Mortgage-Backed Securities: the Reunion Tour

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/bonds-backed-by-mortgages-regain-allure/?hp

Playing the greatest hits from yesteryear:

"Despite the limited supply, prices remain cheap, in part because the assets are difficult to value."

"At that price, even if defaults and the losses increase, an investor can still make more than 5.4 percent"

“Price is a wonderful thing,” said Chris Flanagan, an analyst with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “Yields in this market range anywhere from 4 or 5 percent up to 12 percent.”

Like his rivals, Mr. Lippmann cites his experience in the housing market — including its boom and bust — as a principal selling point for his fund.
Click to expand...

I can honestly see some of the rationale behind this - mortgage backed securities as the new king of junk bonds. So, yeah.

That all said, if you read this and think that government regulation is still one of the biggest problems we face as a nation, and not our oligarch overlords - if you read this and still think the CFPB is more "big government" that is going to ruin/interfere with an otherwise functioning economy...well, then I don't believe anything on earth will change your mind. You're the kind of person who sees Greece falling apart from the inside, and shouts for the Greeks to cut more spending in order to get back on the right path.
 
I'd say something about Greece's problems having nothing to do with tax/spend but I can't even begin to imagine where that would end up...

The assets are difficult to value because housing prices are still on a rollercoaster ride. Of course the solution to that problem is what caused the problem in the 1st place so it's next to impossible to say when we'll hit stability.
Then again, not all mortgage backed securities are bad...
 
I think that this is a dangerous road since we haven't exactly plugged up all the holes since the last crash. Sounds like the d-bag in the article, along with his cohort, is trying to start another boom/bust cycle to cash in on.

Long story short, fuck these guys.
 
"At that price, even if defaults and the losses increase, an investor can still make more than 5.4 percent"
Click to expand...

Lovely, just lovely.

I remember last semester when I was taking Real Estate Transactions we were discussing the secondary mortgage market. I asked a rather snarky question along the lines of "well if we really wanted to prevent this crash from happening again why not just completely outlaw their ability to sell them on the open market thus giving banks more incentive to make sure they're writing good mortgages?"

My professor, without skipping a beat picked up the text book (which was written in 2006) and read from it verbatim "because the secondary market increases liquidity in the market and allows banks to continue lending" in an equally snarky tone.

Granted, we've made some advances such as eliminating brokers' incentive to sell a higher interest rate than what a customer is approved for but still at the end of the day banks aren't making their money on the interest anymore, they're making it on all their fees and thus they don't give 2 shits if the borrower can't pay it back. They're not on the hook for it anymore if it goes into foreclosure and if it does they're likely still the servicer of the loan and thus they make more fees.

Greediness and fees, that's why banks have become shitty institutions. They're not satisfied with only making money on interest anymore, they want it all.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Sigh...if only Dodd-Frank had the teeth of Glass-Steagall.[/QUOTE]

But, but, but the more free a market it the better off we all are. I mean if a bank starts committing fraud and predatory lending the market will eventually put them out of business, right, right? I'm not sure how that'll happen but the Republicans told me that its something called "the market regulating itself?" I dunno, does anyone know what that means, I'm kind of confused on it...
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']My professor, without skipping a beat picked up the text book (which was written in 2006) and read from it verbatim "because the secondary market increases liquidity in the market and allows banks to continue lending" in an equally snarky tone.[/QUOTE]

Snarky as in snarky to you or the book?

It's fair game to say that a textbook on real estate transactions dated from 2006 is quite out of date (esp. if you consider that it's probably 2004 knowledge in there, given time for edits and revisions pre-publication).
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']if a bank starts committing fraud and predatory lending the market will eventually put them out of business, right, right?[/QUOTE]

...I seem to recall that happening... until some big, powerful group came in and dumped truckloads of money onto the failing banks. I think it was Fox News or something.

"Free market". heh.
 
Here's a fun one:
If there had been no financial bailout, and certain banks outright failed, what do we do with the depositors of that bank? To hell with them? What about their creditors? Bankruptcy will take care of them too no?

Before you answer, you have a homework assignment. How much was deposited in the banks that were bailed out? How much was the bailout? Which one of those is a larger number?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Thanks for ruining yet *another* thread, Bob.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry - I wasn't aware I was the one that put all the blame onto the imaginary "Free Market".

