Naturally, I expect all of you GOPtards and Big Bigness defenders to blame all dem ol' black folk; after all, if it wasn't for all those damned dirty minorities, we wouldn't have had a subprime mortgage crisis in the first place.
Predatory lenders wouldn't be predatory if home buyers didn't wear such skimpy skirts, being all dick teases and just asking for trouble.
QuoteWells Fargo agrees to pay $175M settlement in pricing discrimination suit
Settlement calls for payments of $7.5 million to city of Baltimore, $2.5 million directly to 1,000 area residents
About 1,000 Baltimore-area residents are expected to receive thousands of dollars each under a landmark $175 million settlement between the U.S. Department of Justice and Wells Fargo over accusations of discriminatory lending practices.
Under the terms of the deal announced Thursday, Wells Fargo also will provide $7.5 million to the city of Baltimore, which federal officials credited with first raising issues of discrimination related to bank's subprime mortgages.
The city alleged Wells Fargo steered minorities into subprime loans, gave them less favorable rates than white borrowers and foreclosed on hundreds of Baltimore homes, creating blight and higher public safety costs. Wells Fargo is the largest residential home mortgage originator in the United States.
"Baltimore got the ball rolling," said Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, who heads the Department of Justice's civil rights division. "The federal government heard you and the federal government followed up."
The deal is the second largest fair-lending settlement in the department's history, said Perez, a former Maryland labor secretary.
The settlement provides $125 million in payments to borrowers, including an estimated $2.5 million in the Baltimore area. Minority borrowers who were steered into subprime mortgages will receive an average payment of $15,000 each, Perez said. Blacks and Hispanics who paid higher fees and rates than white borrowers because of their race or national origin will receive smaller payments that will be determined based on what they were charged.
As part of the agreement, Wells Fargo will pay for an independent administrator to find and compensate more than 30,000 residents nationwide affected by the bank's lending practices.
To address concerns about blight, Wells Fargo also will provide $50 million in direct down-payment assistance to borrowers in Baltimore and seven other communities nationwide that were hit hard by the housing crisis and where federal officials identified large numbers of discrimination victims.
"This practice caused harm to families, neighborhoods and the city's tax base," Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said. "The agreement puts to rest our legal challenges and allows us to move forward collaboratively and work on growing the city."
Mike Heid, president of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, said in a statement that his company was "settling this matter ... to avoid a long and costly legal fight, and to instead devote our resources to continuing to contribute to the country's housing recovery."
The bank said it stopped making subprime loans through independent mortgage brokers in 2007 and stopped all subprime home lending in 2008.
Even though the bank agreed to settle the suit, Wells Fargo spokesman Oscar Suris said it still rejects claims that it engaged in discriminatory practices. "The value in settling to us is to get this behind us," he said.
Wells Fargo brought in more than $80 billion in revenue last year and nearly $16 billion in profit.
The Justice Department's lawsuit alleged the bank discriminated against African-American and Latino borrowers between 2004 and 2009. The federal government said that black and Hispanic residents were more likely to be placed in a subprime loan than their white counterparts even if they qualified for a better loan.
"That's called discrimination with a smile," Perez said.
At a news conference at City Hall, he told a story about an "80-year-old African-American resident of the Baltimore area with a 714 credit score and a rock-solid credit file who received a subprime loan instead of a prime loan, and who was not told that she may have qualified for a prime loan with better terms."
"By the time she realized she had an adjustable-rate mortgage, and not the fixed rate she thought, it was too late," Perez said. "The damage was done."
U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin and Rep. Elijah E. Cummings released statements hailing the settlement.
Wells Fargo said it agreed to pay $4.5 million to Baltimore for down-payment assistance, and will grant the city $3 million in additional funds for foreclosure-related initiatives.
Wells Fargo also set a five-year goal of lending $425 million for mortgages in Baltimore, an amount city officials called an increase over current lending levels. This commitment includes $125 million in loans for low- and moderate-income residents.
