Democrats are just as bad as Republicans

[werepossum]

I wish dems would default the government over party dogma. Maybe do a little voter suppression, then take a swing at legislating morality and control over women's bodies. Washington could always use another champion for domestic and foreign corporate welfare too, those concerns about vets, the middle class and 9/11 responders should be redirected in the future. There is a group of dems that do seem to see things that way, but a larger portion of the party is still clueless about their real responsibilities here.

C'mon dems, get with the program!

They did a hell of a lot of voter suppression in 2000. Gore sent teams of lawyers into each Florida county to challenge the military vote, in spite of Florida having a Memorandum of Understanding with the federal government over this exact issue. It, um, did not work out well for them.

Basically because when we provide federal backing for these institutions they get an implicit subsidy in the form of access to federal credit, depositor insurance, etc.

Not only does that give them an unfair advantage over other trading outfits but that federal backing allows them to take excessive risks they might not take otherwise. I think it distorts the markets and does so in a way that allows them to privatize profits and socialize losses.

Agreed. Bring back the Glass-Steagall separation.

 

[werepossum]

So you quoted part of my link in order to agree with me? Uhmm, thanks.



Can you provide any quotes from "proggies" saying anything even remotely to that effect?



The data does not back up your interpretation in any way.

Simply pointing out that Wall Street is reacting to Democrats words and actions. You guys are continually surprised and outraged when the people you demonize give your opponents more money.

And the word "data" is plural, sorry. The data do indeed back up my theory; Wall Street gives the Democrats much less money when the Dems are not politically able to hurt them as much. If the Pubbies hold Congress and take the White House in 2016, you'll see an even bigger decline.

 

[glenn1]

They did a hell of a lot of voter suppression in 2000. Gore sent teams of lawyers into each Florida county to challenge the military vote, in spite of Florida having a Memorandum of Understanding with the federal government over this exact issue. It, um, did not work out well for them.


Agreed. Bring back the Glass-Steagall separation.

You should step away from the Elizabeth Warren populist Kool Aid for a bit. Even someone as "Republican" as Bill Clinton has said both "Glass-Steagall is no longer appropriate" and that it's repeal actually HELPED in the financial crisis.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-09-23/bill-clinton-on-the-banking-crisis-mccain-and-hillary

 

[fskimospy]

Simply pointing out that Wall Street is reacting to Democrats words and actions. You guys are continually surprised and outraged when the people you demonize give your opponents more money.

Who is surprised, specifically? I'm fine with Wall St. disliking Democrats, btw.

And the word "data" is plural, sorry.

Nope, it's both. If you're going to try and be pedantic about something, at least make sure you're right about what you're being pedantic about.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/07/05/is-data-is-or-is-data-aint-a-plural/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_(word)

Data is most often used as a singular mass noun in educated everyday usage.[7][8] Some major newspapers such as The New York Times use it either in the singular or plural. In the New York Times the phrases "the survey data are still being analyzed" and "the first year for which data is available" have appeared within one day.[9] The Wall Street Journal explicitly allows this usage in its style guide.[10] The Associated Press style guide classifies data as a collective noun that takes the singular when treated as a unit but the plural when referring to individual items ("The data is sound.", and "The data have been carefully collected.").[11]

The data do indeed back up my theory; Wall Street gives the Democrats much less money when the Dems are not politically able to hurt them as much. If the Pubbies hold Congress and take the White House in 2016, you'll see an even bigger decline.

Actually the data does not back up your theory.

Giving went down from 2008 to 2010 despite the Democrats switching from controlling only Congress to controlling all 3 branches, including the one most likely to be able to hurt them. The majority of Wall St. giving went to Republicans in 2010 despite the Democrats controlling all elected branches of government, thus by your theory having tons of ability to hurt them.

While giving does tend to follow whoever is in power at the moment, it doesn't come anywhere close to explaining the post Dodd-Frank shift. You need to look at the data more carefully in the future.

 

[OverVolt]

"Democrats are just as bad as Republicans"

The only people that I have ever known to make such a statement have always turned out to be Republicans or conservative "Independents".

Record-High 42% of Americans Identify as Independents
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

Oh you mean the majority of people now?

