|
ErIog posted:This is the moment where the right wing picks up her cause. I'm surprised there's no "Rachel Dolezal is a transracial hero just like Bruce Jenner is a transgender hero  " 'thinkpiece' out from Matt Walsh yet.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:So can I steal the amount on my car loan from the lender then use that to pay off my car loan? In Chris Christie's vision for America you can do something similar! He wants students to be able to be able to receive tuition in exchange for a cut of the speculated future earnings. A free market in student futures would necessarily require a thriving market in the opposing investment positions. So as a white straight cis male you could receive tuition and student living expenses in exchange for a cut of your future earnings. Use some of that money to create a shell company in the Bahamas for a few thousand dollars. Have that company buy the short position in your future which will be very cheap to do since you're a white straight cis male who's majoring in a STEM field whose future has been AAA rated by Very Smart Investment People. Then you party your brains out on investor money for 2 semesters, drop out the next year, and ride the money you made shorting your own future off into the sunset. If anyone bitches at you about it just give them a copy of The Big Short, and yell "I learned it from you, Dad!" ErIog fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
In case this is still a surprise to anyone - or you just need more ammo in an argument... http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cdb48b58-139a-11e5-aa7f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3dBDtR900quote:When the rich get richer, a country’s economic health can suffer. But if the poorest members of a society start climbing the wealth ladder, then national growth can receive a boost.That was the message on Monday from economists at the International Monetary Fund who have raised the tempo in the debate on global inequality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Here's a floor speech by Chuck Grassley about the Magna Carta As an Iowan, I am honored to have the only Senator to have fought against the rebel barons under the banner of King John.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I mean he flat out spells it out in numbered steps My eyes rolled back into my head and I started screaming, so I didn't pay too much attention to the article. It reads a lot like I imagine conservatives would think Mother Jones would sound like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:We're mad because our beer isn't enjoyed beyond the alcohol. Prohibition's over; there's nothing wrong with this now. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
theshim posted:I...but that...what? Fees and fines aren't taxes, hth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
That suit by the former head of AIG against the government was decided today. The judge did side with Greenberg's argument that the government acted improperly when they bailed out AIG and took about 80% of the equity as payment, however he refused to grant damages. He made it pretty clear in his decision that had the government not acted to bail out AIG, the company would have filed for bankruptcy and shareholder value would have been zero, and therefore he couldn't award any damages since they saved the company and the shareholders still got paid. It's still a bunch of crap that he can successfully sue the government for saving his company though. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/b...v=top-news&_r=0
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Did the word "shitheel" come up anywhere in his decision?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
The deadline to pass the trade bill in the House has even extended to July 30. Hey, that just happens to be when the highway bill expires. Probably a coincidence...
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:I'm surprised there's no "Rachel Dolezal is a transracial hero just like Bruce Jenner is a transgender hero Already been done to death. Walsh was too slow on the trigger this time
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Version of the quote of the day with more context, "In order to get a deal that meets these high standards, the President should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak agreement would have on our workers, to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible. And if we don't get it, there should be no deal." ~ Hillary Clinton, on TPP, not TPA, effectively saying nothing. Ummmm you can't conclude that from the information presented. If Nancy has taken a specific stance on the TPP then Hillary is endorsing that stance. A quick Google says ... http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/12/3669269/pelosi-bashes-fast-track/ Pelosi has specific objections to the TPP vis-a-vi how it interacts with climate change regulation that she wants addressed. Given Clinton's long history of heavy involvement on climate issues - and the sheer amount of personal money she had invested into them - she doubtless shares these concerns and wants them addressed. So Hillary is saying several very specific things there. The most important being that she and Nancy have enough votes to gum up the works if this issue is not addressed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Wikipedia still has a link to an article reporting that Scalia made a comment referring to Jack Bauer. However it, and many other articles on the subject, link to a non-existant Globe and Mail article. There are probably 30 articles that all link to each other in a big web, so I'm tempted to believe it isn't true until I see an actual transcript. I can see Oliver being duped by it though. The Globe and Mail changed up their links since 2007, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:That suit by the former head of AIG against the government was decided today. Here's a point for you. Since he won, he can't appeal and judge-shop some more. Or open it in another court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Here's a point for you. Since he won, he can't appeal and judge-shop some more. Or open it in another court. When you put it in that framing, it sounds like the judge pulled a 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Here's a point for you. Since he won, he can't appeal and judge-shop some more. Or open it in another court. Surely he can appeal the damages, can't he?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Surely he can appeal the damages, can't he? Nope!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:When you put it in that framing, it sounds like the judge pulled a Masterful. It's like inverse double jeopardy. Judge should have awarded a negative number of dollars in damages. Let the fuckers puzzle that one out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:That suit by the former head of AIG against the government was decided today. The judge did side with Greenberg's argument that the government acted improperly when they bailed out AIG and took about 80% of the equity as payment, however he refused to grant damages. He made it pretty clear in his decision that had the government not acted to bail out AIG, the company would have filed for bankruptcy and shareholder value would have been zero, and therefore he couldn't award any damages since they saved the company and the shareholders still got paid. So basically he gave them the favor of the decision in that the US government acted improperly, but since it was in the process of saving their asses, they couldn't reasonably claim to have been harmed and thus were awarded zero dollars and zero cents in damages?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:So basically he gave them the favor of the decision in that the US government acted improperly, but since it was in the process of saving their asses, they couldn't reasonably claim to have been harmed and thus were awarded zero dollars and zero cents in damages? "The defendant did, in fact, violate your property rights while running into your house to save your children from the fire."