Let's see - Banks do bad stuff. Instead of getting into any kind of trouble, they get free taxpayer money. Then, surprise, they do it all over again. Then Myke and co. get to make a thread on CAG all about the evils of the free market (which doesn't exist) and the lack of regulation (which does exist, but isn't enforced because... Bush/Republicans/Fox News rabble rabble...)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']the lack of regulation (which does exist, but isn't enforced because... Bush/Republicans/Fox News rabble rabble...)[/QUOTE]

CFPB. Elizabeth Warren. Richard Cordray. Threats of impeachment.

your sarcasm is charming, but your blundering idiocy is not.
 
One large bank
5,000,000 consumer accounts at 5,000 each (25,000,000,000 in deposits)
2,000,000 commercial accounts at 20,000 each (40,000,000,000 in deposits)
1,000,000 CoD's at 2,500 each (2,500,000,000 in deposits)
Total deposits: $67,500,000,000 in deposits. Roughly 1/13th of the total bailout with conservative estimates. What would have happened if all 30 of our largest financial institutions would have failed?

So that's depositors, not even bothering with creditors yet, not bothering with inconsequential things like payroll holdings or jobs at the bank or the expense to consumers to get all of their direct deposit and electronic bill pay situations squared away if their bank went under.

Tweak those deposits just a bit and then start to think of what the fallout would have been had all of those deposits been covered by FDIC with no recourse on the bailout funds. Long story short,
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Snarky as in snarky to you or the book?

It's fair game to say that a textbook on real estate transactions dated from 2006 is quite out of date (esp. if you consider that it's probably 2004 knowledge in there, given time for edits and revisions pre-publication).[/QUOTE]

To the book, I forgot to mention when we started the chapter he read the same line and then pointed out that it was written before 2008 so we have the benefit of seeing how things turned out.

[quote name='mykevermin']Thanks for ruining yet *another* thread, Bob.[/QUOTE]

When I read his posts now I hear a buzzing in my head.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Thanks for ruining yet *another* thread, Bob.[/QUOTE]

When I read his posts now I hear a buzzing in my head.
 
A-ha. Good to hear that they weren't blindly touting dogma because it was in print and protected by copyright. I feared for the worst, and you pointed out the best case scenario.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']A-ha. Good to hear that they weren't blindly touting dogma because it was in print and protected by copyright. I feared for the worst, and you pointed out the best case scenario.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, he's actually a pretty good professor despite this only being his second year of teaching. He's not one of those "if it's in the book, it's gotta be true" professors.
 
Would it have sucked for a lot of people if some of the top banks went under?

Sure.

However, the bailout created this precedent that "too big to fail" banks and corporations can now do whatever they want and, if things go bad, Uncle Sam will be there to give them free tax money and save them. Which is pretty much exactly what Myke is rallying against in his OP.
 
It's moral hazard, no doubt about it. And it's a worse situation if Dodd-Frank has no teeth, as another poster mentions.

A capitalist system needs some referees, no doubt about it. But even if we don't have Dodd-Frank, you take away the bailouts and you take away a lot of the incentive to behave poorly. But we're debating contraception instead of financial reform.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']banks and corporations can now do whatever they want[/QUOTE]

*cough*

[quote name='mykevermin']CFPB. Elizabeth Warren. Richard Cordray. Threats of impeachment.

your sarcasm is charming, but your blundering idiocy is not.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Would it have sucked for a lot of people if some of the top banks went under?

Sure.[/QUOTE]

"Would it have sucked. . .? Sure." That's like saying World War II was a minor conflict. If those same top banks went under our economy would have lost much, much more value than it did as it was. Not only that but it likely would have cost the US Government, by way of the FDIC, much more than the bailout did. Also, since you conservatives like to concern yourselves so much with foreign involvement in our economy, who do you think would have had the funds to purchase those banks as they went under? Foreign companies most likely.

On paper, yeah it sucks we had to bail out the very same people that caused the problem in the first place. The simple fact of the matter though is that it could, and would, have been much worse for everyone if we hadn't.

