Elizabeth Warren Should Be In Charge Of Reforming The Finance Industry

[creature6]

That was a mistake!

[Ben Lahnger]

creature6, I un-ignored you to see what you could possibly have had to say this time. And it is again an ignorant, ridiculous statement.

You don't even know who Elizabeth Warren is. I know this because one of the first things you did was compare her to Gordon Brown. Brown is a career politician. Warren has never run for political office. She was drafted as a private citizen to serve in her current advisory position and has support from both political parties. She's done nothing in her professional career in education or in her recent government service to suggest she has anything but the welfare of the average citizen at heart.

At a time when so many people's mortgages and retirement funds have been ravaged by the bad behavior of the big banks and Wall Street insiders, the people need a David to represent their interests against the powerful financial industry Goliath.

What specifically has she done that informs you that she is not the person who should represent the people's side?

What specifically do you have against her?

[creature6]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

creature6, I un-ignored you to see what you could possibly have had to say this time. And it is again an ignorant, ridiculous statement.

You don't even know who Elizabeth Warren is. I know this because one of the first things you did was compare her to Gordon Brown. Brown is a career politician. Warren has never run for political office. She was drafted as a private citizen to serve in her current advisory position and has support from both political parties. She's done nothing in her professional career in education or in her recent government service to suggest she has anything but the welfare of the average citizen at heart.

At a time when so many people's mortgages and retirement funds have been ravaged by the bad behavior of the big banks and Wall Street insiders, the people need a David to represent their interests against the powerful financial industry Goliath.

What specifically has she done that informs you that she is not the person who should represent the people's side?

What specifically do you have against her?

So it makes no difference.They are both morons.
I did know who they are and what they do.
I choosed Gordon as he's as thick as her.
I believe in a new party to emerge but not one that exist already for things to change.
I can't stand them except the Bnp that has got a few ideas but their spokesman is shit.

[Ben Lahnger]

If you truly do understand that Gordon Brown is a career politician who currently holds the position of Prime Minister of Britain, while Elizabeth Warren is a private citizen who has been drafted into government service in an advisory position to the United States Congress, and you still think the two are comparable, then that proves the only moron in this discussion is you.


You have still failed to name one specific complaint against her, except for questioning her intelligence. As she's been serving until recently as University of Harvard Contract Law professor, lack of intelligence is a claim you patently cannot make.

You make me want to paraphrase Dan Aykroyd from the early days of Saturday Night Live; "creature6, you ignorant slut!"

Make a legitimate criticism, or stop your trolling.

[creature6]

I'm not questioning her intelligence.
She is not doing it for me.
As for you suggesting that i was trolling well if when you desagree with someone you choose to accuse them of doing do.
There are a lot of people who are trolling.

[Ben Lahnger]

I've asked you to name a specific issue you have with her and you've failed to do so. I can't disagree with you when you don't make a point that can be agreed or disagreed with. When I determined that you refuse to make a salient point against her, I called you a troll.

But let's do a means test. You said:

Originally Posted by creature6

So it makes no difference.They are both morons.

Then you said:

Originally Posted by creature6

I'm not questioning her intelligence.

You've flip-flopped and contradicted your own position. That is classic troll behavior.

Originally Posted by creature6

I choosed Gordon as he's as thick as her.

It's too bad you didn't choosed to use better grammar. When you express yourself this poorly, it makes me wonder if instead of accusing you of possibly inflicting fetal alcohol poisoning on your child we shouldn't instead inquire if you were the victim of fetal alcohol poisoning yourself. But I suspect the easiest answer is probably the correct one; that you choose to type these badly worded and poorly thought out comments while you are under the influence, troll.

Originally Posted by creature6

I believe in a new party to emerge but not one that exist already for things to change.

This has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Originally Posted by creature6

I can't stand them except the Bnp that has got a few ideas but their spokesman is shit.

There you did it again. That's what trolls do, post things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by creature6

She is not doing it for me.

I've asked you to mention a specific thing you disagree with, a position or stance she's taken that you dislike. All you've said is this, which is just a feeling ... not a position that can be agreed or disagreed with. That is too vague, and it is also classic troll behavior.

Originally Posted by creature6

As for you suggesting that i was trolling well if when you desagree with someone you choose to accuse them of doing do.
There are a lot of people who are trolling.

No, that is not true (if I understand you correctly; it's hard to know when the meaning of your sentence is so badly mangled by bad spelling and grammar.) I don't accuse people I disagree with of being trolls - I engage in a logical debate with them. Your statements do not present a logically debatable point; you are just a

[creature6]

I'm French you moron.
I don't have time to waste to fucking troll you scum bag
.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by creature6

I'm French you moron.
I don't have time to waste to fucking troll you scum bag
.

Thank you for proving my point. Now shut up and stop trolling my thread!

[creature6]

I won't accused of doing this kind of shit.
I gave you my point of you about her which you dislike.
Get over it.

[creature6]

She says, "Warren: Complexity provides enormous benefits for big banks. The banks figured out when they grew the one-page credit card contracts of 1980 into the 30 pages of incomprehensible fine print today that they could load up on tricks and traps that would obscure the true cost of credit-and drive profits through the roof."

And the solution is a one-page agreement? I don't think so. If the agreement is adhesion contract (i.e., a take it of leave it agreement that is dictated by the credit card company), it makes little difference if the agreement is one-page or 100 pages.

