! |
You're assuming your conclusion. Epic fail for you, Hittman.| a rash of housing speculation |
Driven by the spike in housing prices – caused by…. |
Assumes your conclusion.| the savings-and-loan bailout |
Nonsense. Resolved and done with, very little, if any, effect on the current situation. |
Nonsense that it's nonsense. The bailout made people think there was less risk.| the invention of the subprime loan, |
Bingo! Any why was that invented? |
Because the prime rate was so low that lenders could offer subprime loans as a "credit repair" service - pay on the subprime for a couple of years without screwing up, and the borrower could refinance into a regular loan later - and still make money on it with negative real interest.| the Federal Reserve's response to the dot-com crash, |
Defiantly a factor – keeping interest rates low helped fuel the problem. It didn't create it, but helped fuel it. |
But you didn't mention it.| the acceptance of "ninja" loan applications, |
Again, because of the creation of sub prime loans, a direct result of the CRA. |
Baloney. Ninja loans were the direct result of the apparent reduction of risk of all lending, due to skyrocketing home values, which were only a "direct result of the CRA" in your dreams. Ninja loans were not necessarily subprime.| the SEC's allowance of higher leverage levels than ever before, |
Leverage of what? Would that be. . . mmm . . . sub-prime loans and their instruments? |
One would have to assume that all of a company's debt was tied up in subprime loan securities for that argument to have any traction.| the securitization of loans of all kinds (not just home loans, but car loans, student loans, etc.) |
First I've heard of this – and it smells fishy. Why would securing loans caused the meltdown? The meltdown was caused when the collateral (homes) became worth less than the loan. |
Re-try those reading skills. Securitization of loans (packaging a lot of loans together as a security to be traded), not "securing" loans.| This was a HUGE contributor to the problem, probably the biggest one. |
Then why claim that it's the CRA, instead?| That was a financial instrument designed to get around insurance regulations and was made possible by . . . wait for it . . . sub-prime loans. |
Evidence-free assertion.| poor credit-rating practices, |
A big part of the problem. And what instruments were getting unrealistic ratings? Well, that would be. . . sub-prime loan instruments. |
Banks get credit ratings, not individual loans.| the massive influx of foreign cash into the U.S., |
Attracted by un-realistic returns on. . . . sub-prime loan instruments. |
The influx began before 1993, due to balance-of-trade issues.| and non-legislative pressure applied by two administrations to Freddie and Fannie to buy up mortgage-backed securities because home-ownership was declared to be "good" for everyone. |
Which were bad securities because. . . |
Still had nothing to do with the CRA.| But thanks for trying. It was about time you made an effort. |
As soon as you provide evidence that the CRA was responsible for the invention of the subprime loan, you'll be doing okay, Hittman. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.| Excuse me all to hell for not living up to your personal definition of a skeptic and your pathetic analysis of me. If I valued your opinion more than, say, a bucket of warm spit, you might have hurt my widdle feelings. |
Oh, it's good to see you can take it as constructive criticism.| At least I'm not living up to your example. (My favorite so far – repeating "Liar" over and over and over like a Three Dog Night cover band. Most impressive.) |
Well, if you had chosen not to lie over and over again, I would have written something else.| So thanks for giving it a shot, Dave. Next time you might want to do that right away so you don't look so silly. |
The irony is thick when this coming from the guy who has never even tried to defend his assertion that the CRA is responsible for the current crisis (he's just repeated the assertion over and over). Those who can't do, preach.
You could finish all of this very easily, Hittman, by citing the part(s) of the CRA which mandated subprime lending. I don't think you will try, of course, because it's a figment of the imaginations of the people that you're parroting. Or maybe you'll make the attempt, only to have it backfire on you like your attempt to support your ideas about publication bias backfired. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 08:41:41 [Permalink]
|
| Another Gore hater... who'd of thought. |
Yeah, but I hated him long before it was cool. When I read "Earth in The Balance," which was full of errors and rhetoric that sounded like the Unabomber's Manafesto, it was obvious he was a twit.
| Al Gore's personal lifestyle or carbon footprint has absolutely nothing to do with the fact of anthropogenic warming. |
Never said it did. It has everything to do with his hypocrisy, though. He wants you and me and everyone else to reduce our carbon footprint, but he is magically exempt from that requirement because, well, just because he is.
| Before you accuse him of hypocrisy, maybe you should examine and compare his "carbon footprint" to that of other people who are in his income bracket. |
Irrelevant, unless those other people are telling the rest of the world to reduce their energy usage.
Dave, it is finished, as far as I'm concerned. I've made my points, you've made yours, and your dishonesty and ignorance has been abundantly repeated for all to see. It's like arguing creationism with a fundy – it's amusing for a while, but then it just gets tiresome. You're not just ignorant, Dave, you're boring, a far more grievous sin.
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 09:10:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
Dave, it is finished, as far as I'm concerned. I've made my points, you've made yours, and your dishonesty and ignorance has been abundantly repeated for all to see. |
Also there for all to see is your constant refusal to support your arguments. Hell, if I were to ask you to point out my alleged ignorance or dishonesty, you'd most-likely fail to do so, and just keep chanting that I'm dishonest and ignorant, over and over again, without ever supporting those claims.| It's like arguing creationism with a fundy – it's amusing for a while, but then it just gets tiresome. You're not just ignorant, Dave, you're boring, a far more grievous sin. |
Better to be boring than a dogmatic, credulous and arrogant True Believer™ like you, Hittman. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 10:33:27 [Permalink]
|
| I'd rather be boring than ignorant. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Global warming deniers