I've been trying to tell you guys this place is a far-left looney bin. The left is still going to think everyone agrees with them even if only 1% of the population identify with them. Its been flat at 31%. You guys aren't winning the support you think you are.

 

[fskimospy]

Record-High 42% of Americans Identify as Independents
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

Oh you mean the majority of people now?

I've been trying to tell you guys this place is a far-left looney bin. The left is still going to think everyone agrees with them even if only 1% of the population identify with them. Its been flat at 31%. You guys aren't winning the support you think you are.

Nope.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...tisans-in-the-closet-101931.html#.VLgYTyvF98E

 

[dank69]

Nope.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...tisans-in-the-closet-101931.html#.VLgYTyvF98E

Indeed. Most of the people on this forum that claim to be independent support conservative fiscal policies. People think that just because they are "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" that they are actually independent. Socially liberal just means you are probably a centrist when it comes to social issues.

 

[werepossum]

You should step away from the Elizabeth Warren populist Kool Aid for a bit. Even someone as "Republican" as Bill Clinton has said both "Glass-Steagall is no longer appropriate" and that it's repeal actually HELPED in the financial crisis.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-09-23/bill-clinton-on-the-banking-crisis-mccain-and-hillary

I'm well aware that the mainstream Democrat Party was and is in favor of repealing Glass-Steagall; I just believe that they (and the Pubbies even more so) are completely wrong. Has nothing to do with Warren, it's just recognizing the soundness of the original law, that a collapse in one economic sector should not be able to take down all economic sectors. The separation installed in Glass-Steagall was designed to keep investment banks safe from a collapse in savings and loans, and savings and loans banks safe from a collapse in investment banks. That's sound policy, and not a generation after removing this separation we saw a collapse. Had the separation remained in force, at best government would have not needed to bail out anyone. At worst, the needed bailouts would have been much smaller.

Who is surprised, specifically? I'm fine with Wall St. disliking Democrats, btw.



Nope, it's both. If you're going to try and be pedantic about something, at least make sure you're right about what you're being pedantic about.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/07/05/is-data-is-or-is-data-aint-a-plural/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_(word)





Actually the data does not back up your theory.

Giving went down from 2008 to 2010 despite the Democrats switching from controlling only Congress to controlling all 3 branches, including the one most likely to be able to hurt them. The majority of Wall St. giving went to Republicans in 2010 despite the Democrats controlling all elected branches of government, thus by your theory having tons of ability to hurt them.

While giving does tend to follow whoever is in power at the moment, it doesn't come anywhere close to explaining the post Dodd-Frank shift. You need to look at the data more carefully in the future.

lol My bad on "data". I continually underestimate the power of the dumb masses to redefine language to suit their own limitations. On the other, you misunderstand my position with typical proggie simplicity. It's not a binary position, contribute to Democrats when they are in position to hurt Wall Street and don't when they aren't. My position is that the Democrats being in position to hurt Wall Street is the only significant reason for Wall Street to ever contribute to the Democrats. Thus that threat is the only reason Wall Street donations aren't at near 100% to Republicans.

 

[werepossum]

Nope.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...tisans-in-the-closet-101931.html#.VLgYTyvF98E

Again with the proggie over-simplification. The point of increasing numbers of voters self-identifying as independent isn't that these voters have somehow lost their own preferences and are wavering somewhere in the middle waiting to be moved one way or the other, it's that the parties have moved so far from center that a large number of voters no longer identify with either. They will still usually vote with the party closest to their own preferences, they'll just hold their noses while doing so.

I don't see why this is even controversial. I'm a registered Republican and I seldom vote FOR the Republican, I either vote FOR the Libertarian or AGAINST the Democrat. And I'm hardly unique. I'd guess a large number of voters find more to dislike about the other party than to like about their own.

 

[Zaap]

I've been trying to tell you guys this place is a far-left looney bin. The left is still going to think everyone agrees with them even if only 1% of the population identify with them. Its been flat at 31%. You guys aren't winning the support you think you are.

Come on. Don't you know that "the majority of Independents are really conservatives" translates into "far left ideology is winning!"

You have to get with the spin already.

 

[fskimospy]

lol My bad on "data". I continually underestimate the power of the dumb masses to redefine language to suit their own limitations.