The banks have proven unreliable when it comes to effective self-regulation under the previous system. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency was a joke, short of proven corruption it was about as inept as a regulating agency as the fox guarding the hen house.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Also, since you conservatives like to concern yourselves so much with foreign involvement in our economy[...][/QUOTE]

As much as I LOVE constantly being told what I say and think, I'm going to draw a line here. I tell you what - and I'll open this to everyone on this forum - find a quote from me - anywhere, anytime - this forum or anywhere else - where I, specifically, have said I have a problem with foreign investments in the US. Do that and I'll leave the vs. forum and never, ever post here again.

Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure if I cared to dig around as much, I could probably find me saying something about making it easier and more inciting for foreign investors to dump their money here in the US...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As much as I LOVE constantly being told what I say and think...[/QUOTE]

You're paranoid. We are just debating, noone is forcing you into an opinion.

If I was telling you what to do I'd ask you to take off the tinfoil hat and see a shrink for your own good.
 
[quote name='camoor']You're paranoid. We are just debating, noone is forcing you into an opinion.

If I was telling you what to do I'd ask you to take off the tinfoil hat and see a shrink for your own good.[/QUOTE]

Eh, it's what he does. Rather than continue the discussion on topic he picks one spot where he might have some grounds to make a stand and tries to turn the entire thread into that. If it was up to him this entire thread would now turn into a discussion about foreign investments in our economy. Nevermind in the same post I pointed out how absurdly stupid it was for him to say not bailing out the banks would have been "a little more sucky."

Either that or he's looking up the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency because he, and most Americans, have never heard of them in the first place which is the very essence of the problem when people think banks are regulated by the SEC or FDIC showing how little is known by the American public about what regulation, or lack thereof, is in place for banks.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Eh, it's what he does. Rather than continue the discussion on topic he picks one spot where he might have some grounds to make a stand and tries to turn the entire thread into that. If it was up to him this entire thread would now turn into a discussion about foreign investments in our economy. Nevermind in the same post I pointed out how absurdly stupid it was for him to say not bailing out the banks would have been "a little more sucky."

Either that or he's looking up the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency because he, and most Americans, have never heard of them in the first place which is the very essence of the problem when people think banks are regulated by the SEC or FDIC showing how little is known by the American public about what regulation, or lack thereof, is in place for banks.[/QUOTE]

Yeah the "a little more sucky" part was what I got from your post too.

Also I have heard conservatives exhibit paranoia about foreign investment in America. I guess UB is cool with, say, middle eastern investors managing American ports - and while oddly out of character I must say that's very progressive of him.

Whether or not he personally approves of foreign investment in America, the fact remains that protectionism and jingoism under the pretense of national security is primarily a conservative ruse.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Eh, it's what he does.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry - you're completely correct, I took one of your statements and went with that.

Why? Because that single statement you made was a bold-faced lie. Un-truth. Falsehood. Misrepresentation. Bulls***.

Thus, you're not really worth the time to attempt to have an adult conversation with. Instead of actually having an honest conversation, you're taking the familiar vs. stance of making up your opponent's position and attacking them based on your made-up lies.

I'm not going to have any of that. So either back-up your statement with some proof or continue to post bulls***. I don't really care much either way - but don't cry to your mommy when I decide you're not worth playing with.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm sorry - you're completely correct, I took one of your statements and went with that.

Why? Because that single statement you made was a bold-faced lie. Un-truth. Falsehood. Misrepresentation. Bulls***.

Thus, you're not really worth the time to attempt to have an adult conversation with. Instead of actually having an honest conversation, you're taking the familiar vs. stance of making up your opponent's position and attacking them based on your made-up lies.

I'm not going to have any of that. So either back-up your statement with some proof or continue to post bulls***. I don't really care much either way - but don't cry to your mommy when I decide you're not worth playing with.[/QUOTE]
Like I said
Step 1 was to pick an insignificant point, which brings us to
Step 2 Make a stand on the chosen insignificant point

By the way, I took the liberty of bolding the section where you dipped into the very same generalizing to which you seem to have taken such great offense...
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']By the way, I took the liberty of bolding the section where you dipped into the very same generalizing to which you seem to have taken such great offense...[/QUOTE]

Except the part where you very clearly did [stuff in bold], therefore it's not a "generalization".

Meanwhile, again - you have not posted the first thing to back up your claim that I'm against foreign investment into the US. Because it was a blatant lie and you know it.
 
What blatant lies? That the free market would have actually done away with predatory lending and fraud committed by banks? Even for you that's a fucking stupid thing to claim, let alone call a lie.

