Wells Fargo settles over its sub-prime racism

[Admiral Yi]

I find it hard to believe that there were racist policies at big banks driving lending decisions. It seems more plausible that in the clusterfuck legal system we have, unsympathetic deep pocketed defendants are crazy to go to trial against sympathetic plaintiffs, no matter how little culpability they have.

My guess is you meant to say the opposite of what you ended up saying.

[alfred russel]

I find it hard to believe that there were racist policies at big banks driving lending decisions. It seems more plausible that in the clusterfuck legal system we have, unsympathetic deep pocketed defendants are crazy to go to trial against sympathetic plaintiffs, no matter how little culpability they have.

My guess is you meant to say the opposite of what you ended up saying.

I think the last "they" is a vague pronoun reference that shouldn't have been specified but it is clear from context to which group the pronoun referrred. 

[Admiral Yi]

I find it hard to believe that there were racist policies at big banks driving lending decisions. It seems more plausible that in the clusterfuck legal system we have, unsympathetic deep pocketed defendants are crazy to go to trial against sympathetic plaintiffs, no matter how little culpability they have.

My guess is you meant to say the opposite of what you ended up saying.

I think the last "they" is a vague pronoun reference that shouldn't have been specified but it is clear from context to which group the pronoun referrred. 

A valiant effort, but that still leaves you with the problematic "unsympathetic deep pocketed defendants are crazy to go to trial" part.   

[Admiral Yi]

Mea culpa Fredo.  I was totally oblivious to the meaning of crazy to go to trial as it is a bad decision.  I read it as gung ho to go to trial.

[alfred russel]

I think the last "they" is a vague pronoun reference that shouldn't have been specified but it is clear from context to which group the pronoun referrred. 

Don't feel too bad, I just realized when I was taking up for my post I actually said the opposite of what I meant. 

[Razgovory]

I thought your question was roughly analogous to offeing a draw when I've got your queen and king pinned.

Nope.  I didn't find your question awkward at all.  See, I'm insane so I really don't care about my audience.  It could be Languish as a whole, it could be you, it could be just, me, it could be the scorpion people who come out at night try to sting me in my sleep.  Doesn't really matter.

My question, and the previous statement came from the idea that you and many other Republicans appear willing give business more leeway because they are more important.  That you are more willing to overlook their transgressions.  I assume this is some sort of cost-benefit analysis.  If a company abuses it's employees, gets called on it, fined by the Government and then goes out business nobody really benefits, do they.  At least not financially.  I think this is the type of thought you have concerning business.  God knows you almost always initially go to the mat for business in any debate, so there has to be a reason.

[Admiral Yi]

Nope.  I didn't find your question awkward at all.  See, I'm insane so I really don't care about my audience.  It could be Languish as a whole, it could be you, it could be just, me, it could be the scorpion people who come out at night try to sting me in my sleep.  Doesn't really matter.

Raz sacrifices the king.

We're now in agreement that your stalking is insane.  The next question is whether the sane part of Raz says to himself, "that's insane, I better stop doing that," or not.

My question, and the previous statement came from the idea that you and many other Republicans appear willing give business more leeway because they are more important.  That you are more willing to overlook their transgressions.  I assume this is some sort of cost-benefit analysis.  If a company abuses it's employees, gets called on it, fined by the Government and then goes out business nobody really benefits, do they.  At least not financially.  I think this is the type of thought you have concerning business.  God knows you almost always initially go to the mat for business in any debate, so there has to be a reason.

Give business more leeway than...what?  Nonprofits?  Individuals?  Governments?

The fact is that the Democratic party, and a number of its friends in the press, have bought into the Naiderite philosophy that businesses are by definition evil.  So when a story like this one gets posted, I'm not giving Wells Fargo "more leeway," I'm pointing out based on the facts of the case that the allegation is not supported. 

I'm capable of judging when businesses have done wrong, as I did for example with the LIBOR rigging case.  You and Seedy, on the other hand, don't seem to be capable of challenging a central tenet of your faith.

[CountDeMoney]

the Naiderite philosophy that businesses are by definition evil.

Not evil.  Just amoral.  Like, you know, Chaotic Neutral.  And those guys were always the biggest pains in the asses to deal with in D&D Club.

I'm capable of judging when businesses have done wrong, as I did for example with the LIBOR rigging case.  You and Seedy, on the other hand, don't seem to be capable of challenging a central tenet of your faith.

Sure I do.  I'm not to keen on green energy, for instance.  Or all that crazy about overly restrictive gun control.  Except for Caliga.  That man's just dangerous.

[Admiral Yi]

Not evil.  Just amoral.

Bullshit.  You're always whinging about the moral responsibilities of companies to employees.

[CountDeMoney]

Not evil.  Just amoral.

Bullshit.  You're always whinging about the moral responsibilities of companies to employees.

That's right.  They are amoral.  Therefore, they need to get moral.  And since they display no real desire to become moral entities, they need to be encouraged to do so.  Preferably by the business end of government regulation enforcement.  And unions.

[Razgovory]

Nope.  I didn't find your question awkward at all.  See, I'm insane so I really don't care about my audience.  It could be Languish as a whole, it could be you, it could be just, me, it could be the scorpion people who come out at night try to sting me in my sleep.  Doesn't really matter.