On the other, you misunderstand my position with typical proggie simplicity. It's not a binary position, contribute to Democrats when they are in position to hurt Wall Street and don't when they aren't. My position is that the Democrats being in position to hurt Wall Street is the only significant reason for Wall Street to ever contribute to the Democrats. Thus that threat is the only reason Wall Street donations aren't at near 100% to Republicans.

So by your logic as the capacity of the Democrats to inflict harm on Wall Street increases, their donations should increase. That hasn't been the case.

Additionally, your entire premise is ridiculous. Democrats are in favor of a number of policies that Wall Street greatly likes. Expansive monetary policy, no debt ceiling brinksmanship, less austerity, etc. Not to mention the fact that there are quite a few Democrats who are unabashedly pro-Wall st. (lots of them in the NYC area!) The idea that they would have no 'significant' reason to ever donate to Democrats is absurd.

It's funny that you would complain about my ideas being overly simplistic while offering an overly simplistic explanation yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

Again with the proggie over-simplification. The point of increasing numbers of voters self-identifying as independent isn't that these voters have somehow lost their own preferences and are wavering somewhere in the middle waiting to be moved one way or the other, it's that the parties have moved so far from center that a large number of voters no longer identify with either. They will still usually vote with the party closest to their own preferences, they'll just hold their noses while doing so.

I don't see why this is even controversial. I'm a registered Republican and I seldom vote FOR the Republican, I either vote FOR the Libertarian or AGAINST the Democrat. And I'm hardly unique. I'd guess a large number of voters find more to dislike about the other party than to like about their own.

Wrong again:

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

The average voter has polarized right along with the parties. The parties being more ideologically extreme is a symptom of America's overall increasing polarization.

Funny that you just did what you accused me of again, haha.

 

[glenn1]

I'm well aware that the mainstream Democrat Party was and is in favor of repealing Glass-Steagall; I just believe that they (and the Pubbies even more so) are completely wrong. Has nothing to do with Warren, it's just recognizing the soundness of the original law, that a collapse in one economic sector should not be able to take down all economic sectors. The separation installed in Glass-Steagall was designed to keep investment banks safe from a collapse in savings and loans, and savings and loans banks safe from a collapse in investment banks. That's sound policy, and not a generation after removing this separation we saw a collapse. Had the separation remained in force, at best government would have not needed to bail out anyone. At worst, the needed bailouts would have been much smaller.

Europe has never passed a law of this type yet did fine throughout the rest of the 20th century, why did they not suffer the consequences you imagine? Even during the Great Recession the EU banks which were recapitalized typically had little or no investment arms to speak of, nor prop trading. Their balance sheets were damaged by declines in real estate and sovereign debt like Greece, both of which are traditional bank assets.

With all that said, why would you continue to hold that the repeal of seperation Europe never had, and didn't impact the U.S. much after repeal, is somehow the potential source of our future ruin? Hell, if the law had still been in place every other investment bank besides Lehman would have likely failed also and we'd have been immeasurably worse off.

 

[kage69]

They did a hell of a lot of voter suppression in 2000. Gore sent teams of lawyers into each Florida county to challenge the military vote, in spite of Florida having a Memorandum of Understanding with the federal government over this exact issue. It, um, did not work out well for them.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not sure what's funnier here: you thinking Gore suppressed military votes in 2000, or that this notion of yours compares to a republican agenda that has involved actual, tangible efforts to deny or curtail the locations and times of voting for non-republicans. I shouldn't even have to mention the Voter ID card bullshit.

Memorandum or not, absentee ballots need to be properly signed and dated. You seem to be willing to chastise Gore on something he ultimately decided not to pursue. From an old article I bookmarked a ways back, my father-in-law knew the author and I got to speak with him about this very subject the one time we met: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...os-recount-this-is-what-florida-2000-was-like


"There was a vigorous debate among the lawyers about what to do with this issue. There was absolutely no debate about whether there was a proper legal basis to challenge many of the votes—there unquestionably was one. And there was little disagreement that challenging the votes could well swing the election in Vice President Gore's favor. All the debate was about what was the right, responsible thing to do.