No, you ruined yet another thread because you came in, used a rhetorical technique with the subtlety of a crowbar to a windshield to cram your "oh mah gawd, gubmint so corrupt, free market fart" nonsense in here, and now we're no longer talking, at all, about the riskiness and gutsiness of bankers falling back in love with mortgage-backed securities.

We're way off topic and back to the default horseshit because you don't know a fucking thing about a fucking thing, but nevertheless feel compelled to post in every goddamned versus thread aping the same lowbrow, dumbfuck, don't understand a goddamned thing about the way the world works nonsense, pat yourself on the back for your intellectual efforts, and now we've reduced the thread to "bob doesn't want government to be corrupt, and says stupid shit - then everyone else points out that he's saying stupid shit about government, and bob quickly responds by moving the goalpost."

You're a reductionist savant.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...the riskiness and gutsiness of bankers falling back in love with mortgage-backed securities.[/QUOTE]

While risky I don't think it's very gutsy.

Most of those guys on Wall Street just want to get in, make their millions, and get out. They don't really give a shit what happens after they hit the jackpot. They are just hoping they aren't there when the market crashes.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Except the part where you very clearly did [stuff in bold], therefore it's not a "generalization".

Meanwhile, again - you have not posted the first thing to back up your claim that I'm against foreign investment into the US. Because it was a blatant lie and you know it.[/QUOTE]

So let me get this straight, you're not upset that I generalized you with "conservatives" but rather that I "lied" about something you said? Go back and re-read what I specifically wrote. Here, I'll even post it again to refresh your memory.

[quote name='RedvsBlue'] Also, since you conservatives like to concern yourselves so much with foreign involvement in our economy, who do you think would have had the funds to purchase those banks as they went under? Foreign companies most likely.
[/QUOTE]

Now, yes I did say "conservatives like you" but did I say you specifically had said that? No, I did not. Now, if you want to take issue with me generalizing you as a conservative (which would be pretty silly for you to do), that's one thing but the simple fact is, as Camoor posted, generally conservatives do take issue with foreign investments in our economy. If you don't fall in line with that particular tenet of their philosophy, fine, great, but I never even said definitively that you do have a problem with foreign investments.

So yeah, I got into the hair-splitting territory but you brought it to this. Liar? Really? Make sure you have a solid foundation before you get so damn indignant about something.

I was going to say you're a .22 caliber mind in a .357 magnum world but I think reductionist savant is so much better so we'll go with that.
 
foreign investment is good, China owning social security bonds is bad.
The questions is, how and why are they different?

At least we're all on the same page with both bailouts being ultimately dirt cheap, and TARP being profitable as of 11 months ago. Meanwhile payments are still showing up.

Yeah, it sucked and it spawned the OWS thing which shone some light on the topic (though just as demented and false in the end), but in the end it's going to be for the best.

As far as the new love afair with MBS, it's not going to be as big of a deal since they'll still be junk bonds for lack of a better term and the biggest of the big won't be putting any significant amount behind them. Too big to fail doesn't necessarily mean too dumb to not try it all again. Or so dumb to try it all again? Weird chunk of english there but I hope the point gets across.
 
Yeah, I'm wrangling with your double negative. Are you saying the biggies (BoA, Wells Fargo, Chase) will not try to do this again? Or that structurally, since they are so cheap its virtually impossible to risk the same amount (both real dollars and proportion of all holdings) on MBS again?

I.e., are MBS so poorly (or accurately) valued that the bigs simply can't take the same amount of risk as before, or that the banks simply know better than to try to fuck with it?

Or both?
 
both, but mostly A over B. While they know better than to fuck with it, they still will. There will just be more caution this time around and less % of the whole into real estate in any way shape or form.

So they'll try because they're dumb and need to show profits, but holistically it won't be the nightmare it was last time. Hopefully.
 
speed had a financial industry reform thread.

The same dynamic was seen as in the healthcare thread.

Cons who were ostensibly (read pretending) pro reform just could not bring themselves to support anything that might actually come out of the legislative process.

While talking out of one side of their mouths about reform not being literally perfect they ran interference for those who would torpedo the whole thing.