Raz sacrifices the king.

We're now in agreement that your stalking is insane.  The next question is whether the sane part of Raz says to himself, "that's insane, I better stop doing that," or not.

My question, and the previous statement came from the idea that you and many other Republicans appear willing give business more leeway because they are more important.  That you are more willing to overlook their transgressions.  I assume this is some sort of cost-benefit analysis.  If a company abuses it's employees, gets called on it, fined by the Government and then goes out business nobody really benefits, do they.  At least not financially.  I think this is the type of thought you have concerning business.  God knows you almost always initially go to the mat for business in any debate, so there has to be a reason.

Give business more leeway than...what?  Nonprofits?  Individuals?  Governments?

The fact is that the Democratic party, and a number of its friends in the press, have bought into the Naiderite philosophy that businesses are by definition evil.  So when a story like this one gets posted, I'm not giving Wells Fargo "more leeway," I'm pointing out based on the facts of the case that the allegation is not supported. 

I'm capable of judging when businesses have done wrong, as I did for example with the LIBOR rigging case.  You and Seedy, on the other hand, don't seem to be capable of challenging a central tenet of your faith.

No we are not in agreement "that my stalking is insane".  I never said stalk.  You bring up this "stalking" thing when you don't want to answer a question.  And I have to remind you that there are like 50 of us here.  It's like accusing your coworkers of stalking you cause they show up to your place of employment every day.

I don't think I've made any bones about being insane, so there is no sacrifice.  We all knew that for a long time.

When I say more leeway, I mean more leeway then the average person.  This has nothing to do with some philosophy that you think I have.  It is a bit odd for you to say it though, since just last month the same accusation was leveled at you, that you believe all unions are evil.  Perhaps you are projecting a bit?

Now are you going to answer my question?  Should a company that violates a law be punished if it means a major worsening of the economy, and more specifically puts you into financial hardship?  And how about that second one I added in another post?  Is it a good idea to fine a company for abusing it's employees if the fine will put the company out of business and put the employees out of a job?

[Admiral Yi]

No we are not in agreement "that my stalking is insane".  I never said stalk.  You bring up this "stalking" thing when you don't want to answer a question.  And I have to remind you that there are like 50 of us here.  It's like accusing your coworkers of stalking you cause they show up to your place of employment every day.

Not even close.  The stalking accusation is not based on you showing up at Languish.  It's based on you responding to my posts consistently and constantly with arguments that have nothing to do with the merits and facts of the story being discussed and that have everything to do with portraying my position as a function of bias and irrationality.  A number of people have posted in this thread, and they were all, with the exception of you and Seedy, on the side of Wells Fargo.  So the way I see it I am singled out for special treatment, and I'm singled out all the time.  If you're unhappy with the word stalking to describe that behavior, feel free to propose an alternative.  I have no interest in typing out that description every single time I want to refer to your stalking.

I don't think I've made any bones about being insane, so there is no sacrifice.  We all knew that for a long time.

And I've never made a short bus or running with scissors crack about it.  But you can't have it both ways.  If you want your comments to be taken seriously you can't hide behind the insanity defense when challenged.  Either they're insane and can be dismissed or they're not and you have to take responsibility for them.

When I say more leeway, I mean more leeway then the average person.  This has nothing to do with some philosophy that you think I have.  It is a bit odd for you to say it though, since just last month the same accusation was leveled at you, that you believe all unions are evil.  Perhaps you are projecting a bit?

Again I refer you to the comments in this thread. 

If I said unions are evil (which I don't think I did), I mispoke.  I think they're greedy and stupid.

Now are you going to answer my question?  Should a company that violates a law be punished if it means a major worsening of the economy, and more specifically puts you into financial hardship?  And how about that second one I added in another post?  Is it a good idea to fine a company for abusing it's employees if the fine will put the company out of business and put the employees out of a job?

A company that violates the law should be punished regardless of the repercussions.

I don't know what you mean by abuse.

I am generally happy to respond to your questions, or at the least point out the assumption that's built in to the question.   What I object to is when you start out by playing the stalker card, then when challenged on it, try to change the subject, as with these types of questions.  If it's a bad card to play, don't play it.

[MadImmortalMan]

I personally love to see huge businesses get hammered. It makes for wonderful stock trading opportunities.   

[Razgovory]

Stuff Yi said...

Okay, I'll give you a different world  "posting".  That seems an accurate and neutral description.   There is no reason to assume that the opinions of an insane person can't be seriously.  So that's a false dichotomy.  I didn't say you said that Union were evil (though I can't imagine that you consider them good if they are greedy or stupid), I said others made that accusation of you.

By means of abuse, I mean things that might violate US employment law.  Use your imagination.

I'm not dodging the stalker issue.  I can't since it doesn't exist.  You could have called me on making a snide comment,  that would be fair and accurate.  Perhaps my words are not always fair, but calling it "stalking" is inaccurate, and is something I take objection to.  I don't think it's strange or malicious for people in a small community to consistently argue over issues that they hold differing view points.  When you say "stalking" you are attempting to paint what I say as malicious.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think it's strange or malicious for people in a small community to consistently argue over issues that they hold differing view points.

Neither do I.  So why don't you argue over a fucking issue for a fucking change?