In my memory, the debate was ended by Vice President Gore, who said words to the effect of "how can I effectively serve as commander in chief if I get the position by disenfranchising military personnel serving abroad?" While one can now question the wisdom of that decision, particularly as some of those military personnel serve in Iraq for a third time or more, one cannot question that it was being made for noble reasons—not base, political ones. I have told this story many times since 2000 and I always add that it was one of the moments when I was most proud to be representing Vice President Gore. It still is."

Gore sought a recount in 4 counties, not the whole state, and given the closeness of the race and the widespread reporting of voting machine glitches in those countries, he'd have been stupid not too. Bush tried to get lots of military absentee votes counted even though they weren't dated. The judge said no, and threw them out. I guess judges are doing a hell of a lot of voter suppression now too?


And no, it worked out bad for everyone. Gore was right but still maybe too hard on himself. This nation selects AWOL frat boys to be the C-in-C, being a stickler for rules would have been small potatoes.

 

[OverVolt]

Nope.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...tisans-in-the-closet-101931.html#.VLgYTyvF98E

Oh please. You are either blissfully ignorant (ie well spoken but stupid) or intentionally misrepresent articles. The gallop poll is... well a poll. People can self report whatever association they want. Your link seems to pull voter registration data. So of course two different data sets. Im technically registered democrat but its just so i can see which turd is floating to the top in the democrat primary. It has nothing to do with which way i vote. I place greater emphasis on the gallup data. Peoples opinions will change faster than their voter registrations. In that regard it makes it a leading indicator over the one you are trying to say is better.

 

[werepossum]

So by your logic as the capacity of the Democrats to inflict harm on Wall Street increases, their donations should increase. That hasn't been the case.

Additionally, your entire premise is ridiculous. Democrats are in favor of a number of policies that Wall Street greatly likes. Expansive monetary policy, no debt ceiling brinksmanship, less austerity, etc. Not to mention the fact that there are quite a few Democrats who are unabashedly pro-Wall st. (lots of them in the NYC area!) The idea that they would have no 'significant' reason to ever donate to Democrats is absurd.

It's funny that you would complain about my ideas being overly simplistic while offering an overly simplistic explanation yourself.

Fair enough. Wall Street would have SOME reasons to donate to Democrats, but are there any such reasons where Republicans are not more so?

Wrong again:

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

The average voter has polarized right along with the parties. The parties being more ideologically extreme is a symptom of America's overall increasing polarization.

Funny that you just did what you accused me of again, haha.

<sigh> Are you willfully stupid? From your link:

These sentiments are not shared by all – or even most – Americans. The majority do not have uniformly conservative or liberal views. Most do not see either party as a threat to the nation. And more believe their representatives in government should meet halfway to resolve contentious disputes rather than hold out for more of what they want.​

Believe whatever you want to believe, dude.

 

[werepossum]

Europe has never passed a law of this type yet did fine throughout the rest of the 20th century, why did they not suffer the consequences you imagine? Even during the Great Recession the EU banks which were recapitalized typically had little or no investment arms to speak of, nor prop trading. Their balance sheets were damaged by declines in real estate and sovereign debt like Greece, both of which are traditional bank assets.

With all that said, why would you continue to hold that the repeal of seperation Europe never had, and didn't impact the U.S. much after repeal, is somehow the potential source of our future ruin? Hell, if the law had still been in place every other investment bank besides Lehman would have likely failed also and we'd have been immeasurably worse off.

But without the separation, virtually every bank was in that situation in 2007. Not just virtually every investment bank, virtually every bank. There is no possible way that virtually all of a subset failing can be worse than virtually all of the superset.

As Eskimospy said, removing the separation allows banks to privatize profit while socializing loss, because some of their assets are government-backed.

 

[werepossum]

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not sure what's funnier here: you thinking Gore suppressed military votes in 2000, or that this notion of yours compares to a republican agenda that has involved actual, tangible efforts to deny or curtail the locations and times of voting for non-republicans. I shouldn't even have to mention the Voter ID card bullshit.

Memorandum or not, absentee ballots need to be properly signed and dated. You seem to be willing to chastise Gore on something he ultimately decided not to pursue. From an old article I bookmarked a ways back, my father-in-law knew the author and I got to speak with him about this very subject the one time we met: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...os-recount-this-is-what-florida-2000-was-like


"There was a vigorous debate among the lawyers about what to do with this issue. There was absolutely no debate about whether there was a proper legal basis to challenge many of the votes—there unquestionably was one. And there was little disagreement that challenging the votes could well swing the election in Vice President Gore's favor. All the debate was about what was the right, responsible thing to do.