When you strip out all the lies and bullshit and point out their real positions (ex. those against healthcare objectively want sick people to die) they cry and complain about being attacked.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What blatant lies? That the free market would have actually done away with predatory lending and fraud committed by banks? Even for you that's a fucking stupid thing to claim, let alone call a lie.

No, you ruined yet another thread because you came in, used a rhetorical technique with the subtlety of a crowbar to a windshield to cram your "oh mah gawd, gubmint so corrupt, free market fart" nonsense in here, and now we're no longer talking, at all, about the riskiness and gutsiness of bankers falling back in love with mortgage-backed securities.

We're way off topic and back to the default horseshit because you don't know a fucking thing about a fucking thing, but nevertheless feel compelled to post in every goddamned versus thread aping the same lowbrow, dumbfuck, don't understand a goddamned thing about the way the world works nonsense, pat yourself on the back for your intellectual efforts, and now we've reduced the thread to "bob doesn't want government to be corrupt, and says stupid shit - then everyone else points out that he's saying stupid shit about government, and bob quickly responds by moving the goalpost."

You're a reductionist savant.[/QUOTE]

Don't mean to brag, but I know a fucking thing about a fucking thing.
 
[quote name='nasum']both, but mostly A over B. While they know better than to fuck with it, they still will. There will just be more caution this time around and less % of the whole into real estate in any way shape or form.

So they'll try because they're dumb and need to show profits, but holistically it won't be the nightmare it was last time. Hopefully.[/QUOTE]
I hope you forgive my lack of vocabulary and familiarity with the subject, but while they "know better" than to completely screw the pooch, is it really that crazy to think that they'll use their capital to leverage their position to manipulate the market, and then cash out right before the end like last time?
 
[quote name='dohdough']I hope you forgive my lack of vocabulary and familiarity with the subject, but while they "know better" than to completely screw the pooch, is it really that crazy to think that they'll use their capital to leverage their position to manipulate the market, and then cash out right before the end like last time?[/QUOTE]

I'd think that's exactly the plan. Buy low, sell high. Real estate market is still way down and bound to bounce back soon. So they'll buy up now, and sell off at the top again.
 
this market influence of which you speak isn't exactly evil. For lack of a better definition it takes a big mover to get a fund like this to have any value for smaller investors. While the big guys will make their money in fees by trading the fund back and forth between each other, that movement will increase the value for the smaller investor.
The big guys don't like it when anything tanks, even if they walked away up thousands of percent on the deal. Essentially tanking that one sector will have a ripple effect across all sectors and investments products. When things are down like that, they have to leverage their capital into soemthing else to bring along more smaller types and the cycle repeats.
All in all, given the short-sighted "big profits now" motivation, boom & bust cycles are about all we have left until the entire economy starts to show more growth.
 
What is funny is that the same people bashing what I will label jack of all trades posting in other threads are posting in this thread as if they know what they are talking about.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What blatant lies? That the free market would have actually done away with predatory lending and fraud committed by banks? Even for you that's a fucking stupid thing to claim, let alone call a lie.[/quote]

Except that I never claimed that in any way, shape or form. Seriously, find me a quote. You won't. Because you're as much of a bold-faced lying sack of crap as the next guy.

RvB made a sarcastic comment about how the free market should have put these banks out of business.

I pointed out that what he was chirping about was actually very close to happening until the government stepped in. I.e.: THERE IS NO FREE MARKET. When the government steps in and gives billions of taxpayer dollars to failing business models, not a single one of you has the slightest right to go on and on about how bad the free market is.

I mean, you will. Not because you don't understand it - you're perfectly reasonable individuals who are smart enough to realize that a free market doesn't exist in a society where the government gives money to select failing businesses to keep them stable. No, you're going to keep this "Free Market Evil" slogan going because it fits your narrative, it fits your story, and it fits your deceit.

No, you ruined yet another thread because you came in, [..] and now we're no longer talking, at all, about the riskiness and gutsiness of bankers falling back in love with mortgage-backed securities.
Click to expand...

Weird - I wasn't aware that because any particular person posts in a thread that others are no longer allowed to do so.

I mean, I know there are some fools who will come in and only post crap like "oh, look, it's the con clown crew" and whatever other feces they can pull out of their ass and spread on the walls here, then giggle as they lick their hands clean... but as the several posts that followed your post show - conversation went on.

