> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:02:13 -0400, shag <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
>
>> i ignored you because, as i already mentioned, I'm not disagreeing about
>> your general points.
>
> Then why, when asking your questions, did you only include two strawman
> characterization of the arguments of those opposed to the bailout?
that seems to be your opinion. if other folks find it objectionable, then they can reword it. i was trying to provide a reasonable summary of the views.
because seriously? i just don't give a shit about these ridiculous arguments, and who is right, but getting the positions correctly did matter.
Why the
> smug derision in your responses to my questions and arguments? Why mock my
> attempts to introduce fundamentals, to point out that the real menace for
> society broadly is poverty and inadequate housing, not loss of value in
> 401k plans (which is inevitable)?
because, when all i did was criticize the way you characterized the actions of u.s. home buyers, you determined that my criticism was some kind of horrific oppositions.
in short: because you didn't read carefully and then spouted off on irrelvant tangents AND mischaracterized what i'd said.
as for the rest, yer killing me. you keep spouting the same thing over and over -- and hardly anyone here disagrees with the analysis.
*zzzzzzzzzzzzz*
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)