In my memory, the debate was ended by Vice President Gore, who said words to the effect of "how can I effectively serve as commander in chief if I get the position by disenfranchising military personnel serving abroad?" While one can now question the wisdom of that decision, particularly as some of those military personnel serve in Iraq for a third time or more, one cannot question that it was being made for noble reasons—not base, political ones. I have told this story many times since 2000 and I always add that it was one of the moments when I was most proud to be representing Vice President Gore. It still is."

Gore sought a recount in 4 counties, not the whole state, and given the closeness of the race and the widespread reporting of voting machine glitches in those countries, he'd have been stupid not too. Bush tried to get lots of military absentee votes counted even though they weren't dated. The judge said no, and threw them out. I guess judges are doing a hell of a lot of voter suppression now too?


And no, it worked out bad for everyone. Gore was right but still maybe too hard on himself. This nation selects AWOL frat boys to be the C-in-C, being a stickler for rules would have been small potatoes.

I'm speaking of November 7th itself. I happened to be in Bradenton, FL on November 7th 2000 for (among other things) a meeting with the city officials about a construction project. We arrived to a flurry of activity and our meeting was eventually cancelled. In explanation, a very flustered aid told us that a dozen lawyers (hopefully an exaggeration in numbers!) had showed up that morning (the morning of the election) with paperwork in hand to demand that all military absentee ballots be rejected. The letter of the Florida Code (which the lawyers brought) required that all absentee ballots have postmarks, but Florida had previously signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Justice Department after being sued for just this in previous elections. Consequently the state had been accepting military ballots without postmarks, but in small counties the election officials weren't cognizant of this rule and when challenged by well-prepared teams of lawyers (or perhaps just when offered an opportunity to help their guy) they folded. This particular article (NY Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/20/u...tary-ballots-merit-review-lieberman-says.html
says 1,420 ballots were thrown out unopened. Of those overseas ballots counted, Bush won 65%. Assuming that military ballots were not successfully singled out and that the trend otherwise continued, Bush would have had more than 900 additional votes. Also note that Lieberman first walked this back on november 19th - after almost two weeks of officially trying to have these votes thrown out.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Democratic candidate for vice president, said today that Florida election officials should reconsider their rejection of hundreds of military ballots from overseas, even if they might not comply with the law.

Mr. Lieberman's comments, a retreat from the position the Democrats had taken since Friday, came after they were stung by Republican charges that they had made a concerted effort to disenfranchise members of the military. While Republicans painted their opponents as being willing to use any means to manipulate vote totals in the extraordinary, tense and prolonged Florida count, Democrats complained that they were losing a nasty public relations battle for simply insisting on following the law as it has been applied in the past.

''My own point of view, if I was there, I would give the benefit of the doubt to ballots coming in from military personnel, generally,'' Mr. Lieberman said on NBC's ''Meet the Press.'' Of the local canvassing boards, he said, ''If they have the capacity, I'd urge them to go back and take another look, because again, Al Gore and I don't want to ever be part of anything that would put an extra burden on the military personnel abroad.''

The conciliatory words came a day after Gov. George W. Bush's campaign and its surrogates accused the Democrats of a systematic campaign to have military votes, which are presumed to strongly favor Mr. Bush, thrown out, while some service members voiced anger at that possibility.

I know this can't tarnish your mental image of Gore the saint or compare with a glowing opinion piece from almost a decade after the fact, but it needs to be pointed out.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm speaking of November 7th itself. I happened to be in Bradenton, FL on November 7th 2000 for (among other things) a meeting with the city officials about a construction project. We arrived to a flurry of activity and our meeting was eventually cancelled. In explanation, a very flustered aid told us that a dozen lawyers (hopefully an exaggeration in numbers!) had showed up that morning (the morning of the election) with paperwork in hand to demand that all military absentee ballots be rejected. The letter of the Florida Code (which the lawyers brought) required that all absentee ballots have postmarks, but Florida had previously signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Justice Department after being sued for just this in previous elections. Consequently the state had been accepting military ballots without postmarks, but in small counties the election officials weren't cognizant of this rule and when challenged by well-prepared teams of lawyers (or perhaps just when offered an opportunity to help their guy) they folded. This particular article (NY Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/20/u...tary-ballots-merit-review-lieberman-says.html
says 1,420 ballots were thrown out unopened. Of those overseas ballots counted, Bush won 65%. Assuming that military ballots were not successfully singled out and that the trend otherwise continued, Bush would have had more than 900 additional votes. Also note that Lieberman first walked this back on november 19th - after almost two weeks of officially trying to have these votes thrown out.


