Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your post started off like this "Perhaps you would be kind enough to focus on a specific example rather than making empty-headed accusations and relying on hackneyed insults". I did not read beyond that. Why would I? If you want to ask an intelligent question without the insults and personal attacks, I would be happy to respond.
Au contraire. They are not those, but rather simple observations of how you have worded your posts.
As this thread has 'progressed' into a second day, you have yet to offer anything specific.
Consequently, the lines you object to are actually very appopriate and accurate. And a convenient way for you to duck the challenge.
Would it be fair to say that you have no idea what you are talking about?
How so? I've already endorsed Bill Still. He's neither R nor D, and is intent on fixing the problem.
You and Chromekitty just don't want to admit how bad the Dems truly are when it comes to giving the Wall Street banksters everything they want.
This post is an example. You keep on arguing that the D's are worse than the R's when it comes to kowtowing to Wall Street. So what? Which matters more, actually fixing the problem of Wall Street's political influence, or arguing about who is more influenced. They are all influenced, so it would seem that finding ways to limit that influence is the more productive discussion.
Au contraire. They are not those, but rather simple observations of how you have worded your posts.
As this thread has 'progressed' into a second day, you have yet to offer anything specific.
Consequently, the lines you object to are actually very appopriate and accurate. And a convenient way for you to duck the challenge.
Would it be fair to say that you have no idea what you are talking about?
And wouldn't it be even fairer if you politely posed your questions in this discussion instead of attacking people's expertise?
When someone went on and on about the Department of Justice's role in policing Wall Street, I didn't demean that poster or insult his intelligence, I simply pointed out that the SEC is charged with enforcing laws and regulations in the financial sector.
This post is an example. You keep on arguing that the D's are worse than the R's when it comes to kowtowing to Wall Street. So what? Which matters more, actually fixing the problem of Wall Street's political influence, or arguing about who is more influenced. They are all influenced, so it would seem that finding ways to limit that influence is the more productive discussion.
I already endorsed Bill Still who's neither R nor D. He's intent on fixing the problem.
Assuming the American Idiots don't elect another R or D in 2012, how can you avoid returning to the same problems if you refuse to acknowledge who the very worst offenders are?
And wouldn't it be even fairer if you politely posed your questions in this discussion instead of attacking people's expertise?
When someone went on and on about the Department of Justice's role in policing Wall Street, I didn't demean that poster or insult his intelligence, I simply pointed out that the SEC is charged with enforcing laws and regulations in the financial sector.
I have demeaned no one. I am simply being honest.
This is supposedly about crime and punishment. Not subjects to be taken lightly. Yet the OP cannot even identify a crime.
I already endorsed Bill Still who's neither R nor D. He's intent on fixing the problem.
Assuming the American Idiots don't elect another R or D in 2012, how can you avoid returning to the same problems if you refuse to acknowledge who the very worst offenders are?
It doesn't matter who the worst offenders are.
If people are robbing banks, fixing the problem means finding ways to stop people from robbing banks. It doesn't matter if the robber stealing the most money is from Indiana or California. What matters is stopping future robberies.
If you want to contribute to the discussion, why not tell us how Bill Still proposes to fix the problem? How if Bill Still were to get elected, how he would get Congress to enact and enforce the regulations he proposes? What meaningful changes he would make to the SEC?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
nailed it.