City Solicitor George Nilson said Baltimore will receive the $3 million payment next month, but officials have not yet determined how to use it. Officials said the $4.5 million will be administered by a not-yet-selected nonprofit. They said the program will be launched in late 2012 or 2013.
"This will greatly assist those looking to buy a home," Rawlings-Blake said.
The settlement covers borrowers who obtained mortgages through brokers, rather than directly from the bank. Wells Fargo agreed to conduct an internal review of its retail lending and compensate African-American and Hispanic borrowers who were placed into subprime loans when similarly qualified white borrowers received prime loans, which offer better rates.
Payments to any retail borrowers identified in the review process will be in addition to the $125 million to compensate borrowers who were victims of discrimination, the federal government said.
Perez, a former Montgomery County councilman, said he believed some Baltimore residents would qualify for payments under this review as well.
Baltimore first filed suit against the bank in 2008 but was forced to refile three times after Wells Fargo won a series of court victories. The fourth version of the city's lawsuit was filed in 2010 and identified more than 250 properties as blighted houses that fell into disrepair because of unnecessary foreclosures that resulted from dishonest loans. At the time, Nilson said the value of damages sought by the city would approach $20 million.
Under the terms of the deal, Baltimore's suit against Wells Fargo will be dismissed.
Perez said the settlement of the federal suit, which also includes payouts to Washington, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, New York, Cleveland and Riverside, Calif. —all hit hard by the foreclosure crisis — recognizes that foreclosures hurt communities as well as individuals.
"It all started here in Baltimore City," Perez said. "The lawsuit filed by Baltimore City in 2008 was the catalytic force, plain and simple. When you filed this lawsuit to call attention to the devastating consequences of this crisis, you got the attention of the federal government and you got the attention of the nation."
So they 'qualified' for a better loan, but then they didn't pay their loan and got foreclosed on. Oh yeah, they reaaally got mistreated.
I hate Wells Fargo so fuck them.
Quote"By the time she realized she had an adjustable-rate mortgage, and not the fixed rate she thought, it was too late," Perez said. "The damage was done."
Thank God the government was there to ensure she did not have to take any responsibility for reading or understanding anything.
Quote from: Kleves on July 14, 2012, 10:19:16 AM
Quote"By the time she realized she had an adjustable-rate mortgage, and not the fixed rate she thought, it was too late," Perez said. "The damage was done."
Thank God the government was there to ensure she did not have to take any responsibility for reading or understanding anything.
No shit. :lol:
I wonder if the fine is more than the losses they would have taken by lending to blacks?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2012, 06:06:02 AM
Naturally, I expect all of you GOPtards and Big Bigness defenders to blame all dem ol' black folk; after all, if it wasn't for all those damned dirty minorities, we wouldn't have had a subprime mortgage crisis in the first place.
I blame both. You needed willing borrowers and willing lenders for the crisis.
How does a mortgage to an 80 year old work?
You're several weeks late. :P
WF are seizing up the lending chain as we speak. Cutting out tons of brokers and ramping up their proprietary lending business, probably to make sure they have control over the issuance process themselves. BofA already did this. I expect JPMChase to do the same shortly. Don't expect it to get any easier to get loans any time soon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2012, 11:51:22 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2012, 06:06:02 AM
Naturally, I expect all of you GOPtards and Big Bigness defenders to blame all dem ol' black folk; after all, if it wasn't for all those damned dirty minorities, we wouldn't have had a subprime mortgage crisis in the first place.
I blame both. You needed willing borrowers and willing lenders for the crisis.
How does a mortgage to an 80 year old work?
Of course you do. Every crime needs both a victim and a perpetrator. It's much easier to say they both had a role in it and blame both.
I'm with Bloomberg. It's Congress' fault. And Fannie and Freddie (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html).