If Posting Facts = "Ruining a Thread", then I'll happily do it. Feel free to go on over to Democratic Underground - there are plenty of folks who think just like you there - you can post your out-of-touch, whiny - woe is me - evil corporations, good government - Bush/Republicans/FAUX NEWS/Free Market Rabble Rabble Rabble lines of BS there and they'll worship at your feet for doing so.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Except that I never claimed that in any way, shape or form. Seriously, find me a quote. You won't. Because you're as much of a bold-faced lying sack of crap as the next guy.

RvB made a sarcastic comment about how the free market should have put these banks out of business.

I pointed out that what he was chirping about was actually very close to happening until the government stepped in. I.e.: THERE IS NO FREE MARKET. When the government steps in and gives billions of taxpayer dollars to failing business models, not a single one of you has the slightest right to go on and on about how bad the free market is.
[/QUOTE]

No, there was no sarcasm in my post. If the "free market" had been allowed to "do its job" as the republicans, conservatives, libertarians, etc. like to champion then those banks would have gone under. The reason I made the comment because I was pointing out how absurdly stupid the "laissez faire" mentality toward the economy is. If you truly advocate for a free market, as most republicans, etc. do then this is what happens, the market burns itself to the fucking ground.

Do we have a completely free market right now? No. Do republicans want a freer market with less government regulation and oversight? Yes. What happens if they get their way? They BURN THE MOTHER fuckER TO THE GROUND.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Except that I never claimed that in any way, shape or form. Seriously, find me a quote. You won't. Because you're as much of a bold-faced lying sack of crap as the next guy.[/quote]

"Find me a quote," followed by much hand wringing about a system with government intervention in the market. The implication of your language is clear, and you show yourself to be an ideological coward if you won't stand behind your ideals when you are called out on them.

Just like your fraudulent sleight of hand that you'd support a Universal Health Care plan if we could "fix" government (without making any specification beyond the vaguest of desires to see "spending controlled").

You're a man of zero principle. You're afraid to say what you mean, and you're afraid to admit to it.

Weird - I wasn't aware that because any particular person posts in a thread that others are no longer allowed to do so.
Click to expand...

ZOMG I DIDN'T SAY THAT FIND ME A QUOTE WAAAAAAAAAH ROBBLE ROBBLE.

;)
 
Myke, perhaps you should spend more time reading what I post instead of assuming you already know what I've posted and forming ill-conceived opinions based on that.

I mean, I know it's more work and all. Having to read. Considering ideas outside of your own mindset. Doing something that doesn't involve playing with hand puppets. But I think you're up to the challenge.

As for your request for a quote...
now we've reduced the thread to "bob doesn't want government to be corrupt, and says stupid shit - then everyone else points out that he's saying stupid shit about government, and bob quickly responds by moving the goalpost."
Click to expand...

...which, of course, was followed by multiple posts discussing the topic and hand and not centered around me.

For someone who's so upset that people reply to my posts, you tend to reply to a lot of my posts.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"Find me a quote," followed by much hand wringing about a system with government intervention in the market. The implication of your language is clear, and you show yourself to be an ideological coward if you won't stand behind your ideals when you are called out on them.[/QUOTE]

In the healthcare threads there were people who were in support of denying people care.

More than one person was asked how they could justify letting people die, some just ignored it but some tried wiggling out of it by asking to be quoted "show me where I said I wanted people to die".

I asked them in all seriousness what happens when you deny people life saving medical care (hint: they die).

Some refused to answer and continued to spread BS, keeping your positions intentionally vague and then saying only exact words count is just a cowardly defense tactic and a not particularly subtle form of lying.
 
[quote name='Msut77']In the healthcare threads there were people who were in support of denying people care.

More than one person was asked how they could justify letting people die, some just ignored it but some tried wiggling out of it by asking to be quoted "show me where I said I wanted people to die".

I asked them in all seriousness what happens when you deny people life saving medical care (hint: they die).

Some refused to answer and continued to spread BS, keeping your positions intentionally vague and then saying only exact words count is just a cowardly defense tactic and a not particularly subtle form of lying.[/QUOTE]

A thousand times yes. Well said.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I mean, I know there are some fools who will come in and only post crap like "oh, look, it's the con clown crew" and whatever other feces they can pull out of their ass and spread on the walls here, then giggle as they lick their hands clean...[/QUOTE]

Yup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top