I know this can't tarnish your mental image of Gore the saint or compare with a glowing opinion piece from almost a decade after the fact, but it needs to be pointed out.

What needs to be pointed out is your ability to be fooled by political propaganda. From your own damn article:

County elections officials, Republican and Democrat alike, agree that overseas ballots have always been thrown out in large numbers for the same kinds of technical violations cited this weekend, though the voters who cast them were unaware of it because the process had never before been subjected to such scrutiny.

So we have a law that says such ballots shouldn't be counted and republicans and yourself claiming that these illegal votes now, unlike in previous elections, need to be counted.

Spin it hack!

 

[werepossum]

What needs to be pointed out is your ability to be fooled by political propaganda. From your own damn article:

So we have a law that says such ballots shouldn't be counted and republicans and yourself claiming that these illegal votes now, unlike in previous elections, need to be counted.

Spin it hack!

lol Fool. Yes, absentee ballots can be and are thrown out. MILITARY absentee ballots cannot be thrown out for some of the same reasons though, simply because deployed military members do not pay postage and many duty posts do not offer postal offices at all. Thus the lawsuit and agreement, because many military ballots cannot be post-marked. But please foam on.

 

[fskimospy]

Fair enough. Wall Street would have SOME reasons to donate to Democrats, but are there any such reasons where Republicans are not more so?


<sigh> Are you willfully stupid? From your link:

These sentiments are not shared by all – or even most – Americans. The majority do not have uniformly conservative or liberal views. Most do not see either party as a threat to the nation. And more believe their representatives in government should meet halfway to resolve contentious disputes rather than hold out for more of what they want.​

Believe whatever you want to believe, dude.

You read that article poorly.

 

[werepossum]

You read that article poorly.

lol Sure I did.

Wrong again:

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

The average voter has polarized right along with the parties. The parties being more ideologically extreme is a symptom of America's overall increasing polarization.

Funny that you just did what you accused me of again, haha.

These sentiments are not shared by all – or even most – Americans. The majority do not have uniformly conservative or liberal views. Most do not see either party as a threat to the nation. And more believe their representatives in government should meet halfway to resolve contentious disputes rather than hold out for more of what they want.​

Maybe the dumb masses have redefined "average" as "a minority". Regardless, as always everything you read means exactly whatever you need it to mean at the moment. Believe whatever you want to believe, dude. As a legend in your own mind, you've earned it.

 

[fskimospy]

lol Sure I did.

These sentiments are not shared by all – or even most – Americans. The majority do not have uniformly conservative or liberal views. Most do not see either party as a threat to the nation. And more believe their representatives in government should meet halfway to resolve contentious disputes rather than hold out for more of what they want.​

Maybe the dumb masses have redefined "average" as "a minority". Regardless, as always everything you read means exactly whatever you need it to mean at the moment. Believe whatever you want to believe, dude. As a legend in your own mind, you've earned it.

Seriously, you're just looking even stupider right now.

You are too invested in trying to find a way not to be wrong to actually read the article for understanding.

As with other self-ownage youve displayed today you're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.

 

[alcoholbob]

When it comes to the Big Banks the politicians are all greased up. You wouldn't otherwise have the kind of lunacy where every congressmen gets behind an AIPAC position even when Israel is against it, and then claim its for Israel.

 

[werepossum]

Seriously, you're just looking even stupider right now.

You are too invested in trying to find a way not to be wrong to actually read the article for understanding.

As with other self-ownage youve displayed today you're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.

I would point out that "stupider" isn't even a word but I suspect your fellow dumb masses have made it one. Probably a wikipedia entry for it . . .