Edit: I especially love the last paragraph of that article from
1999:
Quote
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2012, 12:31:47 PM
Of course you do. Every crime needs both a victim and a perpetrator. It's much easier to say they both had a role in it and blame both.
:lol: Presumably you have an audience in mind with comments like "of course you do." Who is Raz that you are trying to convince that I'm an unthinking bundle of biases that should not be taken seriously?
It's not at all easier to say that the victim of a crime had a role in it and blame them both. When I read about a serial killer cutting up 12 victims I don't have to expend any effort to say it's the serial killer's fault.
The national press club.
It's easier for you, since blaming a major American business seems to stick in your craw.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2012, 12:44:49 PM
The national press club.
It is an awkward question for you, with no easy answer.
Is it an adaptation of the Manichean principle that the world is divided into pure good and pure evil? Therefore if you put your self in opposition to evil you are by definition good.
Or maybe a belief that your self esteem and/or status will be improved by undermining your interlocutors.
Or maybe redirected Freudian anger.
It's hard to know, but what is certain is that the stalkerish comments don't work at face value. If they're an attempt to warn other posters about the illogicalicality of my conclusions, it seems that message is falling on barren ground. If they're an attempt to put on the record your opinion about me as a poster, that message has already been amply communicated.
The stalking thing again? We've been over this. Besides, nobody uses Freud anymore. Using the term "Freudian" is always a signal that person doesn't know psychology.
You don't like my answer "The National Press Club"?
May I ask you a 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?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2012, 02:57:16 PM
The stalking thing again? We've been over this.
We sure have.
I take it that what I said to you didn't stick, and that you don't feel like answering my question.
I thought your question was roughly analogous to offeing a draw when I've got your queen and king pinned.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2012, 11:51:22 AMI blame both. You needed willing borrowers and willing lenders for the crisis.
I don't see how these lenders had management that allowed this sort of thing. I don't blame bad borrowers for wanting something, but lenders should be held to a standard by their companies. I know in my business, I wouldn't have allowed that kind of money to float out there like that.
It's just like a bail. Pookie's Moms wants to bail out Pookie on a $100K bail. Now, I don't blame her for
wanting to bail out Pookie, because that's what Moms do, but Moms has only $1,500 and no job, so she's a shitty signer. Now, if I take the money, I have my cut: but how the hell is my boss going to expect me to collect the outstanding $8,500 from a signer that doesn't have a job? He'd have my balls for breakfast. Where were these lenders' bosses? Where was the oversight? How the hell do you write a mortgage for applicants you know can't pay it off?
These people took money on bad applicants they knew didn't have the means to pay it off, but they took it anyway. That's just being a shitty lender. I don't blame deadbeats for being deadbeats, especially when you know you're dealing with a deadbeat, and you know damned well they'll take what they can get, if they're told they're OK. You're supposed to protect your company's money from deadbeats.
Why the hell none of these people never got fired is beyond me.
QuoteHow does a mortgage to an 80 year old work?
Hopefully not without a power of attorney.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2012, 04:49:29 PM
I don't see how these lenders had management that allowed this sort of thing. I don't blame bad borrowers for wanting something, but lenders should be held to a standard by their companies. I know in my business, I wouldn't have allowed that kind of money to float out there like that.
It's just like a bail. Pookie's Moms wants to bail out Pookie on a $100K bail. Now, I don't blame her for wanting to bail out Pookie, because that's what Moms do, but Moms has only $1,500 and no job, so she's a shitty signer. Now, if I take the money, I have my cut: but how the hell is my boss going to expect me to collect the outstanding $8,500 from a signer that doesn't have a job? He'd have my balls for breakfast. Where were these lenders' bosses? Where was the oversight? How the hell do you write a mortgage for applicants you know can't pay it off?
These people took money on bad applicants they knew didn't have the means to pay it off, but they took it anyway. That's just being a shitty lender. I don't blame deadbeats for being deadbeats, especially when you know you're dealing with a deadbeat, and you know damned well they'll take what they can get, if they're told they're OK. You're supposed to protect your company's money from deadbeats.