The problem is the pre-emption of federal law overriding local consumer protection laws that control usury (i.e., interest rates), penalties and the other minutiae of the agreement. Since the consumer has no choice, there is not much point in thinking that disclosure is going to be much of a solution.

[creature6]

Anyone who thinks that Elizabeth Warren is a serious contender for the Supreme Court must still believe in Santa Claus.
=I predict this brilliant woman, who talks about financial issues in a way that even economic illiterates like me can
understand, will be lucky to have a job in D.C. when her TARP gig is over.
=Remember, she was appointed to the TARP oversight commission by Congress--not by our "bi-partisan," consensus-loving, "Joe Lieberman should keep his committee chairmanship," "Ain't offshore oil drilling (&
nuclear power) grand?" President; whom, I suspect,
can't stand her.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by creature6

She says, "Warren: Complexity provides enormous benefits for big banks. The banks figured out when they grew the one-page credit card contracts of 1980 into the 30 pages of incomprehensible fine print today that they could load up on tricks and traps that would obscure the true cost of credit-and drive profits through the roof."

And the solution is a one-page agreement? I don't think so. If the agreement is adhesion contract (i.e., a take it of leave it agreement that is dictated by the credit card company), it makes little difference if the agreement is one-page or 100 pages.

The problem is the pre-emption of federal law overriding local consumer protection laws that control usury (i.e., interest rates), penalties and the other minutiae of the agreement. Since the consumer has no choice, there is not much point in thinking that disclosure is going to be much of a solution.

Transparency is only one of the suggestions she has made regarding the reform of financial products the banks are selling to the public, but it is true that the credit card contracts were understandable when they were only 1-2 pages long (I had one.) And there is a considerable difference between signing something you can understand (and thereby comprehend what you are agreeing to) and signing something that a contract law professor cannot understand.

[creature6]

You see I can put my point across and be sensible at time.
There is a start!

[creature6]

The current relation of the US Congress (both houses) to the executive branch bears a depressing similarity to the relation between the Roman Senate and Octavian in the time of Second Triumvirate. In the Roman case the Senate retained formal power but it increasingly chose not to exercise it, individual senators choosing instead to trade on the status of their position without taking on any of the actual responsibility.

In the present case the executive is in the hands of a broad and sometimes slightly divided class of oligarchs who influence their presidential puppets, rather than being in the exclusive control of a single person. But the twin shift in powers we saw under the Bush presidency seem all too likely to persist under Obama's: the executive now has the open-ended power to make war, and the open-ended power to control the financial system.

Just contemplate that reality for a second, and ask yourself if it really sounds like such a good idea.

That quaint constitutional document Americans sometimes talk about put those powers in the hands of the people's representatives, but Congress no longer represents the people: due to gerrymandering it unequivocally represents the parties, and the parties are united against the people in concentrating power in the hands of the executive, while continuing to enact the puppet theatre of representative democracy, which creates many, many perks for the individuals involved.

Elizabeth Warren, who as John points out has no power but to talk, is a measure of how silly the whole process has become. There's no point in arguing about her. Instead the argument, and the action, should be aimed at taking back the government from the bi-partisan political class.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by creature6

Anyone who thinks that Elizabeth Warren is a serious contender for the Supreme Court must still believe in Santa Claus.
=I predict this brilliant woman, who talks about financial issues in a way that even economic illiterates like me can
understand, will be lucky to have a job in D.C. when her TARP gig is over.
=Remember, she was appointed to the TARP oversight commission by Congress--not by our "bi-partisan," consensus-loving, "Joe Lieberman should keep his committee chairmanship," "Ain't offshore oil drilling (&
nuclear power) grand?" President; whom, I suspect,
can't stand her.

Not that much of that is relevant to the topic at hand, but the office of the President you mentioned IS where the notion that her name was being considered for the short list got started. Neither Warren nor any of her advocates were campaigning to get her name on the list, so that statement is false.

And she does tend to ruffle feathers on both sides of the aisle, which just makes my point about how we need someone that independent to speak for the public interest.

Your opinions have staggered all over the place like an illogical drunk, from saying she's a moron to stating that she's brilliant; from stating that she will have no impact to saying that you suspect the President of the U.S. can't stand her, which implies she is definitely having an impact.

Put down the bottle of irrationality and go sleep it off.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by creature6

Elizabeth Warren, who as John points out has no power but to talk, is a measure of how silly the whole process has become. There's no point in arguing about her. Instead the argument, and the action, should be aimed at taking back the government from the bi-partisan political class.

Good grief! You've gone from saying you can't stand the woman and comparing her to Gordon Brown to saying your biggest complaint is that the only power she has in the face of the current state of government is to talk.

You're an idiot and I'm not even going to bother debasing myself any further to continue engaging you in this foolishness.

Shut up, troll!

[creature6]

you are confused.
It's a natural feeling.

[Ben Lahnger]

Shut up, troll!

[creature6]

And you still insist on it.
Well that's just sad.
Keep writing it,shout it but I'm afraid that it'll get you nowhere .
Seen but not heard.

[Ben Lahnger]

shutuptroll!shutuptroll!shutuptroll!shutuptroll!

Originally Posted by ben lahnger

shut up, troll!