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
This whole thing was so stupid that the judge basically told him he might be right but the government was a Good Samaritan and as such the shitlord plaintiff can't be awarded damages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
It's a moral victory but a financial defeat for a man who gives no fucks about morals but loves money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Does it set any precedent that could be harmful later? That'd be my main concern.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Mr. Peepers posted:It's a moral victory but a financial defeat for a man who gives no fucks about morals but loves money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:Does it set any precedent that could be harmful later? That'd be my main concern. It sounds like it set a precedent for awarding 0 dollars and 0 cents to bailed out rich people complaining about how they were bailed out. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
How exactly did the government "act improperly" when they bailed these fuckers out exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:How exactly did the government "act improperly" when they bailed these fuckers out exactly? By considering it a loan and not a strings-free grant, probably.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I hope he enjoyed paying those lawyers Oh, right, he didn't get court expenses, did he? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I hope he enjoyed paying those lawyers Greenberg's in his early-90's and doesn't give gently caress one about money anymore. For him it was less about the cash than it was someone telling him "no" for the first time in his adult life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:How exactly did the government "act improperly" when they bailed these fuckers out exactly? The Fifth Amendment posted:nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. That's how. The judge essentially ruled that it was a violation, but that just compensation (technically not just compensation because it was an exactions claim, so the first half, not a takings claim) for the violation was zero since the value absent a taking would have become zero. Basically "we broke your door down saving you from the fire that burned your house to ashes. Yeah, we broke your door, but you wouldn't have had a door after the fire anyway." Absurd Alhazred posted:Oh, right, he didn't get court expenses, did he? Motions for fees come after judgment. He might still get them; I have no idea what the standard is for fee shifting in exactions cases (if there is a statutory authorization for it, which there may not be.) He wouldn't get EAJA fees though, since he fails the net worth test.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That's how. The judge essentially ruled that it was a violation, but that just compensation (technically not just compensation because it was an exactions claim, so the first half, not a takings claim) for the violation was zero since the value absent a taking would have become zero. The notion that they weren't compensated is bullshit anyways. Their compensation was the money that AIG needed to avoid bankruptcy. The due process of law might not have been cut and dry but even the scummy fucker who sued knows that if the government had gone 'by the books' then AIG would've collapsed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The notion that they weren't compensated is bullshit anyways. Their compensation was the money that AIG needed to avoid bankruptcy. The due process of law might not have been cut and dry but even the scummy fucker who sued knows that if the government had gone 'by the books' then AIG would've collapsed. Don't get it wrong: AIG actually did get hosed over. They were treated worse than anyone else (even the people who later got sued and paid billions in settlements for their actions). Their loans were at 12-15% instead of 2-3%. No one else gave up equity stakes for their loans. It wasn't a terrible theory, legally, that they were mistreated by the government and due compensation for that mistreatment. It's just that when it comes down to it, they were still better off than they would have been if they had been left alone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
mdemone posted:And presumably they're pretty close friends, somehow. I dunno how the Notorious can stand being around that piece of poo poo, but there you go. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Maybe at some point the other eight will up and take him down like Jon Snow. "For the Bench" "For the Bench" "For the Bench"
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Don't get it wrong: AIG actually did get hosed over. They were treated worse than anyone else (even the people who later got sued and paid billions in settlements for their actions). Their loans were at 12-15% instead of 2-3%. No one else gave up equity stakes for their loans. It wasn't a terrible theory, legally, that they were mistreated by the government and due compensation for that mistreatment. Yeah this is true, AIG was used as a conduit for the treasury to bail out the CDS's on their friends' bad investments at 100 cents on the dollar. This was total bullshit and they should have forced Goldman Sachs, UBS et al to take a haircut or take similar terms to AIG before the government rescued them. But AIG was still dumb enough to insure all those toxic loans and got treated better than they deserve anyway, so gently caress em
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The notion that they weren't compensated is bullshit anyways. Their compensation was the money that AIG needed to avoid bankruptcy. The due process of law might not have been cut and dry but even the scummy fucker who sued knows that if the government had gone 'by the books' then AIG would've collapsed. Don't forget that, according to this ruling, bailouts might be illegal. Oh. Sorry, you're too big to fail? Oops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 10:46
|
|
|
All that talk about cowboys earlier reminded me of reality television in the early oughts, the ones recreating life in the past 100-200 years. One of them had cowboys in it, but there was one cowboy who got kicked off the show after three episodes because he got in a fight with the cook. The cook, rightfully, was trying to spread out their low food supply and the angry cowboy wanna-be got mad he wasn't eating steak every day. I'm gonna have to find that show again. The early oughts gave birth to bad reality television shows, but some of them did a good job breaking people's fantasies about american history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Don't forget that, according to this ruling, bailouts might be illegal. Oh. Sorry, you're too big to fail? Oops. Not all bailouts, just ones like this which required the borrower to turn over equity and control and thus exceeded lender of last resort type parameters. BofA, Citi, etc. wouldn't be able to succeed on the same theory, because AIG was literally the only entity forced to give up equity in exchange for their loans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
Phone posting so I have no links. Jeb promised the usual wishy washy "immigration reform" at his presidential announcement then went on to speak Spanish again, and when protesters showed T-shirts saying "legal status is not enough" failed to call them communist Muslim traitor Mexican immigrants out to ruin Are Great Country. Open the blood gates, this is gonna get good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
reading the tea leaves on the ssm ruling based off yesterday's opinion Also, Trump's announcement event today will be in large part about how rich he is, as he covers his 2016 plans If he declines to run and spends the event talking about how much money he has instead it will be the greatest act of media trolling I have ever heard of
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 13:33
|
|