Why the hell none of these people never got fired is beyond me.
I agree with virtually everything you wrote. But a deadbeat is not a victim. And I'm not going to be sympathetic when Pookie's mom cries to the press that she was tricked into putting up bail.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2012, 04:56:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2012, 04:49:29 PM
I don't see how these lenders had management that allowed this sort of thing. I don't blame bad borrowers for wanting something, but lenders should be held to a standard by their companies. I know in my business, I wouldn't have allowed that kind of money to float out there like that.
It's just like a bail. Pookie's Moms wants to bail out Pookie on a $100K bail. Now, I don't blame her for wanting to bail out Pookie, because that's what Moms do, but Moms has only $1,500 and no job, so she's a shitty signer. Now, if I take the money, I have my cut: but how the hell is my boss going to expect me to collect the outstanding $8,500 from a signer that doesn't have a job? He'd have my balls for breakfast. Where were these lenders' bosses? Where was the oversight? How the hell do you write a mortgage for applicants you know can't pay it off?
These people took money on bad applicants they knew didn't have the means to pay it off, but they took it anyway. That's just being a shitty lender. I don't blame deadbeats for being deadbeats, especially when you know you're dealing with a deadbeat, and you know damned well they'll take what they can get, if they're told they're OK. You're supposed to protect your company's money from deadbeats.
Why the hell none of these people never got fired is beyond me.
I agree with virtually everything you wrote. But a deadbeat is not a victim. And I'm not going to be sympathetic when Pookie's mom cries to the press that she was tricked into putting up bail.
But more importantly, lenders aren't victims, either. But guess who gets the taxpayer-funded bail outs, who doesn't get to be held accountable, who keeps doing business as usual?
Meh, fuck it, who am I kidding. I would've taken the money, tell her the insurance company had a problem, taken more money, tell her the jail had problems with the paperwork, taken more money, and then popped his ass the day after prelim and get his ass back on the street slinging for me until it's paid off, or Moms goes to jail. No, of course she can't go to jail, but they don't know that. Just like they don't know what the fuck an adjustable rate mortgage is, either.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2012, 05:04:47 PM
But more importantly, lenders aren't victims, either. But guess who gets the taxpayer-funded bail outs, who doesn't get to be held accountable, who keeps doing business as usual?
Let's see. Anyone who held bank bonds was not held accountable. Generally we're talking about pension funds, 401k type investment funds, and insurance companies. Anyone who had a deposit account that exceeded the FDIC limit was not held accountable. My guess is those were mostly small and medium sized businesses. Counterparties to AIG's massive CDS portfolio were not held accountable. That's the big pot of free money, and if you want to be taken seriously when talking about the bailout, you should focus on that. The largest banks had the privilege of borrowing money at 15 1/2 % and their shareholders had the priviledge of having their ownership diluted by around 10%. If you were forced by the government to borrow money at 15.5% would you feel equally blessed and stop whining so much?
To continue, Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns, IndyBank, Washington Mutual, Merryl Lynch, Countrywide, and a host of smaller regional and local banks were held very much accountable. Freddie and Fannie shareholders were held completely accountable.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2012, 04:49:29 PM
Why the hell none of these people never got fired is beyond me.
You don't seem so upset at Wells Fargo's alleged racism as you are that they lent money to black people at all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2012, 05:47:09 PM
To continue, Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns, IndyBank, Washington Mutual, Merryl Lynch, Countrywide, and a host of smaller regional and local banks were held very much accountable. Freddie and Fannie shareholders were held completely accountable.
And thank Christ for that. WaMu deserved everything they got.
Quote from: Kleves on July 14, 2012, 05:55:00 PM
You don't seem so upset at Wells Fargo's alleged racism as you are that they lent money to black people at all.
They hold my mortgage, so I'm torn. They gave me the white person rate, so I really can't bitch.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2012, 06:00:40 PM
They gave me the white person rate, so I really can't bitch.
Did they do the interview over the phone, or was the loan officer blind? :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2012, 06:05:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2012, 06:00:40 PM
They gave me the white person rate, so I really can't bitch.
Did they do the interview over the phone, or was the loan officer blind? :P
:lol: I'm very articulate and well-spoken. :mad:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2012, 04:49:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2012, 11:51:22 AMI blame both. You needed willing borrowers and willing lenders for the crisis.
I don't see how these lenders had management that allowed this sort of thing. I don't blame bad borrowers for wanting something, but lenders should be held to a standard by their companies. I know in my business, I wouldn't have allowed that kind of money to float out there like that.
It's just like a bail. Pookie's Moms wants to bail out Pookie on a $100K bail. Now, I don't blame her for wanting to bail out Pookie, because that's what Moms do, but Moms has only $1,500 and no job, so she's a shitty signer. Now, if I take the money, I have my cut: but how the hell is my boss going to expect me to collect the outstanding $8,500 from a signer that doesn't have a job? He'd have my balls for breakfast. Where were these lenders' bosses? Where was the oversight? How the hell do you write a mortgage for applicants you know can't pay it off?
These people took money on bad applicants they knew didn't have the means to pay it off, but they took it anyway. That's just being a shitty lender. I don't blame deadbeats for being deadbeats, especially when you know you're dealing with a deadbeat, and you know damned well they'll take what they can get, if they're told they're OK. You're supposed to protect your company's money from deadbeats.
Why the hell none of these people never got fired is beyond me.
Since they can take the house if the loan isn't paid, how much money would they lose on the occasional foreclosure? I mean, I know they got scalped because foreclosing everybody resulted in a crash in land values, but if they were just foreclosing here and there, wouldn't they still make money? Could that be why their bosses gave them the thumbs up to approve anybody with a pulse?
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 14, 2012, 10:27:03 AM
Quote from: Kleves on July 14, 2012, 10:19:16 AM
Quote"By the time she realized she had an adjustable-rate mortgage, and not the fixed rate she thought, it was too late," Perez said. "The damage was done."
Thank God the government was there to ensure she did not have to take any responsibility for reading or understanding anything.
No shit. :lol:
I think it's funny how Seedy thinks other people are racist for not having the same low expectations he has of black people.
Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2012, 08:06:59 PM
I think it's funny how Seedy thinks other people are racist for not having the same low expectations he has of black people.
Nonsense, derfetuss. I have tremendous hope for the Plight of the Black Man(tm) in this, the North American wilderness in which they find themselves, lost, abandoned and without direction.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2012, 07:55:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2012, 08:26:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2012, 07:55:53 PM
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. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2012, 09:32:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2012, 08:26:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2012, 07:55:53 PM
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. :P
A valiant effort, but that still leaves you with the problematic "unsympathetic deep pocketed defendants are crazy to go to trial" part. :hmm:
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.
:weep:
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2012, 09:32:28 PM
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. :P
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. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2012, 04:15:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2012, 12:16:41 AM
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.
QuoteMy 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2012, 01:33:53 PM
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.
QuoteI'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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2012, 01:40:35 PM
Not evil. Just amoral.
Bullshit. You're always whinging about the moral responsibilities of companies to employees.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2012, 01:49:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2012, 01:40:35 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2012, 01:33:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2012, 12:16:41 AM
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.
QuoteMy 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?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2012, 02:30:32 PM
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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteWhen 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.
QuoteNow 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.
I personally love to see huge businesses get hammered. It makes for wonderful stock trading opportunities. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2012, 02:57:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2012, 05:52:22 PM
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2012, 05:52:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2012, 02:57:42 PM
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.
:yes:
Pulling that word out of thin air, seems like a bit of a low blow.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2012, 05:59:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2012, 05:52:22 PM
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?
Didn't have the energy at the time. Could only muster a snide comment.